Taos to Rummy: Don't hurry home!
Though there is undoubted novelty in the current wave of retired generals--now topped by the intervention of Colin Powell--denouncing the Iraq war's conduct from the planning side and pointing the finger at Rumsfeld, we here at Rumsfeld's base camp have a different perspective. As Powell said in his televised bit, we should judge Rumsfeld to be only a facet--a Suit, if you will (I'd say clubs)-- of the disastrous Iraq policy, with full weight also falling upon Dumb Dubya, Dick, and 'leeza.
Still, this is an Ace, no mere Bram or Tool of Bushite Misrule. Thus, the dilemma: do we invite Rumsfeld to cut and run back home, in other words to do the right thing (by our country), run with his tail not visible (whether chopped or between his legs would seem hardly important, given the magnitude of the victory) or challenge him to stand and fight and be crushed ever more thoroughly?
I follow the historic example of the Spartan mother who sent her son off to war, telling him to be brave: Come back with your shield, or on it. In this case, forget the shield. Rumsfeld must see the job through until he leaves in utter defeat, Bush's firing of him being the final refuge of the desperately lame leader of the administration. The reason for the hubbub now is that Bush is close to that extreme, and Rumsfeld that close to utter defeat. But not just yet, I think--that looks like the early-2007 ploy to try to pull things together enough at least to turn the page in Iraq. Just as I opposed making firing Rumsfeld a focus of the 2004 opposition--it would have made it seem (falsely) as if Bushism were turning a new leaf--I oppose doing it this year.
Hey, as long as Dubya says that Cheney's his VP, and Rummy's Defense, and 'leeza's State Security, that's his choice. He should have to live with them politically, whether in or out of office. Like Brownie's the man for Katrina.
Whosaiditism-- its current usage
There is a phenomenon of society that I am still, at my advanced age, having a great deal of trouble accepting. That is the notion that Who said something is more worthy of notice than What was said.
There are times when that aspect of reporting is appropriate: take the generals' statements about Rumsfeld and the critical Iraq decision process. The news is, in fact, not what the generals say but who is saying it. Such an event should be the exception, though the fact is that it is not rare at all.
What I will call whosaiditism and define as excessive attention to the authorship of a statement or idea and the thought process behind its timing, rather than its content, has two very pernicious notions behind it. One is that, rather than the content, the story is in the dramatic quality of the fact that So-and-so- is saying it. The corollary is that there is nothing new to be said; we just get the enjoyment of the permutations of seeing varying talking heads in the absurd postures of saying these things. This is exactly how much of political discourse is viewed these days (by me and by many others), and it's exactly what they used to say about modern Italy before the fascists.
But we are wrong to think that. It is simply a function of the quality of the political discourse, not that there is nothing new to be said. We are in times without precedent, trying to solve problems by traditional methods.
Reviews of '08 Proto-Candidates
Herewith, the first installments of a serial analyzing the political content of contenders for 2008 from both parties. These are all inspired by stump speeches I’ve seen them do on C-SPAN in recent months. (Posted 5/15)
Chuck Hagel
Hagel’s approach is neo-Bulworthian: Tell the truth, no varnish, take it or leave it. He defies the conventional wisdom that Americans are looking for an optimistic vision.
He also seems to want to defy the notion that one needs a base constituency of popular support to make a credible run at the Presidency. Where, exactly is his support going to come from? Moderate on social issues, frankly anti-Bushite in foreign policy, contrary to political-based expenditure allocation…there may be a hardcore residuum of “good-government liberal Republicans”, representing something like 1-10% of the primary vote (depending on the state), but where does that get him?
I think his approach would definitely appeal to a significant percentage of independents, and for that matter Democrats, but these are not the people Hagel will need to make a run at a Bushite/Republican establishment candidate (to be named later), nor even at a conservative with anti-Bushite credentials (McCain, Newt). Nor do I see much of an opportunity to parlay his run into a VP or major Cabinet role.
So, I just can’t see it happening for Chuck, whose positions are thoughtful, filled with integrity, and show a lot of common sense. Unless there is, in fact, some sort of neo-Bulworthian groundswell in the Republican party for someone who will level with us. So far, I don’t see any sign of that.
Bill Richardson
The speech I saw was in New Hampshire, on St. Patrick’s Day. He was out of his element on both levels—not much feel for the New Englanders, awkward jokes and story lines on the concept of a Hispanic at an Irish party pot-boiler. He was sweating. Later, he marched with the parade and took opportunities to reach out to the crowd, his response being general lack of recognition or interest. Based on what I saw, he shouldn't even make a run in New Hampshire, but I can't think of the last time that was a successful campaign strategy.
Since then, he’s gone more to ground: he’s does have a re-election campaign to run, though it’s heading for Hillary-like landslide percentages. Although, in theory, the current immigration debate should put him in the spotlight favorably—as an Hispanic governor of a state bordering Mexico, he has the most relevant knowledge and experience of anyone--I don’t think it’s done him any good at all, particularly given the populist thrust toward Nativism the debate is taking.
And that, I’m afraid, may be that for his Presidential hopes. He’s not going to have a crowd that feels like home, or that will have a significant Hispanic voting bloc, until his favorite-son race in New Mexico; OK, possibly some Southern states. Probably not Florida, though; we should not overlook the polylithic (like that? I just made it up—it means “not monolithic”) nature of Hispanic voters and the fact that most Hispanics in Florida are not of Mexican origin. I think he can win a few Hispanic delegates here and there, which will position him well in case the convention is deadlocked.
Don’t hold your breath. Apart from the fact that there is a heavy favorite who could have it wrapped up by April, there’s also the fact that the primary process, combined with laser-like media focus on the horse race (burning out all also-rans), seems effective in making an early decision. There’s enough of a track record to say that the probability that a convention will open without a presumptive nominee, in any presidential year, has become vanishingly small (5%?).
So, Richardson’s prospects would seem limited to either a Vice-Presidential nomination or a major Cabinet post for a centrist Democrat. Neither of these prospects seem improbable in the slightest: Richardson was definitely up for consideration on the Gore ticket, while his range of experience could project him comfortably to Homeland Security, EPA, a return trip to Energy, or even State. He has shown better diplomatic skills than any other politician I can think of. He doesn't need to play politics with delegates at the national convention to earn one of these jobs. No doubt, they would be more appealing than dealing with the rabble out here.
Newt Gingrich
I saw Newt last night on a speech before a group of Iowa Republicans given in late April. It was a basic party fundraiser and feel-good session; Iowa seems to have some interest for the national party in certain Congressional districts, and Newt was basically just scoring some endorsement chips.
Except that it was Iowa, the caucus state. That makes it a Presidential campaign speech.
I could definitely see some elements of amphibian strategizing going on in his fertile mind as he proposed bipartisan Open Forums (instead of mediatized “debates”) for Iowa pre-caucus candidate events. '...and let the best ideas win,' his proposal concludes. This is Newt’s strong point, his ideas, which he backs up well, like the academic that he is. This should have little appeal, really: Dubya is nothing if not a man of big ideas (in his case, fixed ones), and has proven to be surprisingly inept at administration. We don’t need that again. Gingrich's ideas sound fresh, but amount to the same old story.
Ideologically, though, I think Gingrich has found some politically promising turf (better than Hagel’s, anyway). He has no stake in this monstrous Administration I call the "Tyranny of Bushite Misrule" and freely criticizes its policies, its execution; and its exposed, flimsy philosophical undergarments, though none of it by name. He does it from a 21st-century conservative viewpoint which is more coherent and articulate than most conservatives’: open to New Age thinking, pro-business, pro-GWOT, pro-enforcement, Constitutional federalist.
Rather than anti-Bushite, Gingrich is thinking “post-Bushite, secular conservative”. Sounds good. Only problem is, John McCain is seeking the same high ground, and he’s both more well-known and more trusted than Newt. Still, if McCain slips, or can’t convince the Republican Right of his bona fides, there could be a major opening.
Common-sense Consumerism: Shampoos, Dandruff
I'm moved to rise in public denunciation of the fact that Head & Shoulders is now trying to market various colors and scents in its dandruff shampoos. There's a whole line of choices now, and a Head & Shoulders conditioner. Now, we all know this is standard Procter & Gamble technique: crank out product, then test it, see if it can be marketed, etc. But haven't we sort of lost the "purpose" of the whole Head & Shoulders exercise, namely, to get rid of the dandruff?
Longtime H&S customers know that question was purely rhetorical. The purpose is not to excise the dandruff vector; we know that isn't really feasible. The purpose is to ease the discomfort (not to mention "flaking, itching") we feel when our little dandruff boogers are unhappy. Because they let us know about it.
I admit that I have never looked at the stuff under a microscope (anybody want to post a comment who's had that experience?), but I'm going to hazard a few guesses about how this whole condition works.
(To be continued)
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Immigration Bill: Round 2 coming up
Today brought some promising news for those who would like to have an immigration bill and not just a campaign issue this year. House Speaker Hastert (Bushite seven of hearts?) and Senate Majority Leader Frist (the 10 of Diamonds, no matter how many symbolic stands contrary to the President's announced positions he may pretend) have jointly announced that they will look to take out the clause from the House bill that makes illegal immigration a felony. Furthermore, House bill author Sensenbrenner (9-Clubs) has indicated he would go along.
Give them credit for working through their spring recess, and for a quality jiu-jitsu move. If there's one thing that all spokesmen from both parties were consistently saying, it was that there was a need for some tough sanctions to back up the new laws. Why, then, the uncharacteristic leniency?
