|
|
March 13, 2002
Hey hey, kids! It's Moral
Hey hey, kids! It's Moral Idiocy Time! Check out the fellow who can't tell the difference between the current administration and al-Qaeda. Kuttner damns George W. Bush as some all-powerful overlord, able to implement every "reckless scheme" he comes up with, unopposed. The very fact of Kuttner's publication gives the lie to this fatuous argument. Before Bush was elected, his critics thought him ill-equipped, uninformed, and incapable. Now, he is suddenly in danger of becoming an all-powerful tyrant.
Attempting to create an equivalence between a president who serves at the pleasure of the electorate (say what you will about the first election--I guarantee you that the re-election won't be as close) and a group of terrorist thugs who serve at the pleasure of their psychopathic master and an imaginary God is the move of a sloppy thinker. Attempting to create an equivalence between the ill-fought war in Southeast Asia and the nascent struggle against stateless medieval terrorists who are seeking nuclear capability is the move of a dangerously ignorant sloppy thinker.
For some sense, read James Nuechterlein.
May 16, 2002
I just received a brief
I just received a brief second-hand note that, essentially, said the following: "See! Bush is an idiot! He had all these warnings and was so stupid he didn't do anything!"
This is, of course, in response to today's splashy headlines ("BUSH KNEW", "Justice Clarifies Ashcroft Threat," etc., so on and so forth.)
To which, I say the following:
Nonsense. Bush inherited a crippled, de-funded intelligence community from Bill "I Was Getting My Cock Sucked While American Embassies Were Being Bombed" Clinton.
Clinton was in charge when Marines were killed and dragged through the streets of Somalia in 1993. He did nothing. Clinton was in charge when al-Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. He did nothing. Clinton was in charge when the Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia were bombed in 1996. He did nothing. Clinton was in charge when the President of Sudan offered to arrest and extradite Osama bin Laden to the U.S. that same year and to provide us with intelligence information about Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, whose members included two of the 9/11 hijackers. He did nothing. Clinton was in charge when al-Qaeda blew up two American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. He did nothing--oh, excuse me, that's incorrect. He fired off some cruise missiles, and blew up some tents and a pharmaceutical factory. Now, to conclude the litany: Clinton was in charge when the USS Cole was bombed in 2000. He did nothing.
The Democrats controlled the House Intelligence Committee for a decade, and legislated intelligence budget reductions for every year of that time except 2000. Between 1990 and 1992 alone the intelligence budgets were reduced by nearly 20%. During the Clinton years, not a single Iran-desk chief could speak or read Persian. Not a single Near East Division chief knew Arabic, Persian or Turkish.
Clinton had all the information piling up on his desk for nearly his entire term. America was attacked five times during his presidency. What was he doing when terrorists blew up American Embassies in Africa, killing 245 and wounding 5,000? Getting sucked off in the Oval Office. What was he doing *after* that? Lying to the American people about getting sucked off in the Oval Office, and paralyzing the presidency by putting the entire country through an impeachment trial when he should have been figuring out how to defend us against the coming onslaught.
Clinton and his administration had eight years to react, and did nothing. Worse than nothing: he presided over the dismantling of the American intelligence infrastructure and put his own personal failings ahead of the welfare of the entire nation.
Bush had nine months. Since that time, he has destroyed the al-Qaeda infrastructure and deposed the Islamist regime that gave the terrorists succor. More will follow.
So, I say again: nonsense.
For a more complete (and far more ideologically rabid) indictment of the Clinton intelligence legacy, go here. (Although, be warned: like most Horowitzian screeds, this one is frustratingly short on sources. As in, he don't give none. But if you hunt you will find them. Have fun.)
May 17, 2002
Other, far wiser heads than
Other, far wiser heads than I weigh in on the "Bush Knew" nonstory. See Sullivan today, John Ellis yesterday (reference lifted from Sullivan). And, oh--Donald Rumsfeld. He's usually got some insight into this sort of thing:
"There's always been concerns about hijacking. That's been true for months and years as a possibility. Apparently the intelligence community, our intelligence community, the country's, did not have sufficient granularity to issue any specific warning. But I should say that through the spring and summer there was a great deal of threat reporting indicating on a variety of different things all over the world, but without any specificity as to what might happen."
'Nuff said. As far as it being "Clinton's fault," (see yesterday), Sullivan made roughly the same point as I did (with more finesse and less profanity): the man has an eight-year record of failing to properly assess the gravity of the al-Qaeda threat. Bush ordered a review of that situation and of our security posture, which was nearing completion on 9/11. That's more than Clinton did during his terms which (as mentioned) included eight years' worth of situation reports, five outright assaults on American military, civilian, and diplomatic targets, and an offer to extradite the man responsible for some of those attacks and, eventually, the 9/11 attacks.