Downgrading the charges makes good sense, both politically and legislatively. The hardhearted approach was not working on this issue. "Immigration reform" threatened to become an issue that could nationalize the midterm elections in a way that the Iraq snafu couldn't. Even better, and more relevant, than running against Bushite foreign policy (which Congress can't even oversee properly, let alone have any control over) would be making the House Republican leadership itself the issue. Somehow they have established their "tough guy" credentials enough to be able to soften their stand.
Legislatively, it makes total sense, as well. Sequentially, the initial emphasis needs to be on getting the immigrants already in the country to register and enter the process. Later, when there is some control over the processes of naturalization and over the borders, then is the time to increase the severity of penalties for employers, workers, aid organizations, etc. who act against the new regime. Getting the sequence wrong will allow non-compliance, non-enforcement, and various forms of cheating to continue to rule in the fields, the border zones, and in the casual day labor recruitment lots in so many towns and cities. One has to make the crime a little less prevalent before it can be both so weighty and fully enforced.
I applaud the agreement, the apparent influence of the White House, and the progress suggested by this announcement.
Give them credit for working through their spring recess, and for a quality jiu-jitsu move. If there's one thing that all spokesmen from both parties were consistently saying, it was that there was a need for some tough sanctions to back up the new laws. Why, then, the uncharacteristic leniency?
Downgrading the charges makes good sense, both politically and legislatively. The hardhearted approach was not working on this issue. "Immigration reform" threatened to become an issue that could nationalize the midterm elections in a way that the Iraq snafu couldn't. Even better, and more relevant, than running against Bushite foreign policy (which Congress can't even oversee properly, let alone have any control over) would be making the House Republican leadership itself the issue. Somehow they have established their "tough guy" credentials enough to be able to soften their stand.
Legislatively, it makes total sense, as well. Sequentially, the initial emphasis needs to be on getting the immigrants already in the country to register and enter the process. Later, when there is some control over the processes of naturalization and over the borders, then is the time to increase the severity of penalties for employers, workers, aid organizations, etc. who act against the new regime. Getting the sequence wrong will allow non-compliance, non-enforcement, and various forms of cheating to continue to rule in the fields, the border zones, and in the casual day labor recruitment lots in so many towns and cities. One has to make the crime a little less prevalent before it can be both so weighty and fully enforced.
I applaud the agreement, the apparent influence of the White House, and the progress suggested by this announcement.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Flapping About Immigration
"Congress Nears Deal on Illegal Immigrants"--so reads the headline on the AP story today which I viewed on Yahoo! a short while ago.
Sounds good, but unfortunately the headline is inaccurate. The deal was reached in the Senate, with the White House's blessing, but that does not equal "Congress". Apparently, this bill would need to be squared with the House's repressive and wrong-headed version, any association with which is liable to leave an unpalatable aroma.
In its rumored current form, the Senate compromise seems worthy of support, even if it also draws the support of President Bush, as McCain alleges. At least it recognizes that the essential first step is to identify a path which provides for some legal recognition of immigrants with well-established ties in the country. Along with major increases in border patrol, electronic surveillance capabilities, etc.--things that have justification and bipartisan support. Of course, the Devil's in the details.
By contrast, the House version features only punitive zeal and a Big Fence. If somehow it were to have been enacted, it would promise a variety of evil results: massive forced deportations, the (further) ghettoization of migrant housing neighborhoods, widespread evasion and further denigration of the rule of law, yet also a legal snare with long tentacles and heavy sanctions which can be wielded selectively and unfairly throughout everyday American society and commerce. A triumph for the political principle of "the criminalization of everyday life"*. Maybe even riots, on one side or the other.
The question is whether the House Republicans are prepared to accept the Senate version virtually in toto, or whether they are going to insist on something more resembling theirs in its basic approach. No doubt they will want to continue playing the Stern Father in the American Gothic set where they've been posturing on this one so far.
These are serious tactics, worthy of the dearly-departed King-Delay-of-Diamonds himself (and, for that matter, speaking of his predecessor, his whole Dick Armey!) Immigration policy is one issue that could have national resonance this year, and in ways that can bring sharp, uncomfortable contrasts between the national party positions and local dynamics. In the case of Democrats, some will be swayed by the perennial populist appeal of nativism (36 of them voted in favor of the House bill), but more will be hurt by a principled stand. The Republicans also are vulnerable to this tension on the issue, with a national leadership that seems of two minds. What I believe happened here is the deliberate creation of a wedge to allow some of the more Red-Meat Staters to run for re-election on the platform of having "done something"--or at least would've except for their lily-livered, soft-on-national-security opponents--to squash Mexican immigrants (as Bush's Iraq invasion was ultimately about having "done something" about terrorism).
But to "return to the previous question", no. I think there will be a nasty conference-committee game and the political wedge will be pushed back to the Senate, in the form of the challenge whether to go along with the nasty conferees. And they may end up back in the trap they were near before the current compromise, with 50+ votes for something but 60+ for nothing. It all depends on the strength of the leadership of the Ace of Hearts. Along with the concurrence of the Ace of Spades on the political soundness of the final bill, which will be marked with the flourishes of the Nine of Clubs (Sensenbrenner) and the Eight of Diamonds (Boehnert)**. This is where what remains of Bush's capital may be expended. If 'twere to be so, 'twould be done best.
*as opposed to "the criminalization of politics", as had been alleged by some opponents of Fitzgerald's investigation of Flamegate(I'm suggesting herewith we change the name to something a bit catchier). Which phrase, if you add "of war", would represent something I'd support. It should be criminal to play politics with war, as the Bushites have done.
**The Bushite deck of cards gives you a "frame" to present those who are criminally Bushist (as opposed to the Saddamite deck, which gives a framework to view those criminally Baathist). Naturally, the higher the power, the higher the level of card. To provide some framework through the suits, clubs are for the military-industrialists and ideological neocons, diamonds for the corrupt bastards, hearts are reserved for Bush-family members, hangers-on, and others who've achieved power through sucking up, and spades are for Republican political henchmen-hacks (sort of like "philosopher-kings" of their type). The guys who wield the sharp blades. It's necessary, but usually fairly easy, to distinguish the suit in order to assign a Bushite a card value.
There's a lot of flexibility in applying lower ranks, but once a guy gets taken out it freezes forever into place. The higher ranks are generally fixed. For example, Barbara Bush is the Queen of Hearts (whether Laura is a Bushite, and at what level, is not generally agreed upon), Jeb Bush is the King of Hearts, Alberto Gonzales is the Jack of hearts, etc.
The order of power of suits is not generally agreed: so, while it's understood that Rumsfeld's the Ace of Clubs, Cheney the Diamond, Dubya's the Ace of Hearts, and Rove's the Spade, that does not imply that one always has precedence in a Texas Showdown. Which never occurs, because like good Bushites they never disagree except when that's part of the strategy (see above with immigration).
Sounds good, but unfortunately the headline is inaccurate. The deal was reached in the Senate, with the White House's blessing, but that does not equal "Congress". Apparently, this bill would need to be squared with the House's repressive and wrong-headed version, any association with which is liable to leave an unpalatable aroma.
In its rumored current form, the Senate compromise seems worthy of support, even if it also draws the support of President Bush, as McCain alleges. At least it recognizes that the essential first step is to identify a path which provides for some legal recognition of immigrants with well-established ties in the country. Along with major increases in border patrol, electronic surveillance capabilities, etc.--things that have justification and bipartisan support. Of course, the Devil's in the details.
By contrast, the House version features only punitive zeal and a Big Fence. If somehow it were to have been enacted, it would promise a variety of evil results: massive forced deportations, the (further) ghettoization of migrant housing neighborhoods, widespread evasion and further denigration of the rule of law, yet also a legal snare with long tentacles and heavy sanctions which can be wielded selectively and unfairly throughout everyday American society and commerce. A triumph for the political principle of "the criminalization of everyday life"*. Maybe even riots, on one side or the other.
The question is whether the House Republicans are prepared to accept the Senate version virtually in toto, or whether they are going to insist on something more resembling theirs in its basic approach. No doubt they will want to continue playing the Stern Father in the American Gothic set where they've been posturing on this one so far.
These are serious tactics, worthy of the dearly-departed King-Delay-of-Diamonds himself (and, for that matter, speaking of his predecessor, his whole Dick Armey!) Immigration policy is one issue that could have national resonance this year, and in ways that can bring sharp, uncomfortable contrasts between the national party positions and local dynamics. In the case of Democrats, some will be swayed by the perennial populist appeal of nativism (36 of them voted in favor of the House bill), but more will be hurt by a principled stand. The Republicans also are vulnerable to this tension on the issue, with a national leadership that seems of two minds. What I believe happened here is the deliberate creation of a wedge to allow some of the more Red-Meat Staters to run for re-election on the platform of having "done something"--or at least would've except for their lily-livered, soft-on-national-security opponents--to squash Mexican immigrants (as Bush's Iraq invasion was ultimately about having "done something" about terrorism).
But to "return to the previous question", no. I think there will be a nasty conference-committee game and the political wedge will be pushed back to the Senate, in the form of the challenge whether to go along with the nasty conferees. And they may end up back in the trap they were near before the current compromise, with 50+ votes for something but 60+ for nothing. It all depends on the strength of the leadership of the Ace of Hearts. Along with the concurrence of the Ace of Spades on the political soundness of the final bill, which will be marked with the flourishes of the Nine of Clubs (Sensenbrenner) and the Eight of Diamonds (Boehnert)**. This is where what remains of Bush's capital may be expended. If 'twere to be so, 'twould be done best.
*as opposed to "the criminalization of politics", as had been alleged by some opponents of Fitzgerald's investigation of Flamegate(I'm suggesting herewith we change the name to something a bit catchier). Which phrase, if you add "of war", would represent something I'd support. It should be criminal to play politics with war, as the Bushites have done.
**The Bushite deck of cards gives you a "frame" to present those who are criminally Bushist (as opposed to the Saddamite deck, which gives a framework to view those criminally Baathist). Naturally, the higher the power, the higher the level of card. To provide some framework through the suits, clubs are for the military-industrialists and ideological neocons, diamonds for the corrupt bastards, hearts are reserved for Bush-family members, hangers-on, and others who've achieved power through sucking up, and spades are for Republican political henchmen-hacks (sort of like "philosopher-kings" of their type). The guys who wield the sharp blades. It's necessary, but usually fairly easy, to distinguish the suit in order to assign a Bushite a card value.
There's a lot of flexibility in applying lower ranks, but once a guy gets taken out it freezes forever into place. The higher ranks are generally fixed. For example, Barbara Bush is the Queen of Hearts (whether Laura is a Bushite, and at what level, is not generally agreed upon), Jeb Bush is the King of Hearts, Alberto Gonzales is the Jack of hearts, etc.
The order of power of suits is not generally agreed: so, while it's understood that Rumsfeld's the Ace of Clubs, Cheney the Diamond, Dubya's the Ace of Hearts, and Rove's the Spade, that does not imply that one always has precedence in a Texas Showdown. Which never occurs, because like good Bushites they never disagree except when that's part of the strategy (see above with immigration).
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Mid-Monthly Review 1:2
We’re late, and most of the content is from March (the short month was also a weak month from a news standpoint: we’ve already dealt with Quailgate and Dubaigate). We’re introducing a new recurring feature on Common-Sense Consumerism, which I hope will please all and instruct the young.
NCAA’s: More than a Bracket to Me
The first weekend of the tourney was a joy, with an overload of close games apparent to the most casual observer. It made it a bit more tolerable being laid up with a cold relapse through the best skiing weekend of the winter.
Well, I did get out to the slopes on Sunday—and that’s when the really crazy stuff broke loose. I lost two of my final four in my most visible bracket entry—Pitt and UNC—and am holding on to respectability by my thumbs.
From the bracket handicapping point of view, this was a very interesting year, with no clear favourite, eight to ten top teams, and everyone else very capable of beating each other.
I tried various strategies, just to get a feel for the variety of scenarios that could emerge. The five free entries ESPN gives in its contest, supported with friendly software, give one an easy way to experiment.
The strategy which has worked best this year is the one I’d call “Chalk Plus”—picking the favorites in most, ignoring long shots. The key to success in the first two rounds was identifying the soft spots in the chalk, those cases where there was a solid challenger to take spots seeded to vulnerable teams. West Virginia over Iowa, Washington over Illinois, Wichita over Tennessee, Georgetown over Ohio State. I did identify these opportunities in some of my entries, but didn’t choose them consistently or in the right combination for a winning entry: the best of my five on ESPN is 95th percentile, which is OK but not outstanding: (straight chalk would get you around 66th).
As for the longshots, Bradley and George Mason, forget it. Basically nobody had either team (I saw one case, where a 3-year-old had them both: we can only hope that those were random picks!), and their bracket impact will therefore be null as long as they’re in.
Results of the first two rounds show once again that the biggest problem with the tournament is the conference tournament mess the weekend before. Get rid of them all!
I like the suggestion to go to a single-elimination tournament with all the Division I teams. This is done very well in a few state championships.
My thumbs, by which I’m hanging: my main picks—the ones others will see—have Villanova beating Duke in the final; I still like those picks (I have to promise not to edit this out Friday night!) One of my upset specials had Texas over BC—a spectacular recoup of a lousy set of picks, if it happens. I found it amusing to read a friend’s post where he claims a probable victory. At this point, it’s pretty much impossible to claim victory, particularly in such a wide-open field.
Feingold’s Censure Motion
As far as its content, I’m 100% in favour of it. Bush’s use of unwarranted eavesdropping is something the Republican-controlled Senate sought to keep under wraps and work out behind closed doors, and it is totally in the interest of the American people to examine it and legislate on this in the light of day. Barring that, and barring its consideration is exactly the objective of Pat Roberts and the other Bushites (Roberts gets named nine of spades in the deck for his role), then pointing out that the spying violated our law is the next best thing.
I think we can all get past the bogus constitutional and statutory smokescreens the Bushtits have come up with, when they have bothered to attempt to justify their ignoring the FISA provisions. There also seems a consensus that the eavesdropping itself could have been justified, and would have been approved retroactively where warrants were needed if the administration had merely attempted to follow the law. Something I’d call “criminal intent” is missing here from what you’d want if impeachment were seriously under consideration (as it could still be, for example, with regard to the Iraq invasion, where the professed motives have been thoroughly debunked and the hidden ones, so far, remain hidden). The censure motion in this case is more like a finding that the President’s actions were in contempt of the law.
Feingold seems to have considered carefully the terms and the nature of his challenge and acted only after it became clear the Republicans in the Senate would block any open consideration of the eavesdropping program. His record for being right on these tough issues—like the USA Patriot Act, campaign reform, the Iraq authorization, etc.—is unmatched. Given all this, it’s clear to me that censure is the right action, and the motion’s passage might be possible if it were viewed through other than a partisan screen.
The politics of it, though, seem all too apparent. Feingold’s apparent political motives would be to put himself in the spotlight (and this move’s certainly got the blogs’ electronic wind behind the motion, and behind him) and put senators like Hillary on the spot. Unfortunately, there seems little reason to think any Republican would view the motion other than a partisan attack—I haven’t really heard the motion’s proponents reach out to moderate Republicans to give it consideration—so it has no chance of passage. Under those circumstances, Democrats will find it easy to fudge a reason to vote against, or just vote for it without the public examination of the issue which was the motion’s purpose.
So, the bottom line is, I won't be very happy when this comes to a vote and, in a more-or-less straight party line vote, the Senate votes not to censure Bush for breaking the law.
Common Sense about Everyday American Objects: Disposable Razors
I have tried various measures of dealing with my daily beard, including letting it grow, and find the least objectionable method to be using the disposables. This column is addressed to those who, like me, accept the throwaway as a better solution than, for example, leaving unusable bits of expensive electric razors all over the countryside.
If you’re on disposables (i.e., an adult man, using them daily to shave) I must beg you please to avoid the seductively advertised products—“the Power of Four”, the “Mach” blade, etc. I have studied this subject very closely and performed many experiments. The best measure of utility of these products—and I’ll defend it to the death—is the number of clean, satisfactory shaves per unit of cost.
Multi-bladed disposables were indeed an improvement in shaving satisfaction—when they went from one blade to two. The difference from two to three to four to infinity, though, is negligible, and I see no value whatsoever for the vibrating whatever. These “innovations” are all about getting more revenue per product sold. Important to the manufacturer, only a negative to you.
In terms of getting performance, there is one critical component. It’s called “One-Touch Cleaning” by Schick, the only manufacturer still producing blades with the feature. It’s a little button on the outside of the razor that pushes a little plastic ridge between the two blades (I’ve never seen it on a three or more). It takes the clog—which is further increased when you use their gooey shaving creams, but that’s another discussion—out from between the two blades so that they can both remain effective. That simple feature—if you get it, see it, and use it--prolongs the utility of the disposables by a factor of two to four (depending on the beard). For only with this feature does the durability of the blade come into play.
The market leader, Gillette, gets a double benefit from not including One-Touch Cleaning: you throw away blades sooner, because of the clog, and therefore you don’t even notice that their blades don’t last as many shaves. Their marketing, though, is truly exquisite, and their profits, robust. Schick, recently purchased by the manufacturers of Duracell, if I’m not mistaken, is in a much trickier position: they keep alive their two-bladed challenger product with One-Touch Cleaning, but they like much more the ride to Consumer Wasteland: more blades, more dollars per, and that’s where they put their advertising. It’s up to you, the consumer, to insist upon the superior product. Otherwise, civilization takes a hit (of unfiltered dirtweed, as ‘twere).
Since we’re on the subject, though, I have to say that my commitment to the two-bladed disposable with One-Touch Cleaning is an exigent thing. When the real improvement comes, I will switch in an instant.
Here’s my vision of what that would be: a shaving mask. The idea would be sort of like the orthotic devices which good footwear places are now customizing to the foot. You would have a shaving pattern chosen: moustache shape, close on the chin and cheeks, trim the sideburn, etc. Place your face into the mask, and the computer-controlled microrazors would execute the pattern, clean the stubble, apply the after-shave and disinfectant. Now that would be something worth paying for!
American World Order
That’s the name of a book review in the NYTimes of March 5. The review, written by Martin Walker of UPI, is of “The Case for Goliath”, by Michael Mandelbaum (review at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/books/review/05walker.html) credits Mandelbaum with an original take on the old “world government” debate: should we have one? What form? How do we get there? How could having one make things better than now?
Mandelbaum’s neo-realist thesis, at least according to Walker, is that we don’t have to have that debate anymore. To paraphrase Walt Kelly, We have world government, and it is US. As in USA. Or at least, close enough.
The idea is novel, and exciting enough to me that I’m going to go out right away and get the book. Then, I’ll get back to you. In the meantime, what I’m looking to see is if the author has actually thought this through, as if he believed what he said. If the US were to be understood to be, and recognized more or less formally, as global governor, how could that system work better than it does today?
My thought is, the US government would need a sounding board, an international panel of friends from fellow republics, which would have as its main purpose telling us when we’re wrong. That way, we could pause and rethink before we decide to discard a decent respect for world opinion and plunge forward blindly and solitarily. Like with Tony Blair, but less sycophantic.
In fact, just like the Brams of our federal government: I think there would be so many aspirants for this panel, powerless though it would ultimately be, that we’d have to beat them off with a stick.