Another squeal heard, a little
Another squeal heard, a little less loudly, is "Ashcroft Knew!" However, by paying some slight attention to the content of the newspaper articles about Ashcroft's flight arrangements, it will be discovered by all but the most obdurate that the FBI's threat assessment was related to personal threats against his safety. This can be found by actually reading the CBS news piece from July 26, 2001, as well as yesterday's statement by the Justice Department.
Given the fact that Ashcroft is, if anything, more hated than Bush, and that no other Cabinet members were advised to travel by private jet, the conflation of this nonstory with the '9/11 warning' nonstory can safely be ascribed to prejudicial thinking.
The most interesting thing to
The most interesting thing to me about this NYT article is not that Bush had an options plan for eliminating Osama bin Laden on his desk September 10, but this line:
"House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., posed a variation on the famous Watergate-era question: What did the president know and when did he know it?"
So, the esteemed Representative Gephardt wishes to draw a parallel between Watergate and September 11.
Ugh. I can’t write anymore about this; the barrel is full of dead fish and they’re starting to stink.
May 20, 2002
The 9/11 warning 'nonstory' has
The 9/11 warning 'nonstory' has apparently persisted long enough for Andrew Sullivan to be forced into more commentary this morning. He, along with William Safire and Democratic Representative Timothy Roemer, is right to call for an investigation into the 'nonfeasance' (Safire's term) of both the Clinton and Bush administrations. What I strongly disagree with is the assertion (as discussed with readers in private) that it is somehow only the Bush administration's 'incompetence' that needs to be investigated. The idea that it is solely the dropping of the intelligence ball by the current administration that must bear the blame for September 11 is demonstrably false and unsupported by the record.
Read More...
A reader calls my attention
A reader calls my attention to this LA Times report on today's suicide bombing in Netanya, and to this bit in particular:
"Israeli security forces received a warning shortly before 4 p.m. that a suicide bomber had left the West Bank town of Tulkarm, heading for Israel's heavily populated coastal plain on what is the first day of the workweek for Israelis. A massive manhunt was launched in several cities, including Netanya.
But it was too late."
My correspondent wants to know:
Even with that type of specific intelligence, the Israelis couldn't prevent the attack. How can anyone possibly argue that with the non-specific type of intelligence "chatter" the Bush administration recieved prior to Sept. 11, there is any way those attacks could have been prevented either?
A good, practical point. Once all the political hay has been made, we are still left with that question.
May 21, 2002
More noodle-brained horseshit from Europe.
More noodle-brained horseshit from Europe. Bush is apparently going to use an address at the Reichstag in Germany to push for war against Sadaam Hussein (I may get my burnt deserts yet!). Listen to this mealy-mouthed idiocy:
"'That is not the way we do politics,' said Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, who will greet Mr Bush at the Reichstag, but whose Green Party will take part in the anti-US demonstrations."
Ya, ya--the vay vee do politiks ist mit stormtroopers, blitzkriegs und ovens.
I do believe that when we have to supply the bulk of the military assets for a future NATO-style alliance against, say, Chinese attacks from the moon, we'll just leave Germany to fend for itself.
And:
"According to a poll published by Der Spiegel magazine yesterday, 65 per cent of Germans believe that the United States is pursuing its own national interests by taking part in or planning wars around the world."
Look out, Helmut! America is pursuing its own national interests! Maybe that's because somebody tried to blow up the Pentagon and knocked down a couple of buildings in New York. Remind me to protest the next time Germany does something in its own national interest.
May 24, 2002
Read President Bush's speech to
Read President Bush's speech to the Bundestag, given yesterday, here. The sweet spot:
The evil that has formed against us has been termed the "new totalitarian threat." The authors of terror are seeking nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Regimes that sponsor terror are developing these weapons and the missiles to deliver them. If these regimes and their terrorist allies were to perfect these capabilities, no inner voice of reason, no hint of conscience would prevent their use.
Wishful thinking might bring comfort, but not security. Call this a strategic challenge; call it, as I do, axis of evil; call it by any name you choose, but let us speak the truth.
Peggy Noonan calls that bit "deft" in her take on the speech. I think she's right. Don't like the words "axis of evil"? Call it what you like. But don't ignore the reality of the threat by poking your head into semantic sand.
The Guardian (U.K.), with typically blinkered prose, reports mainly on the "protests" and "jeers" which supposedly greeted Bush inside and outside of the Reichstag. While making sure to report that at one point during the speech "MPs from the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS), the successor movement to the East German communist party, unfurled a banner with the words: "Mr Bush and Mr Schröder, stop your wars," they neglect to mention that "There were shouts of disapproval from other members as the banner was wrestled from them," as reported by the Telegraph (also U.K.). The Telegraph declared the speech "forceful and accomodating" and "a defining speech that won a standing ovation from the Bundestag." On the 21st, the Times of London reminded Europe both of its decline and of the repeated military largesse bestowed upon it by the United States. In the context of declaring the death of NATO, Charles Krauthammer explains the European forgetfulness in today's Washington Post:
"For a continent that for 500 years ruled the world, this impotence is difficult to accept. It helps explain Europe's petulant complaints about American 'arrogance' and 'unilateralism.'"
So true. And, reflecting a point I've made elsewhere on these pages:
"Toward the end of the Cold War, they made the conscious, near-continental decision to radically reduce their military forces and turn inward in order to build 'Europe.' They slashed defense spending and essentially demobilized. It was a perfectly reasonable response to the end of the Soviet threat. [...] should we be hectoring them to reverse that, to divert money from their cherished welfare states to their militaries?"
The truth is, militarily we don't need Europe to fight this war. But their reluctance to voice support for it, and the strong current of anti-American sentiment that repeatedly finds expression through their media and their politicians, is worse that petulant: it's downright ungrateful. Where would Europe be without the intervention of the United States 50 years ago? Certainly not debating about how best to insure universal health care for its citizens, or experimenting with the mono-government of the European Union. France needs to recall that it was only timely work by their intelligence services that prevented an Algerian terrorist group from flying an airliner into the Eiffel Tower in 1994, and stopped a plan to bomb Strasborg cathedral in 2000. Their luck won't hold forever. Germany should remember that a terrorist cell operating out of their country provided personnel and assistance to the September 11 operation. When they crack down on the cells that have heretofore found relatively safe haven within their borders, they, too, will become targets.
As President Bush recited:
"Those who despise human freedom will attack it on every continent. Those who seek missiles and terrible weapons are also familiar with the map of Europe. Like the threats of another era, this threat cannot be appeased and cannot be ignored."
Hopefully, it will not take a European version of September 11 to remind the Continent of its debt to America and its responsibility to its citizenry and the world.
May 27, 2002
For the record, I like
For the record, I like my crow well-done, with maybe some roasted potatoes and a good Chardonnay. Technically, crow wants a red, but I prefer white. Red wine makes me sneeze.
During all of my recent defenses of Bush’s security record, and my trashing of Clinton’s, I forgot one important thing: I don't know what I'm talking about. The complexities of the issues involved in intelligence gathering and the execution of actions based on that intelligence were brought home to me when I came across the following articles during further research:
The Washington Post: "Broad Effort Launched After '98 Attacks." This article outlines Clinton’s efforts to kill bin Laden after the '98 embassy bombings. Although the strategy of focusing so much effort on going after bin Laden personally may be questionable, it is not true that Clinton "did nothing" as I so brashly asserted last week. There were submarines! And remote-controlled hunter-killer drones!
The Washington Post: "A Strategy's Cautious Evolution." Outlines the changes in security policy after Bush took office. It doesn't reflect very well on the new administration's priorities or its ability to appreciate just how cool a hunter-killer drone really is.
The American Prospect: "Softer on Terrorism?" Makes short work of the "Clinton had eight years to solve this problem" argument.
All of these articles far surpass in research and quality of argument anything that I have produced, or could hope to produce, on the subject.
In short, it was presumptuous of me to speak out with such seeming authority on these issues. My reach clearly exceeded my grasp. While it will be of historical import to argue about which administration was the party to greater nonfeasance, the fact is that neither one reacted in time to prevent the attacks of September 11. The security and safety of the country are now the responsibility of the Bush Administration.
For what it’s worth: they’d better get their act together.
June 25, 2002
I know I promised to
I know I promised to (more or less) stay out of politics, but Bush made with the Big Big Words yesterday, so go read it if'n you didn't hear it.
My analysis:
He told the Palestinians: you've been pawns for decades. Straighten up and fly right and we'll help you out.
He told the Syrians: you've supported terrorism for decades. Straighten up and fly right or we'll kick your ass.
He told the Israelis: Bad nascent state. Bad! Be nice.
That's pretty much it.
July 02, 2002
What's the difference between Martha
What's the difference between Martha Stewart concentrating on her salad and George Bush concentrating on his war?
Everywhere I read, silence on this.
I'm not saying Krugman is right, because I don't know about such things, but I'd sure like to hear somebody say something about it. A well-reasoned refutation would be most welcome.