NCAA’s: More than a Bracket to Me
The first weekend of the tourney was a joy, with an overload of close games apparent to the most casual observer. It made it a bit more tolerable being laid up with a cold relapse through the best skiing weekend of the winter.
Well, I did get out to the slopes on Sunday—and that’s when the really crazy stuff broke loose. I lost two of my final four in my most visible bracket entry—Pitt and UNC—and am holding on to respectability by my thumbs.
From the bracket handicapping point of view, this was a very interesting year, with no clear favourite, eight to ten top teams, and everyone else very capable of beating each other.
I tried various strategies, just to get a feel for the variety of scenarios that could emerge. The five free entries ESPN gives in its contest, supported with friendly software, give one an easy way to experiment.
The strategy which has worked best this year is the one I’d call “Chalk Plus”—picking the favorites in most, ignoring long shots. The key to success in the first two rounds was identifying the soft spots in the chalk, those cases where there was a solid challenger to take spots seeded to vulnerable teams. West Virginia over Iowa, Washington over Illinois, Wichita over Tennessee, Georgetown over Ohio State. I did identify these opportunities in some of my entries, but didn’t choose them consistently or in the right combination for a winning entry: the best of my five on ESPN is 95th percentile, which is OK but not outstanding: (straight chalk would get you around 66th).
As for the longshots, Bradley and George Mason, forget it. Basically nobody had either team (I saw one case, where a 3-year-old had them both: we can only hope that those were random picks!), and their bracket impact will therefore be null as long as they’re in.
Results of the first two rounds show once again that the biggest problem with the tournament is the conference tournament mess the weekend before. Get rid of them all!
I like the suggestion to go to a single-elimination tournament with all the Division I teams. This is done very well in a few state championships.
My thumbs, by which I’m hanging: my main picks—the ones others will see—have Villanova beating Duke in the final; I still like those picks (I have to promise not to edit this out Friday night!) One of my upset specials had Texas over BC—a spectacular recoup of a lousy set of picks, if it happens. I found it amusing to read a friend’s post where he claims a probable victory. At this point, it’s pretty much impossible to claim victory, particularly in such a wide-open field.
Feingold’s Censure Motion
As far as its content, I’m 100% in favour of it. Bush’s use of unwarranted eavesdropping is something the Republican-controlled Senate sought to keep under wraps and work out behind closed doors, and it is totally in the interest of the American people to examine it and legislate on this in the light of day. Barring that, and barring its consideration is exactly the objective of Pat Roberts and the other Bushites (Roberts gets named nine of spades in the deck for his role), then pointing out that the spying violated our law is the next best thing.
I think we can all get past the bogus constitutional and statutory smokescreens the Bushtits have come up with, when they have bothered to attempt to justify their ignoring the FISA provisions. There also seems a consensus that the eavesdropping itself could have been justified, and would have been approved retroactively where warrants were needed if the administration had merely attempted to follow the law. Something I’d call “criminal intent” is missing here from what you’d want if impeachment were seriously under consideration (as it could still be, for example, with regard to the Iraq invasion, where the professed motives have been thoroughly debunked and the hidden ones, so far, remain hidden). The censure motion in this case is more like a finding that the President’s actions were in contempt of the law.
Feingold seems to have considered carefully the terms and the nature of his challenge and acted only after it became clear the Republicans in the Senate would block any open consideration of the eavesdropping program. His record for being right on these tough issues—like the USA Patriot Act, campaign reform, the Iraq authorization, etc.—is unmatched. Given all this, it’s clear to me that censure is the right action, and the motion’s passage might be possible if it were viewed through other than a partisan screen.
The politics of it, though, seem all too apparent. Feingold’s apparent political motives would be to put himself in the spotlight (and this move’s certainly got the blogs’ electronic wind behind the motion, and behind him) and put senators like Hillary on the spot. Unfortunately, there seems little reason to think any Republican would view the motion other than a partisan attack—I haven’t really heard the motion’s proponents reach out to moderate Republicans to give it consideration—so it has no chance of passage. Under those circumstances, Democrats will find it easy to fudge a reason to vote against, or just vote for it without the public examination of the issue which was the motion’s purpose.
So, the bottom line is, I won't be very happy when this comes to a vote and, in a more-or-less straight party line vote, the Senate votes not to censure Bush for breaking the law.
Common Sense about Everyday American Objects: Disposable Razors
I have tried various measures of dealing with my daily beard, including letting it grow, and find the least objectionable method to be using the disposables. This column is addressed to those who, like me, accept the throwaway as a better solution than, for example, leaving unusable bits of expensive electric razors all over the countryside.
If you’re on disposables (i.e., an adult man, using them daily to shave) I must beg you please to avoid the seductively advertised products—“the Power of Four”, the “Mach” blade, etc. I have studied this subject very closely and performed many experiments. The best measure of utility of these products—and I’ll defend it to the death—is the number of clean, satisfactory shaves per unit of cost.
Multi-bladed disposables were indeed an improvement in shaving satisfaction—when they went from one blade to two. The difference from two to three to four to infinity, though, is negligible, and I see no value whatsoever for the vibrating whatever. These “innovations” are all about getting more revenue per product sold. Important to the manufacturer, only a negative to you.
In terms of getting performance, there is one critical component. It’s called “One-Touch Cleaning” by Schick, the only manufacturer still producing blades with the feature. It’s a little button on the outside of the razor that pushes a little plastic ridge between the two blades (I’ve never seen it on a three or more). It takes the clog—which is further increased when you use their gooey shaving creams, but that’s another discussion—out from between the two blades so that they can both remain effective. That simple feature—if you get it, see it, and use it--prolongs the utility of the disposables by a factor of two to four (depending on the beard). For only with this feature does the durability of the blade come into play.
The market leader, Gillette, gets a double benefit from not including One-Touch Cleaning: you throw away blades sooner, because of the clog, and therefore you don’t even notice that their blades don’t last as many shaves. Their marketing, though, is truly exquisite, and their profits, robust. Schick, recently purchased by the manufacturers of Duracell, if I’m not mistaken, is in a much trickier position: they keep alive their two-bladed challenger product with One-Touch Cleaning, but they like much more the ride to Consumer Wasteland: more blades, more dollars per, and that’s where they put their advertising. It’s up to you, the consumer, to insist upon the superior product. Otherwise, civilization takes a hit (of unfiltered dirtweed, as ‘twere).
Since we’re on the subject, though, I have to say that my commitment to the two-bladed disposable with One-Touch Cleaning is an exigent thing. When the real improvement comes, I will switch in an instant.
Here’s my vision of what that would be: a shaving mask. The idea would be sort of like the orthotic devices which good footwear places are now customizing to the foot. You would have a shaving pattern chosen: moustache shape, close on the chin and cheeks, trim the sideburn, etc. Place your face into the mask, and the computer-controlled microrazors would execute the pattern, clean the stubble, apply the after-shave and disinfectant. Now that would be something worth paying for!
American World Order
That’s the name of a book review in the NYTimes of March 5. The review, written by Martin Walker of UPI, is of “The Case for Goliath”, by Michael Mandelbaum (review at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/books/review/05walker.html) credits Mandelbaum with an original take on the old “world government” debate: should we have one? What form? How do we get there? How could having one make things better than now?
Mandelbaum’s neo-realist thesis, at least according to Walker, is that we don’t have to have that debate anymore. To paraphrase Walt Kelly, We have world government, and it is US. As in USA. Or at least, close enough.
The idea is novel, and exciting enough to me that I’m going to go out right away and get the book. Then, I’ll get back to you. In the meantime, what I’m looking to see is if the author has actually thought this through, as if he believed what he said. If the US were to be understood to be, and recognized more or less formally, as global governor, how could that system work better than it does today?
My thought is, the US government would need a sounding board, an international panel of friends from fellow republics, which would have as its main purpose telling us when we’re wrong. That way, we could pause and rethink before we decide to discard a decent respect for world opinion and plunge forward blindly and solitarily. Like with Tony Blair, but less sycophantic.
In fact, just like the Brams of our federal government: I think there would be so many aspirants for this panel, powerless though it would ultimately be, that we’d have to beat them off with a stick.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Dreams of 1994, and the Odds Against
James Traub has a long article in tomorrow's NY Times about the Democrats and their efforts to take control of one or both houses of Congress. My take on the article is that the party is deeply divided on the question of whether to let Democrats be Democrats, and that "framing" has taken over for policies and their advocacy.
It took a long time to get to the real point, in the discussion with Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who is the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Emanuel is very bright and knows his stuff, which made it hard to disguise the fact that the House of Representatives elections are fixed in favor of incumbency. No 1994-style sweep seems possible, because there are too few competitive districts. Only the Supreme Court's overturning of the partisan 2004 Texas redistricting could tilt the balance to a level playing field, and I'll let you guess the odds on that occurring: you get two choices (slim or none). 20:1 against the Dems gaining control of the House.
The Senate is a slightly different story: there are enough open seats and competitive races to shift the majority from the 55-44 to something like 50-49 (with Bernard Sanders replacing Jim Jeffords as the Democratic-leaning independent from Vermont). That would be a real victory, even with Ace of Spades Bushite Cheney casting the potential tie-breaking vote, but I'd suggest the odds are about 4-1 against.
We're looking at Rhode Island (CQ: " leans Republican") and Pennsylvania as likely pickups for the Dems (notwithstanding the fact that I have gotten 15 solicitations from prominent Democratic leaders for Bob Casey, Jr., and haven't yet seen his picture or any of his positions on any of the solicitations), and there are some other promising races with strong Democratic candidates: Montana, Ohio, Tennessee (Frist's vacated spot), and Missouri. I think we're headed for heartbreak, though, on election day--one or two incumbent Democrats will be upset, and Ohio and Missouri will disappoint (as usual). In other words, this year's election will be much "sound and fury, signifying nothing".
Unfortunately, I'm getting used to this. Despite the desperately obvious failure of "the tyranny of Bushite misrule", these elections will be "localized" in most states, with Republican candidates frequently successfully diverting attention away from the federal government's shortcomings under their party's control and focusing on those rare cases where they have been able to separate themselves from the administration (like the Dubai port fiasco).
The stage will be set for 2008 as follows: reduced majorities for Republicans in both houses, the Senate close enough to ensure a near stalemate. The 3-D Presidency of 2007-2009 (Dumb Duck Dubya) will continue with neo-con judicial activism being the principal feature of governance. Hillary will have an enormous warchest going into 2008, as the Republicans can't seem to field an opponent credible enough to require her to spend any of the huge amount she already has. She will need it, as there is no lobbyist, electoral, or campaign reform in sight.
There will be some interest in whether the Republicans will go with an Establishment candidate (as they have in every election since 1940) or whether a neo-Establishment anti-Bushite like McCain will be permitted to win the nomination by the Powers That Be. I'd bet against the latter (what are the odds on George Allen? That's a bet I might take), but I'll admit I'm worried: McCain's got integrity and guts (or did, until his recent sucking up to party power that commenced in 2004); he personifies credibility on national security (so he'd be attractive to swing voters), and his troglodytic positions on domestic and social issues will cause him little harm (being very close to the status quo, and therefore not sounding very revolutionary). His biggest obstacle will be convincing the Republican moneymen that he means it when he offers his support to the Bushites (he doesn't); I'm not convinced they're nimble enough to get the point of an anti-Bushite Republican candidacy (despite its clear potential appeal), simply because Dubya is so close to their heart that they can't believe how badly he is "screwing the pooch".
My tactic this year is to tell the telemarketers from national party organizations and their front groups that I'm investing locally. As for the local races, Bill Richardson should win in a landslide as governor, and Congressman Tom Udall and Senator Jeff Bingaman should both win handily. The one seriously contested local race of importance is for the Second Congressional District, based around Albuquerque, where Republican Heather Wilson is running away from her President and is in a tight race with Attorney General Patricia Madrid--one of the dozen or so truly competitive races in the country, as things now stand. Unless Heather makes a dramatic announcement and switches party (100:1 against), I could see throwing a few bucks into Madrid's hat.
It took a long time to get to the real point, in the discussion with Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who is the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Emanuel is very bright and knows his stuff, which made it hard to disguise the fact that the House of Representatives elections are fixed in favor of incumbency. No 1994-style sweep seems possible, because there are too few competitive districts. Only the Supreme Court's overturning of the partisan 2004 Texas redistricting could tilt the balance to a level playing field, and I'll let you guess the odds on that occurring: you get two choices (slim or none). 20:1 against the Dems gaining control of the House.
The Senate is a slightly different story: there are enough open seats and competitive races to shift the majority from the 55-44 to something like 50-49 (with Bernard Sanders replacing Jim Jeffords as the Democratic-leaning independent from Vermont). That would be a real victory, even with Ace of Spades Bushite Cheney casting the potential tie-breaking vote, but I'd suggest the odds are about 4-1 against.
We're looking at Rhode Island (CQ: " leans Republican") and Pennsylvania as likely pickups for the Dems (notwithstanding the fact that I have gotten 15 solicitations from prominent Democratic leaders for Bob Casey, Jr., and haven't yet seen his picture or any of his positions on any of the solicitations), and there are some other promising races with strong Democratic candidates: Montana, Ohio, Tennessee (Frist's vacated spot), and Missouri. I think we're headed for heartbreak, though, on election day--one or two incumbent Democrats will be upset, and Ohio and Missouri will disappoint (as usual). In other words, this year's election will be much "sound and fury, signifying nothing".
Unfortunately, I'm getting used to this. Despite the desperately obvious failure of "the tyranny of Bushite misrule", these elections will be "localized" in most states, with Republican candidates frequently successfully diverting attention away from the federal government's shortcomings under their party's control and focusing on those rare cases where they have been able to separate themselves from the administration (like the Dubai port fiasco).
The stage will be set for 2008 as follows: reduced majorities for Republicans in both houses, the Senate close enough to ensure a near stalemate. The 3-D Presidency of 2007-2009 (Dumb Duck Dubya) will continue with neo-con judicial activism being the principal feature of governance. Hillary will have an enormous warchest going into 2008, as the Republicans can't seem to field an opponent credible enough to require her to spend any of the huge amount she already has. She will need it, as there is no lobbyist, electoral, or campaign reform in sight.
There will be some interest in whether the Republicans will go with an Establishment candidate (as they have in every election since 1940) or whether a neo-Establishment anti-Bushite like McCain will be permitted to win the nomination by the Powers That Be. I'd bet against the latter (what are the odds on George Allen? That's a bet I might take), but I'll admit I'm worried: McCain's got integrity and guts (or did, until his recent sucking up to party power that commenced in 2004); he personifies credibility on national security (so he'd be attractive to swing voters), and his troglodytic positions on domestic and social issues will cause him little harm (being very close to the status quo, and therefore not sounding very revolutionary). His biggest obstacle will be convincing the Republican moneymen that he means it when he offers his support to the Bushites (he doesn't); I'm not convinced they're nimble enough to get the point of an anti-Bushite Republican candidacy (despite its clear potential appeal), simply because Dubya is so close to their heart that they can't believe how badly he is "screwing the pooch".
My tactic this year is to tell the telemarketers from national party organizations and their front groups that I'm investing locally. As for the local races, Bill Richardson should win in a landslide as governor, and Congressman Tom Udall and Senator Jeff Bingaman should both win handily. The one seriously contested local race of importance is for the Second Congressional District, based around Albuquerque, where Republican Heather Wilson is running away from her President and is in a tight race with Attorney General Patricia Madrid--one of the dozen or so truly competitive races in the country, as things now stand. Unless Heather makes a dramatic announcement and switches party (100:1 against), I could see throwing a few bucks into Madrid's hat.
Squeaker in Taos
The election for mayor was as close as predicted, but the wrong guy one (see "Bobby Duran, no mas" in the last 15th-monthly). Count stands at 887-867, subject to the recount which will be announced this week, but there is little reason for optimism. The early balloting was held in the mayor's office (!), replete with handouts, pictures, etc. on the brilliant administration to date.
I can't see how anything good will come of it, and Duran's opponent, Gene Sanchez, will probably not run again. Still, these are nonpartisan elections in this overwhelmingly Democratic town, and the councilmen elected (our prediction was on target there, with Darren Cordova and Rudy Abeyta winning) seem reasonably sincere, both more articulate and clear in their positions than the newly elected (previously appointed) mayor is.
I can't see how anything good will come of it, and Duran's opponent, Gene Sanchez, will probably not run again. Still, these are nonpartisan elections in this overwhelmingly Democratic town, and the councilmen elected (our prediction was on target there, with Darren Cordova and Rudy Abeyta winning) seem reasonably sincere, both more articulate and clear in their positions than the newly elected (previously appointed) mayor is.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
New Bushite Leaf?
This bit about pushing for funding for alternative fuels from Dubya is quite interesting--in this case, I hope he's more successful than he was in pushing for alternative Social Security.
Of course, with him you've got to wonder what's the ulterior motive, i.e., where's the big-money interest behind it? In any case, though, I'd rather he speak on this one than any other topic I can think of, and it should prove somewhat educational for his fans--the only ones who listen to him anymore.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should offer my own direct experience. We have a 2003 Prius--I believe they've made a lot of improvements, particularly in the electrical systems, since then--it gets about 40 mpg in town and 50-60 mpg on the highway. This is a lot less than the EPA posted mileage, but those methods are seriously flawed. It's also hard to compare with other cars that don't give the readout so continuously or accurately. Finally, we're at 7,000 ft. here, and that could affect the engine's performance. Beats me--I'm no engineer.
Anyway, we bought it despite the math; we wanted to support the emergent technology and decided it had gotten past the bleeding edge stage. We still like it. My feeling is that the gasoline/electric hybrid combination may not be the answer, but the technology seems to combine multiple energy sources very successfully, and that approach should hold long-term promise.
The thing that gets me, and that proves to me that Dubya's educational program is needed, is that--despite the gas price inflation we've seen lately--the hybrid is still being sold more effectively as a high-powered vehicle (and the electric motor does get you off the line first vs. most cars when the light turns green) than as a fuel-efficient one. Hard to believe, but true.
Of course, with him you've got to wonder what's the ulterior motive, i.e., where's the big-money interest behind it? In any case, though, I'd rather he speak on this one than any other topic I can think of, and it should prove somewhat educational for his fans--the only ones who listen to him anymore.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should offer my own direct experience. We have a 2003 Prius--I believe they've made a lot of improvements, particularly in the electrical systems, since then--it gets about 40 mpg in town and 50-60 mpg on the highway. This is a lot less than the EPA posted mileage, but those methods are seriously flawed. It's also hard to compare with other cars that don't give the readout so continuously or accurately. Finally, we're at 7,000 ft. here, and that could affect the engine's performance. Beats me--I'm no engineer.
Anyway, we bought it despite the math; we wanted to support the emergent technology and decided it had gotten past the bleeding edge stage. We still like it. My feeling is that the gasoline/electric hybrid combination may not be the answer, but the technology seems to combine multiple energy sources very successfully, and that approach should hold long-term promise.
The thing that gets me, and that proves to me that Dubya's educational program is needed, is that--despite the gas price inflation we've seen lately--the hybrid is still being sold more effectively as a high-powered vehicle (and the electric motor does get you off the line first vs. most cars when the light turns green) than as a fuel-efficient one. Hard to believe, but true.