July 09, 2002
I started out the day
I started out the day somewhat perked up...methinks chemicals in my brain are shifting, because things were not appreciably different this morning than they were just last night...but who can tell. I pay too much attention to ephemeral flitting moods. In any event, I've spent the day staring into a computer monitor and reindexing dull, dull, desperately dull material, and am now on the tail end of a coffee-buzz with the ass of the day in my face. Ah well.
President Bush was in my neck of the woods today, although my personal awareness of him was limited to a chorus of wailing sirens at lunchtime, indicating that he was On The Move. Apparently he was here to urge Big Bad Corporate Bloodsucking CEOs to stop being being Big Bad Corporate Bloodsucking CEOs. There were some specifics...and that ubiquitous call for "higher ethical standards." All very well and good, especially for the President, who was able to operate when said standards were much lower and is thus fit to lead us in the charge towards a new standard of fiscal morality. I would guess that he's recovered from those ethically dubious financial lapses the same way he recovered from his alcoholism: with the help of God, the passing of youth, and the recognition of responsibility.
It must be said, though, that you don't get to stay drunk after you've quit drinking...
July 10, 2002
Um...yeah. As much as I
Um...yeah. As much as I hate to even entertain the beginnings of an inkling about admitting it, MoDo may actually have a point today. Not the part about the degree of ethical malfeasance being somehow dependent upon the number of dollars packed into a sack, slung over the shoulder, and ridden off into the hills with ("His [Bush's] $848,560 stock cash-in made Hillary, the Cattle Queen of commodities trading, look like a piker for only taking home $100,000." Yeah, whatever, Mo). The part about obliviousness. Gotta admit, George: doesn't look good. It's the appearance thing. Gotta get that right.
Sure, there is important stuff going on right now: much more important, to be honest, than a shady stock deal over a decade old. But I want George in the driver's seat to take care of said important stuff. That means getting re-elected. So don't blow it, mmkay? Don't let this look like something it isn't--and if it is what it isn't, then figure out a way to come clean without lying your ass off or acting like a...well, a snobby, rich jerk.
July 16, 2002
I love this. It concerns
I love this. It concerns a "stock lockout letter" that Bush signed in April of 1990, agreeing to delay sale of his Harken Energy Corporation stock until at least six months following a planned public offering of that stock. Bush sold his shares two months later.
Even though that public stock offering never happened, even though such letters are often formalities, the claim of a single Houston attorney seems to make this into an "item" of some sort. The lawyer, Thomas R. Ajamie, is part of a firm that is currently advising companies that did business with Enron, and in the past has represented shareholders in stock fraud cases. And, whoops! Among the clients of Schirrmeister Ajamie, LLP is a little company called Halliburton. Which means nothing in and of itself, of course. The site doesn't say what the firm did for Halliburton or when. But it is interesting that Ajamie is trying to skewer Bush while his firm has represented the company that's giving Cheney such headaches at the moment.
According to Ajamie's bio,
"He is sought after as an authority by the media and has been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, BusinessWeek, Newsweek, Texas Lawyer, Houston Business Journal, and in the book FOOLS' GOLD: THE MAKING OF A GLOBAL MARKET FRAUD."
Just so.
But wait! Carr Bettis, an Associate Research Professor in Arizona State University's Finance Department and an expert on insider trading, is quoted as saying that stock lockout letters are no big deal--executives can get permission to sell even after signing such letters. Certainly, the mere fact that Bush signed one and then sold his shares does not constitute an ethical lapse, which seems to be the suggestion raised by whoever is waving that particular piece of paper around. According to Bettis' bio,
"He is frequently cited as an academic and industry expert on insider trading in popular business press such as the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Smart Money, Dallas Morning News, The Economist, CNN, CNN-fn and CNBC, MSN/Money, and ThomsonFN.com."
So, take your pick. A lawyer who represents shareholders in stock fraud cases while working for a firm associated with Halliburton or an academic economist tucked away in the desert.
All of this quoting and hemming and hawing gets especially funny when you know that Bush sold his stock for $4 a share on June 22, 1990, and that the stock price rose to over $8 a share in 1991. So, even though he sold before the stock dipped to $2 at the end of 1990, if had waited a bit he could have cleared $1.6 million. Surely a savvy insider would have known that, don't you think?
I'm beginning to fail to see the problem, here.
July 17, 2002
From today's Washington Post: "'I've
From today's Washington Post:
"'I've always thought that he's run by big money and that we'd have problems with big business if he won, and now we have them," said Richard Portmann, 65, a retired college instructor who lives in Fergus Falls, Minn. "I think we've got good enough laws to get them if we really want to. But I don't think Bush wants to.'"