They're a Reach or Two
Two recent stories for which the Bushites have taken excessive pasting are the Dick Cheney shooting and the U.A.E. port brouhaha.
I don’t like to defend the Bushites for anything; in fact, I won’t defend them here, either: It is oh-so-typical of Cheney that his first reaction is to cover up the whole thing, and of course the port business is just typical Bushite arrogance and incompetence.
Neither is worthy of the attention given, though; it almost makes me suspect Rove is trying a homeopathic approach—give little driblets of fake problems to the press in order to try and distract from the serious screw-ups. Like Iraq, domestic spying, torture, not finding Bin Laden, nuclear proliferation, deficit expansion, the continued presence in the Bush Administration of people involved in the outing of covert CIA agents, the Medicare prescription drug scam, to give a few examples of real issues these phony ones are forcing off the front pages.
On the port thing, it’s clear that the U.A.E. is not the issue, or even the fact that “Muslims” will be watching the ports. Since we can’t put any government effort behind port security, it’s going to be some company that’s going to do it, and companies everywhere are much the same. This is the new big, useless government approach in which the Bushites specialize. All we need to do is put some effort behind the security investigations of the personnel the company will employ.
I don’t like to defend the Bushites for anything; in fact, I won’t defend them here, either: It is oh-so-typical of Cheney that his first reaction is to cover up the whole thing, and of course the port business is just typical Bushite arrogance and incompetence.
Neither is worthy of the attention given, though; it almost makes me suspect Rove is trying a homeopathic approach—give little driblets of fake problems to the press in order to try and distract from the serious screw-ups. Like Iraq, domestic spying, torture, not finding Bin Laden, nuclear proliferation, deficit expansion, the continued presence in the Bush Administration of people involved in the outing of covert CIA agents, the Medicare prescription drug scam, to give a few examples of real issues these phony ones are forcing off the front pages.
On the port thing, it’s clear that the U.A.E. is not the issue, or even the fact that “Muslims” will be watching the ports. Since we can’t put any government effort behind port security, it’s going to be some company that’s going to do it, and companies everywhere are much the same. This is the new big, useless government approach in which the Bushites specialize. All we need to do is put some effort behind the security investigations of the personnel the company will employ.
Iraq: It's too Late Now, Darling
Let’s hope that it’s not civil war this time. Let’s hope that we recognize that we can’t do much good on the streets of Iraq at this point (if we ever did). Let’s hope that we don’t get the bright idea that we can separate the fighting parties—I think we’ve all seen what happens to do-gooders who get between determined brawlers.
It’s time to stop the spin, and start talking seriousl, and in a bipartisan way, about a timetable to get out. If the objective facts on the ground and the ability of the Iraqi government forces to maintain order are our criteria for withdrawal, then we certainly aren’t getting any closer, and the 100 Americans a month we’re losing could increase very rapidly if things deteriorate further and we come out of our fortresses and try to do something about it.
It’s too late baby, now, it’s too late
Though we really did try to make it
Something inside has died and I can’t hide
And I just can’t fake it—Carole King
It’s time to stop the spin, and start talking seriousl, and in a bipartisan way, about a timetable to get out. If the objective facts on the ground and the ability of the Iraqi government forces to maintain order are our criteria for withdrawal, then we certainly aren’t getting any closer, and the 100 Americans a month we’re losing could increase very rapidly if things deteriorate further and we come out of our fortresses and try to do something about it.
It’s too late baby, now, it’s too late
Though we really did try to make it
Something inside has died and I can’t hide
And I just can’t fake it—Carole King
Olympic Rant
I can’t help it; I love to watch the Olympic competitions. That goes for the Winter games almost as much as the Summer ones. I wish I could say the same about our television production of the games, or about the organization of the games themselves.
My biggest beef with the games’ organization and their telecast is with the nationalistic slant of both. I abhor the obsession with “hardware”—the medal count by country is the worst example, but it goes on and on from there. Why is it a big deal if Bode Miller does not win a medal, or the U.S. only wins two medals in Alpine skiing? Bob Costas seems to blame Miller, or the U.S. ski team, if they don’t live up to the hype which he and his network had the principal role in creating. Lindsey Jacobellis becomes a national pariah because she tried a snowboarding trick and fell from gold to silver in her race. How do you think she feels about it? How do we shut him up?
I could not stomach the way that the network gave so much prominence to the feud between the U.S. speed skaters Chad Hedrick and Shani Davis. OK, they’re rivals and don’t really want to play together; maybe that’s what they had to do as part of their psychological motivation process. Who cares? It’s an individual sport, and basically one-on-one vs. the clock. Davis was clearly portrayed as The Bad Guy because he didn’t want to be in the relay and didn’t smile enough for the camera or wax poetic on the significance of being the “first African-American to win gold in the Winter games”: When he could have said, “gee, I guess it proves that cold weather doesn’t freeze our brains, after all!”
Think of how many events you saw (if you were watching American TV) when all you really saw were the Americans’ runs and that of the eventual winner. To give one silly example, the men’s 1500m speed skate event: the hype for days had been about the four American gold-medal winners facing off in the event. Then, the night of the telecast of the event, they showed in the preview the names of the four Americans, plus an Italian: I could tell at that moment who won the gold!
Too much money, too much cost—those are the excuses for all the nonsense. Without the huge network contract, and the national Olympic committees, we couldn’t have the pricey venues, the opening and closing spectaculars, etc.
I say, we can do without all that. Have the individual sport federations issue the invitations, as many as they can afford. The athletes should compete without flags and national anthems. The events should be broadcast live, then repeated in prime time if necessary. Close down the national organizing committees, and their stupid votes for future sites of the games. The venues should be Athens—every time—for summer, and some place that’s high enough and close enough to the poles that they can keep the winter games there every time, even 50 years from now when the polar icecaps are seasonal. And, please, get rid of that ridiculous short-track speed skating. That’s no sport: it’s a cross between roller derby and roulette.
There will still be plenty of glory for those who win, and for those who are heroic but don’t win. In the athletes’ home country, yes, but also everywhere else. That’s the Olympic way.
My biggest beef with the games’ organization and their telecast is with the nationalistic slant of both. I abhor the obsession with “hardware”—the medal count by country is the worst example, but it goes on and on from there. Why is it a big deal if Bode Miller does not win a medal, or the U.S. only wins two medals in Alpine skiing? Bob Costas seems to blame Miller, or the U.S. ski team, if they don’t live up to the hype which he and his network had the principal role in creating. Lindsey Jacobellis becomes a national pariah because she tried a snowboarding trick and fell from gold to silver in her race. How do you think she feels about it? How do we shut him up?
I could not stomach the way that the network gave so much prominence to the feud between the U.S. speed skaters Chad Hedrick and Shani Davis. OK, they’re rivals and don’t really want to play together; maybe that’s what they had to do as part of their psychological motivation process. Who cares? It’s an individual sport, and basically one-on-one vs. the clock. Davis was clearly portrayed as The Bad Guy because he didn’t want to be in the relay and didn’t smile enough for the camera or wax poetic on the significance of being the “first African-American to win gold in the Winter games”: When he could have said, “gee, I guess it proves that cold weather doesn’t freeze our brains, after all!”
Think of how many events you saw (if you were watching American TV) when all you really saw were the Americans’ runs and that of the eventual winner. To give one silly example, the men’s 1500m speed skate event: the hype for days had been about the four American gold-medal winners facing off in the event. Then, the night of the telecast of the event, they showed in the preview the names of the four Americans, plus an Italian: I could tell at that moment who won the gold!
Too much money, too much cost—those are the excuses for all the nonsense. Without the huge network contract, and the national Olympic committees, we couldn’t have the pricey venues, the opening and closing spectaculars, etc.
I say, we can do without all that. Have the individual sport federations issue the invitations, as many as they can afford. The athletes should compete without flags and national anthems. The events should be broadcast live, then repeated in prime time if necessary. Close down the national organizing committees, and their stupid votes for future sites of the games. The venues should be Athens—every time—for summer, and some place that’s high enough and close enough to the poles that they can keep the winter games there every time, even 50 years from now when the polar icecaps are seasonal. And, please, get rid of that ridiculous short-track speed skating. That’s no sport: it’s a cross between roller derby and roulette.
There will still be plenty of glory for those who win, and for those who are heroic but don’t win. In the athletes’ home country, yes, but also everywhere else. That’s the Olympic way.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
The First Fifteenth-Monthly Review
For the title, I was inspired by the First Third Bank, or whatever that inane name may be that I saw down in Florida. What, there were so many that wanted to be the Third Bank, there was some special honor in coming up with that third-rate name first?
We will aim to make this a monthly review of key developments of the month still recently past (though it is “so two weeks ago”). In doing so, we will aim once more at this blog's original mission of breadth between local and other levels, though just as one must admit the primacy of politics in human affairs (thank you, Aristotle, at least for that insight), one has to accept the focus on the US federal as the objective center of that interest, at least for a American citizen.
Hamas
I have been much troubled by the broad victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections. Among other things, I’ve been upset that I didn’t call it beforehand, publicly: it was there for the taking. The signs were clear, the most indicative being the rebellion over the Fatah official list by an upstart group. That kind of behavior tells you, this is a political organization that’s heading for a severe beating on election day. Also, when the guy who heads your list is serving a life sentence in a foreign prison; that could make it difficult to respond to a dynamic and unstable political environment.
All who accept basic principles of democracy must first acknowledge that the result is a legitimate, free choice, albeit conditioned by a variety of difficult local circumstances. Not only that, but a mature choice: there is every reason to think the Palestinian electorate chose the organization which has the greatest capability to address their aspirations. The issue of Palestinians' supporting Hamas at this juncture is entirely one of foreign affairs--including the group's support for the nasty practice of suicide bombing against Israeli civilians.