I certainly hope that Mr. Portmann wasn't a professor of logic. He seems unaware of the fact that the accounting abuses in question began during the terms of the previous President. Repeat after me, Richard: coincidence is not causality... coincidence is not causality... coincidence is not causality...
However, it does seem that, by and large, the country is keeping this in perspective. Folks think that better enforcement of existing laws is the answer, rather than the creation of a slew of new regulations. They think that Bush has flubbed this one to a certain extent, but that he's still worth their trust. They also think there's more important stuff going on at the moment, like bringing down the hammerfist of righteous American fury upon our enemies and turning them into fig paste. Way to prioritize, America! Woo-hoo! They're also in favor of throwing thieving multimillionaires in jail, putting their immediate family to work in the fast food industry, and taking all their stuff and giving it to Gary Coleman.
August 07, 2002
Quoth Bush the Younger: "For
Quoth Bush the Younger:
"For those who yearn for peace in the Middle East, for those in the Arab lands, for those in Europe, for those all around the world who yearn for peace, we must do everything we possibly can to stop the terror...I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive."
Papers are full of various tut-tuts today. Newsday reports that Bush "did not even pause for a breath" as he told reporters to observe his shot. In a column about Al Gore that I unexpectedly and wholeheartedly agree with, MoDo pauses to sarcastically note Bush's "sensitivity." Even the Pro Golf Association's website duly reports the President's "smirk." Many outlets made sure to mention that White House advisors "pleaded" with him not to "look like he was on a golf course" when he was there last month.
But I laughed aloud when I saw the footage--on Entertainment Tonight, no less. Why? Because it was funny. Here's the President of the United States, calling strongly and sternly upon the nations of the earth to stop heinous, evil acts. But he's on a golf course. He knows he's on a golf course. What no account reported is that he used the same Presidential Tone to direct the reporters' attention to his swing. He wasn't trying to pretend he was somewhere else, or not doing what he was doing. He was well aware of the absurdity of the situation.
Crass? Maybe.
But funny.
September 27, 2002
From Drudge, we hear the
From Drudge, we hear the welcome news that we now have the permission of Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg to go to war with Iraq. That's crucial, because a little-known amendment to the Constitution indicates that no military action may be taken by the United States without the explicit approval of Mr. Cruise and Mr. Spielberg and the provision of imported sparkling water for their staffs.
On the other hand, intelligence maven Barbra Streisand apparently has extensive evidence that Iraq was in no way involved with the destruction of the World Trade Center. Furthermore, she holds exhaustive dossiers on the corrupting influence of several obviously evil industries on the Bush administration. She also watches The West Wing every week.
I pity Dick Gephardt, caught between the constitutionally-mandated powers of the Cruise-Spielberg dyad and Streisand, widely regarded as the most down-and-dirty information monger since J. Edgar Hoover. She's already taken a swipe at him by cagily revealing that at the beginning of his political career he changed his name from the mushy mouth-feel of "Gebhardt" to the more assertive and electable "Gephardt." He'll have to pick sides carefully: Cruise abd Spielberg might end his political career, but if he's into into pederasty, self-flagellation or some other perverted activity, Streisand could make things very ugly for him.
Developing...
October 08, 2002
A short sampling of online
A short sampling of online homepage leads covering Bush's speech last night in Cincinnati:
The New York Times
Stern Tones, Direct Appeal
"The long list of demands that the president laid out in a purposeful speech set a very tough standard for avoiding war."
Typical. In Raines' World, the speech was about "avoiding war" instead of "avoiding a million incinerated Americans."
The Washington Post
Bush Targets Doubtful Public
"President offers a lawyerly refutation of many doubts Americans have about a confrontation with Iraq."
Hmm. I'm not sure that "target" is the appropriate word to use in this context.
The Los Angeles Times
Bush Tells Nation the Iraq Threat 'Is Simply Too Great'
"Warning that Iraq 'stands alone' as a threat to America because 'it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place,' the president seeks to answer skeptics."
I thought there was much more answering than seeking going on in the speech, but that's just me.
The Guardian (U.K.)
America's great misleader
"Bush's arguments strain the limits of plausibility to justify war on Iraq, and this, says Simon Tisdall, means regime change is imperative - in Washington."
I...oh, why bother.
In related news, the official count of World Trade Center massacre victims has dropped to 2,797. It turns out that Maria Bengochea of Manhattan, Nikola Lampley of Brooklyn, and Germaan Castillo Garcia, also of Brooklyn, aren't actually dead.
October 16, 2002
AL BUSAYYAH, Iraq, Oct. 16--
AL BUSAYYAH, Iraq, Oct. 16--
Residents of this small town in southern Iraq's Al Muthanna province were startled to hear of Iraqi President Sadaam Hussein's unanimous victory in yesterday's referendum.
"We were confused by the ballot," said 54-year old Abdul Majid Janabi. "So many of us mistakenly cast our ballots for Al Gore."
Anticipating war, Mr. Janabi and his neighbors have spent the past six months educating themselves about the American system of government. "We wanted to better understand our enemy," he explained. "But gradually, we came to realize that the Americans had a pretty good idea." The students of democracy were particularly taken with the idea of a 'write-in candidate.'
When the referendum was announced, they decided to apply their knowledge. "We knew that your Democrats David Bonior and Jim McDermott had been to Baghdad, and were guests of Sadaam," said Kamil Najaf, 38, grocer and neighbor of Mr. Janabi. "And we also knew of the difficulty that the Democratic leader, Al-gore, had when our enemy Bush took over the American government by coup. So we thought that we would assist him by voting for him here."
Mr. Janabi and Mr. Najaf both admit to being unsure about the exact nature of the American voting process. "We assumed that a ballot was a ballot," said Janabi. "We felt that we could support Sadaam by expressing support for his American guests and their defeated leader. The enemy of our enemy is our friend, yes?"
"Apparently, this is not how the ballot works here in Iraq," added Mr. Najaf.
As of this morning, neither Mr. Janabi nor Mr. Najaf could be located for further comment, and Al Busayah has been quarantined by Iraqi defense forces due to a sudden virulent outbreak of hoof-and-mouth disease in the region's goat herds.
October 30, 2002
Sullivan writes a bit about the "loony left" in today's Salon, marking the first time in several months that I've found something worth a read on the pages of that penny-stock online rag. He focuses on journalism professor Michael Niman's I'm- not- saying- Wellstone- was- murdered- but- if- he- was- it- was- by- the- thuggish- unelected- Bushite- regime- and- we- need- to- know theory, which he characterizes as "perfectly within the orbit of respectable left-wing opinion."
I myself get hives and twitches every time I venture forth into the label-laden minefield of contemporary American politics, but--because the universe revolves around me--Sullivan's miniature snarkfest reminded me once again of Harriet the Chomskyite Winery Woman. Sullivan makes no attempt to refute Niman's wackiness, but that's sort of the point: it's Self-refuting Wackiness (plus, if you act now, get a free 64-ounce tub of easy-to-apply Conspiratorial Blathering!).
Nevertheless, this sort of thing drives me loopy. I feel like something ought to be done about such nonsense-spouters, which is probably a character flaw. They need to be grabbed by the shoulders and shaken like a red-haired stepchild until something snaps in their brains and the light of reason illuminates the wacky recesses of their thinking. But I was so saturated with the Very Progressive Worldview that inundated each and every academic institution I attended that a small voice continually peeps up and chides, Well what is 'reason,' anyway? Who are you to go about shaking people and snapping their brains, hmmm?
I'd retreat into Socratic interlocution--a solid, worthy method and a redoubt of rationality--but, to be honest, I just can't maintain the fiction. The dirty-footed Athenian gadfly steadfastly maintained his ignorance, and sought the truth of a given position by posing questions designed to expose the flaw of the argument, all the while seeking to be taught. I thought of his pug-nosed methods when I came across this random bit of fluff--ostensibly a discussion about shrinking liberties in America--in which one participant dances, bobs and weaves, tossing little packages of dung onto the mat labeled "America is fascist" while rhetorically directing attention elsewhere, never quite saying what his position is. But that position is plainly visible: America is morally corrupt and terrorism is a direct result of the American worldview, which is "power for the few and suffering and labor for the many." All of the arguments stem from this apparent axiom, yet they are so couched in florid turns of phrase and distracting rhetorical fillips that I can say, with near-total certainty, that any attempt at some semblance of Socratic dialogue would be completely, utterly pointless. Not to mention annoying. I don't have the patience to undergo the process, which, admittedly, would probably be instructive, if only in a methodological sense.
Because of this sort of thinking, I've been accused of being arrogant, condescending, and an ass, all of which have probably been true at one time or another. It's a mistake, or at least the foundation of neurosis, to grapple with the problem of how to engage such firmly-rooted ideologues while regarding the goal of such engagement as a dialectical confrontation with the inherent wackiness of the ideology in question. Even if properly done, such engagement is, unfortunately, not something suited to my current temperament, although that could change as the medications kick in.