Hamas, for its part, is trying to be both a responsible player on the regional stage and true to its fundamentalist principles—in other words, trying to bridge an enormous chasm. Yasir’s death has taken the veil off the rot of the Fatah’s administration of the Palestinan “state”, such as Israel allows it to be. It now seems that Hamas may be a little reluctant to take operate the pseudopod "organs" of the pseudo-state headed by the Palestinian Authority, and would prefer to use its own channels to provide social services, its core strength area.
Readers here will note that, like yours truly, Hamas rejects the “two states” principle, so I think their ultimate recognition of the simple fact that Israel is an earthly reality that they can not imagine away (the minimum for US negotiation with them) will retain rejection of permanent separation as the ultimate goal. With that disavowal of Levantine Apartheid, I will have to agree! Further, I don’t think that stance is or should be a show-stopper for the US in its evaluation of Hamas’ status as a terrorist organization. That will depend whether the Hamas leaders can find reasons to extend the truce on suicide bombings and make it stick.
The situation is propitious for Hamas to wheel and deal, because their main alternative sponsor, other than the West, is Iran. This in itself will make the Bushites more cautious than they would normally in putting Hamas beyond the pale.
In the longer run, though, I don’t see the Hamas leaders being willing to drop their concept that the ultimate Palestinian state would be an Islamic one, thus leaving room for Jews and Christians to live among them with inferior status. Your basic non-starter for Israel, strategically, and it will essentially take Hamas out of any negotiations on "the roadmap", though not out of discussions on security, on Sharon's Wall, etc.
Thus, I think their historical role will be as the foil, to the renewed challenge that will come from those who would make a Palestinian unitary state more of a secular and modern one. That could even be a rejuvenated Fatah.
NSA Domestic Electronic Eavesdropping
Naturally, I feel this is much more important than something like, Who’s a Bram? When you talk about the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule, this is Ground Zero. (The Tyranny of Bushite Misrule, or “TBMR”, something like the banner the ancient Roman legions used to carry with "SPQR": I have a vision of our legions marching under that standard, of having it inscribed in public places built during the Bushite Era—the new levees in New Orleans?)
OK, I will grant that the unencrypted cellular transmissions were Out There, waiting to be harvested electronically. So, it’s not like they’re searching your drawers, your thoughts, or your public library book rental. All right, it is like that last one, which is also Out There, and which we got courtesy of the original-and-still-unmodified PATRIOT Act, particularly like it in the part about potentially providing utterly useless information by the firehose streamful.
The point is, the Bushites disregarded the law, and did it intentionally. They expected that their cloud of legal obfuscation would protect them when the secret got out. That turns out to be the easy part to sweep aside. The real questions are those of whether their act, despite being contrary to statute and legislative intent, is criminal; and whether the objections of convenience they have raised to following the legally-specified procedures merit any change in the law. Particularly since the Bushites didn't feel obligated to observe them in the first place.
Now we have Scooter Liddy (sorry, Libby) saying that Cheney told him he was “authorized by superiors” to go out there and get nasty with opponents of the Iraq war. Ever forward with the TBMR!
The New Mexico State Senate...
Has passed a statute allowing medicinal marijuana to be provided to those patients who can get proper medical support for the contention that their condition is one addressable with marijuana, the weed to be supplied by state-approved gardeners.
The White House sent a representative to tell them that they were getting it all wrong, that there is no medicinal need for the hooch, that the Supreme Court has backed the Feds’ right to crash the local party if it gets too wild. The legislators were not impressed, and they told him so-uh-uh-oh.
A lot of political hay has been laid up on the argument that medicinal marijuana is a Trojan horse, or a stalking horse, or some other kind of drug-bearing equine quadruped. The fact that acknowledged drug users might want their fellow humans to have the sweet relief of intoxication to ease their illness-driven pangs of discomfort does not seem to me to be an adequate argument to deny the sick their surcease. Still, the proponents have to lay down a firm line that this bill will not help “the dopers”.
If we consider Their side for a moment, "hypothetically" (as the pathetic legal BAG-man, Bram Alberto Gonzalez, said to Sen. Feingold), even stoners can figure out that there is a dog out there that needs to bark. Anything that can normalize the 1920's- era, Demon Weed/Reefer Madness concept that is underlying current law is a step in the right direction.
Update: the bill was tabled by a House Committee, to the delight of the state constabulary.
Bobby Duran, No Mas
In Taos, it appears to be a watershed election with political control truly at stake.
The key race is that for mayor. Though the mayor’s position has limited actual governing leverage beyond the ceremonial—basically as a Dick Cheney-type presiding-officer vote when the four-person council splits evenly—the identity of the person chosen to be the symbol of the town will here be very significant.
Bobby Duran, the mayor by appointment, represents the old regime, and his statements in the debate are full of defensive awareness of his association. If he were more astute as a politician, he would have a better alibi, as he has not been "in charge" (as the City Manager's office allows the elected mayor to claim) for so long. The problem is, he’s been around the whole time, so at least he’s complicit in the more egregious realities the town faces (excessive budget surplus with severe deficits in security, safety, transportation, and education).
Gene Sanchez is definitely the Clean Gene (in homage to the late Sen. McCarthy) candidate of the mayoral race; he narrowly won a council seat two years ago as an upstart and has stubbornly resisted co-optation. Which makes him “not a team player”. The amazing thing is that he has all the credentials of a typical local consensus-driven candidate: born and raised Taoseno of Hispanic descent, father a former mayor, long-time businessman, etc. His issue positions, from which he never strays, are responsible but not exciting. It's his willingness to declaim the reality of the local deal gone down with the city manager, the bureaucratic elite, and the local constabulary which makes him stimulating to those of us on the fringes, and unnerving to those at the center of local “power”.
The two city council seats up for election will provide a decisive local political force, if they are aligned with the winner of the mayoral race. There are seven candidates, and there are several possibilities, but it would seem to me that the seats will go to Darren Cordova and Rudy Abeyta. Cordova is a mover and shaker in the Hispanic majority community, and for those like me, he recently opened up Air America on AM radio. Abeyta seems a bit of a crypto-Republican (though not a Bushite), but he’s also the most articulate and direct of the candidates, almost beat Sanchez for the council seat two years ago, and has successfully moderated his positions.
The wild card is the upstart candidacy of a Czech-American realtor/developer, Pavel Lukes, who has campaigned aggressively and outspokenly. His presence in the race brings the local 600-pound gorilla into the campaign when it might not otherwise have done, that of real estate development and its implications for longer-term town planning. Though he supports Gene Sanchez implicitly, the polarization between the (still) majority against aggressive development and the modernizers which Lukes’ candidacy drives may hurt Sanchez in the election. This is the only real problem I have with Pavel: I agree with most of his positions, which he expresses more clearly than most.
Bottom line prediction is that Cordova and Abeyta will find it easy to line up with Gene Sanchez after he pulls off a narrow victory, which will lead to some dramatic changes in the local government. On the other hand, if Duran gets the OK for one more round, little will change no matter who wins the council posts.
Valle Vidal
There's a beautiful area near here by that name, part of the Carson National Forest, that has been the subject of an intense battle of words and evocative nature photography, pitting environmentalists against Bushites and their associated Brams. The area is an untouched natural mountain paradise, but the drilling fraternity has decided it might well contain large quantities of natural gas. So, like ANWR, the question is to drill or not to drill.
Also like ANWR, the feeling is that, once violated by the drillers, the pristine nature of the place will be gone forever. So, the effort of the environmentalists is not just to block immediate development, but to put it forever beyond the reach of the oilmen. Senator Bingaman, Gov. Richardson, and local Congressman Tom Udall have all endorsed that objective, though there is still some debate about the best tactics to achieve it. Sen. Domenici, who reliably votes as a Bram though always with some appropriate moralistic posturing, and moderate Republican Congresswoman Heather Wilson (facing a tough re-election challenge in her Albuquerque district this year) have both taken more nuanced positions. They love the spot, don't insist in tearing it up right away, but want to keep their options open.
Now comes news of a clever deal worked out between the gas drillers, El Paso Corp., the Vermejo Ranch owned by Ted Turner, and the federal Bureau of Land Management. Turner's ranch already has gas drilling, which supposedly has been done in a novel, exemplary manner to minimize the visual disruption of the gas drilling.
The plan now is to put new sites at the border of Turner's ranch and the National Forest land. That way, they can get at the gas believed under Valle Vidal without drilling in the National Forest itself. Because it is believed that gas will thus be taken from under the federal lands, royalties from these sites will be paid to the state and federal governments.
Some environmentalists have protested, cheated of what they saw as a sure political victory. I can't say that they have anything to bitch about, presuming that the solution is legal. Though I believe that leaving it in the ground is almost always wise for all concerned (the value can only increase), this seems to be a way to put the issue to rest more definitively (if it is combined with permanent protection for the National Forest land). The drillers will either get their gas, or they will satisfy themselves that there is none. The National Forest land should end up being preserved, and the sites themselves should be held to the same standard of being inobtrusive that prevails elsewhere on Vermejo.
We will aim to make this a monthly review of key developments of the month still recently past (though it is “so two weeks ago”). In doing so, we will aim once more at this blog's original mission of breadth between local and other levels, though just as one must admit the primacy of politics in human affairs (thank you, Aristotle, at least for that insight), one has to accept the focus on the US federal as the objective center of that interest, at least for a American citizen.
Hamas
I have been much troubled by the broad victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections. Among other things, I’ve been upset that I didn’t call it beforehand, publicly: it was there for the taking. The signs were clear, the most indicative being the rebellion over the Fatah official list by an upstart group. That kind of behavior tells you, this is a political organization that’s heading for a severe beating on election day. Also, when the guy who heads your list is serving a life sentence in a foreign prison; that could make it difficult to respond to a dynamic and unstable political environment.