I think it must offend my sense of order in the world: to know that there are Harriets and Nimans out there, spinning their fluffy ideas like tasty nutrient-deficient cotton candy, getting everything all pink and blue and sticky with wackiness; knowing, also, that there's really nothing I can do to prevent it that doesn't involve the Gestapo or something like it. We certainly can't have that, so I'm left with a sense of frustration and the vague hope that someone else will take care of it, or that events will simply smack people in the head and convince them through the sheer, unavoidable force of reality.
And there's that little, irritating, sophomoric voice again: Yeah, but what's reality?
I've always said that if I ever have a conversation in bar that degenerates to the point where someone poses that question, I will drain whatever beer I'm drinking, and smash the bottle upon the head of the questioner. That's reality, I will say to them.
And the light of reason will dawn as they slump to the floor.
But that's just a fascist fantasy of mine, I guess.
November 11, 2002
Mmmm...barrelled fish for breakfast.
Bill Moyers is at it again:
Way back in the 1950's when I first tasted politics and journalism, Republicans briefly controlled the White House and Congress.
Oh no! I assume you just kept chewing, because you're still at the buffet.
With the exception of Joseph McCarthy and his vicious ilk, they were a reasonable lot, presided over by that giant war hero, Dwight Eisenhower, who was conservative by temperament and moderate in the use of power.
Yeah. Good thing there weren't actually any Communists anywhere within the federal government. And if there were, that would've been OK, too. It's not like Communists were ideologically committed to the destruction of American society or anything.
That brand of Republican is gone. And for the first time in the memory of anyone alive, the entire federal government — the Congress, the Executive, the Judiciary — is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate.
Say, didn't we have one of those election-thingies recently? Where people, like, voted, and kicked some people out of office and stuff?
That mandate includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives.
Uh-oh. I'm sure W. will destroy all chance for his re-election and squander the entirety of his political capital on that issue. Maybe he's a dumb-ass after all, despite having gained control of the federal government.
It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich.
Funny, my taxes went down last year. I must be rich! Are you rich, Bill?
It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable.
Yeah, I wish that we had Clinton back in office, so he could do things like carefully manage our nation's forests so that they all burn to the ground. Now that's environmentalism!
And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine.
Thank God we have your mighty imagination, Bill! Penetrate the veil for us! Shed the light of truth upon our scaled eyes!
Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life.
Unlike, say, Democratic judges, who are appointed for life but have no discernible political agenda.
If you liked the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's coming.
*Thud.*
And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture.
Look out! The big Boogey-God-Man! And, by the way--if the Rapture came, all the God-folks that you're so freaked out about would *poof* ascend to heaven, thus solving your problem. So I'd hope for that, if I were you. That's the trouble with you knee-jerk atheist-types: you don't know jack shit about Western religion. Makes you sound kind of goofy when you talk about it.
These folks don't even mind you referring to the GOP as the party of God.
One of the many right-wing Republicans you hang out with must have told you that.
Why else would the new House Majority Leader say that the Almighty is using him to promote 'a Biblical worldview' in American politics?
Maybe it's because he represents that portion of the American citizenry that has a "Biblical worldview." Poor, misguided citizenry!
So it is a heady time in Washington — a heady time for piety, profits, and military power, all joined at the hip by ideology and money.
As opposed to a heady time for wickedness, loss, and flaccid weakness, all joined at the hip by no discernable arrangement of principles and a system of barter using livestock and produce? Is that preferable? What's your point here, Bill?
Don't forget the money. It came pouring into this election, to both parties, from corporate America and others who expect the payback. Republicans outraised democrats by $184 million dollars.
Huh. I thought that the purity of the Democratic party prevented it from raising money from corporate America or anyone else who expects "the payback." I mean, that would be wrong. Does this mean that the Democrats are $184 million less corrupt?
And came up with the big prize — monopoly control of the American government, and the power of the state to turn their ideology into the law of the land. Quite a bargain at any price.
Sure is. It's a shame that all of the voters who made this choice are daft, deluded dupes of the Massive Right Wing Conspiracy, unable to see that they have created hell on earth for all of us.
That's it for this week.
You mean there will be more next week? Huzzah.
For NOW, I'm Bill Moyers.
Who will you be LATER?
All together now: shut up, Bill!
December 03, 2002
Some days, outrage flows easily, as though from a tapped vein. Other days, I'm just...tired.
There's a pedestrian pathway that runs along the South side of Ground Zero, between the edge of the pit itself and the crippled DeutscheBank building, still draped in a black shroud, still abandoned over a year after the massacre. The pathway itself is largely covered by scaffolding, and the side of the scaffolding that faces the DeutscheBank building has been boarded up with plywood. Over the past few months, visitors from around the country and around the world have written on that plywood. I've seen messages from the U.K., Australia, Germany, Ireland, and Eastern Europe, from members of our armed service and from fire departments across America. Nearly every one of these writings expresses unconditional love and support. There is the occassional attempt at critical expression--one reads, "No war anywhere will rebuild," printed over a stubby drawing of the two towers. To which I respond, well, duh. That's sort of completely and utterly not the point.