All who accept basic principles of democracy must first acknowledge that the result is a legitimate, free choice, albeit conditioned by a variety of difficult local circumstances. Not only that, but a mature choice: there is every reason to think the Palestinian electorate chose the organization which has the greatest capability to address their aspirations. The issue of Palestinians' supporting Hamas at this juncture is entirely one of foreign affairs--including the group's support for the nasty practice of suicide bombing against Israeli civilians.
Hamas, for its part, is trying to be both a responsible player on the regional stage and true to its fundamentalist principles—in other words, trying to bridge an enormous chasm. Yasir’s death has taken the veil off the rot of the Fatah’s administration of the Palestinan “state”, such as Israel allows it to be. It now seems that Hamas may be a little reluctant to take operate the pseudopod "organs" of the pseudo-state headed by the Palestinian Authority, and would prefer to use its own channels to provide social services, its core strength area.
Readers here will note that, like yours truly, Hamas rejects the “two states” principle, so I think their ultimate recognition of the simple fact that Israel is an earthly reality that they can not imagine away (the minimum for US negotiation with them) will retain rejection of permanent separation as the ultimate goal. With that disavowal of Levantine Apartheid, I will have to agree! Further, I don’t think that stance is or should be a show-stopper for the US in its evaluation of Hamas’ status as a terrorist organization. That will depend whether the Hamas leaders can find reasons to extend the truce on suicide bombings and make it stick.
The situation is propitious for Hamas to wheel and deal, because their main alternative sponsor, other than the West, is Iran. This in itself will make the Bushites more cautious than they would normally in putting Hamas beyond the pale.
In the longer run, though, I don’t see the Hamas leaders being willing to drop their concept that the ultimate Palestinian state would be an Islamic one, thus leaving room for Jews and Christians to live among them with inferior status. Your basic non-starter for Israel, strategically, and it will essentially take Hamas out of any negotiations on "the roadmap", though not out of discussions on security, on Sharon's Wall, etc.
Thus, I think their historical role will be as the foil, to the renewed challenge that will come from those who would make a Palestinian unitary state more of a secular and modern one. That could even be a rejuvenated Fatah.
NSA Domestic Electronic Eavesdropping
Naturally, I feel this is much more important than something like, Who’s a Bram? When you talk about the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule, this is Ground Zero. (The Tyranny of Bushite Misrule, or “TBMR”, something like the banner the ancient Roman legions used to carry with "SPQR": I have a vision of our legions marching under that standard, of having it inscribed in public places built during the Bushite Era—the new levees in New Orleans?)
OK, I will grant that the unencrypted cellular transmissions were Out There, waiting to be harvested electronically. So, it’s not like they’re searching your drawers, your thoughts, or your public library book rental. All right, it is like that last one, which is also Out There, and which we got courtesy of the original-and-still-unmodified PATRIOT Act, particularly like it in the part about potentially providing utterly useless information by the firehose streamful.
The point is, the Bushites disregarded the law, and did it intentionally. They expected that their cloud of legal obfuscation would protect them when the secret got out. That turns out to be the easy part to sweep aside. The real questions are those of whether their act, despite being contrary to statute and legislative intent, is criminal; and whether the objections of convenience they have raised to following the legally-specified procedures merit any change in the law. Particularly since the Bushites didn't feel obligated to observe them in the first place.
Now we have Scooter Liddy (sorry, Libby) saying that Cheney told him he was “authorized by superiors” to go out there and get nasty with opponents of the Iraq war. Ever forward with the TBMR!
The New Mexico State Senate...
Has passed a statute allowing medicinal marijuana to be provided to those patients who can get proper medical support for the contention that their condition is one addressable with marijuana, the weed to be supplied by state-approved gardeners.
The White House sent a representative to tell them that they were getting it all wrong, that there is no medicinal need for the hooch, that the Supreme Court has backed the Feds’ right to crash the local party if it gets too wild. The legislators were not impressed, and they told him so-uh-uh-oh.
A lot of political hay has been laid up on the argument that medicinal marijuana is a Trojan horse, or a stalking horse, or some other kind of drug-bearing equine quadruped. The fact that acknowledged drug users might want their fellow humans to have the sweet relief of intoxication to ease their illness-driven pangs of discomfort does not seem to me to be an adequate argument to deny the sick their surcease. Still, the proponents have to lay down a firm line that this bill will not help “the dopers”.
If we consider Their side for a moment, "hypothetically" (as the pathetic legal BAG-man, Bram Alberto Gonzalez, said to Sen. Feingold), even stoners can figure out that there is a dog out there that needs to bark. Anything that can normalize the 1920's- era, Demon Weed/Reefer Madness concept that is underlying current law is a step in the right direction.
Update: the bill was tabled by a House Committee, to the delight of the state constabulary.
Bobby Duran, No Mas
In Taos, it appears to be a watershed election with political control truly at stake.
The key race is that for mayor. Though the mayor’s position has limited actual governing leverage beyond the ceremonial—basically as a Dick Cheney-type presiding-officer vote when the four-person council splits evenly—the identity of the person chosen to be the symbol of the town will here be very significant.
Bobby Duran, the mayor by appointment, represents the old regime, and his statements in the debate are full of defensive awareness of his association. If he were more astute as a politician, he would have a better alibi, as he has not been "in charge" (as the City Manager's office allows the elected mayor to claim) for so long. The problem is, he’s been around the whole time, so at least he’s complicit in the more egregious realities the town faces (excessive budget surplus with severe deficits in security, safety, transportation, and education).
Gene Sanchez is definitely the Clean Gene (in homage to the late Sen. McCarthy) candidate of the mayoral race; he narrowly won a council seat two years ago as an upstart and has stubbornly resisted co-optation. Which makes him “not a team player”. The amazing thing is that he has all the credentials of a typical local consensus-driven candidate: born and raised Taoseno of Hispanic descent, father a former mayor, long-time businessman, etc. His issue positions, from which he never strays, are responsible but not exciting. It's his willingness to declaim the reality of the local deal gone down with the city manager, the bureaucratic elite, and the local constabulary which makes him stimulating to those of us on the fringes, and unnerving to those at the center of local “power”.
The two city council seats up for election will provide a decisive local political force, if they are aligned with the winner of the mayoral race. There are seven candidates, and there are several possibilities, but it would seem to me that the seats will go to Darren Cordova and Rudy Abeyta. Cordova is a mover and shaker in the Hispanic majority community, and for those like me, he recently opened up Air America on AM radio. Abeyta seems a bit of a crypto-Republican (though not a Bushite), but he’s also the most articulate and direct of the candidates, almost beat Sanchez for the council seat two years ago, and has successfully moderated his positions.
The wild card is the upstart candidacy of a Czech-American realtor/developer, Pavel Lukes, who has campaigned aggressively and outspokenly. His presence in the race brings the local 600-pound gorilla into the campaign when it might not otherwise have done, that of real estate development and its implications for longer-term town planning. Though he supports Gene Sanchez implicitly, the polarization between the (still) majority against aggressive development and the modernizers which Lukes’ candidacy drives may hurt Sanchez in the election. This is the only real problem I have with Pavel: I agree with most of his positions, which he expresses more clearly than most.
Bottom line prediction is that Cordova and Abeyta will find it easy to line up with Gene Sanchez after he pulls off a narrow victory, which will lead to some dramatic changes in the local government. On the other hand, if Duran gets the OK for one more round, little will change no matter who wins the council posts.
Valle Vidal
There's a beautiful area near here by that name, part of the Carson National Forest, that has been the subject of an intense battle of words and evocative nature photography, pitting environmentalists against Bushites and their associated Brams. The area is an untouched natural mountain paradise, but the drilling fraternity has decided it might well contain large quantities of natural gas. So, like ANWR, the question is to drill or not to drill.
Also like ANWR, the feeling is that, once violated by the drillers, the pristine nature of the place will be gone forever. So, the effort of the environmentalists is not just to block immediate development, but to put it forever beyond the reach of the oilmen. Senator Bingaman, Gov. Richardson, and local Congressman Tom Udall have all endorsed that objective, though there is still some debate about the best tactics to achieve it. Sen. Domenici, who reliably votes as a Bram though always with some appropriate moralistic posturing, and moderate Republican Congresswoman Heather Wilson (facing a tough re-election challenge in her Albuquerque district this year) have both taken more nuanced positions. They love the spot, don't insist in tearing it up right away, but want to keep their options open.
Now comes news of a clever deal worked out between the gas drillers, El Paso Corp., the Vermejo Ranch owned by Ted Turner, and the federal Bureau of Land Management. Turner's ranch already has gas drilling, which supposedly has been done in a novel, exemplary manner to minimize the visual disruption of the gas drilling.
The plan now is to put new sites at the border of Turner's ranch and the National Forest land. That way, they can get at the gas believed under Valle Vidal without drilling in the National Forest itself. Because it is believed that gas will thus be taken from under the federal lands, royalties from these sites will be paid to the state and federal governments.
Some environmentalists have protested, cheated of what they saw as a sure political victory. I can't say that they have anything to bitch about, presuming that the solution is legal. Though I believe that leaving it in the ground is almost always wise for all concerned (the value can only increase), this seems to be a way to put the issue to rest more definitively (if it is combined with permanent protection for the National Forest land). The drillers will either get their gas, or they will satisfy themselves that there is none. The National Forest land should end up being preserved, and the sites themselves should be held to the same standard of being inobtrusive that prevails elsewhere on Vermejo.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Alitosis: This is What I said on Nov. 16
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