There are a few other expressions af anti-war sentiment as well, many of which are perfectly respectable. There's one that uses the word PEACE as a kind of acrostic, and I don't mind that one, because the words the author used convey a kind of regretful sadness, rather than pedantic accusation.
Then there's the big scribble I saw yesterday, high up along one of the panels, in 2-inch black block lettering: BLAME BUSH. REPUBLICANS FAULT.
Ignoring for a moment the author's apparent unfamiliarity with the concept of the apostrophe, I must ask: where do these people come from? What sort of thumb-sucking dolt feels the need, when confronted with a wall full of support and sympathy that is literally one hundred and fifty feet long and ten feet high, to inscribe such a fatuous, pointless declaration of their own stupidity? It's not the simpleton partisanship that offends me; I would be just as irked if the cretin had written BLAME CLINTON. DEMOCRATZ FAULT.
On the other hand, there's an amusing side to this...somewhere out there, this thick-witted troglodyte scribbler is still furrowing his brow in a vain attempt to understand how the REPUBLICANS gained control of the House and Senate last month, and deciding that it must be that whole oil industry thing. He'll wait with eager anticipation for the inevitable scandal that will erupt next year when it's revealed that hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraqi oil profits are going directly to Dick Cheney! And, when that doesn't happen, he'll decide that it's that whole conservative censorship of the media thing, and so on. Always with the furrowed brow, always the utter failure to make sense of the world as it exists beyond his wall of certainty, his fortress of How It Is.
OK, that's all. The vein is tapped out. Now: coffee, and perhaps a nice, semi-stale danish-style fruit-gel cake-thing.
January 29, 2003
Welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, well.
Vast differences of opinion are to be had about the luvly SOTU, it seems, and of course upon sleeping a bit my opinion has ripened, all cheese-like.
Sullivan is rhapsodic, but we sort of expect that because he does like the perpetually underestimated Mr. Bush, doesn't he? He also has more of a personal stake in the effort to combat HIV in Africa, and it resonated strongly with him. Sullivan was right to label the domestic bits "immensely expensive and clearly liable to saddle us with at least another decade of deficit spending," but he was also right to take note of the ambitious nature of the goals set forth in the speech.
Den Beste, on the other hand, is in the depths of a miserable chocolate binge, apoplectic with disappointment:
"That's it? Consultation with allies? More horseshit in the UN building? That's the grand plan?"
A case, perhaps, of overestimating President. Den Beste is a smart fellow, and most things he's said about this war--how to do it, when to do it, why to do it--make bushels of sense. Unfortunately: he's not the President.
Green is, well, drunk. But he can stay up much later than I can, and can drink more, too. More power to him.
Lileks--who has been jumpy lately, like me--has the best sarcastic dismissal of loopy conspiracy theorists who oppose the Evil Lord Bush and his Imperialist Minions of Doom and object to the idea that we're going to help the Iraqis out:
"Yes, yes, yes, Hitler told the Austrians he was liberating them, Soviet Russia said the same to Eastern European nations, it's all about oil, Bush is stupid, Sean Penn should have Rumsfeld's job, and construction on that Afghan pipeline starts ANY DAY NOW."
The well-adjusted folks at Warblogger Watch have nothing to say about SOTU, but are content to amuse themselves by poking sticks at Reynolds.
Which is, pretty much, what President Bush did to the UN last night:
"In all of these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process — it is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world."
The bold-type is mine, but the President did put the word in bold himself when he said it, which made me chortle. It was a big thumb in the eyeball of the bureauweeniecrats while going ehhhhhh! in an annoying Gilbert Godfrey voice.
Meanwhile, over at the NYT, Thomas Friedman pretends to be an Arab, and does a really poor job of it, too. Maureen Dowd does an excellent job of being MoDo, which means that she can dismissively call dismissive comments dismissive with a simpleton's abandon while claiming to speak for the entire Union and suggesting that planting "Athenian democracy on Mesopotamian soil" is a bad thing, not to be attempted. Mr. Raines serves up...well, not much, to be honest. Tax cut for the wealthy, radical right-wing economics, Bush's passion "reserved" for the topic of Iraq (which is just flat-out wrong), broad international support Good, unilateralism Bad, and so on.
Alterman thinks it's all about Corporate America, and essentially says that "I'm not saying that Bush is stupid--but here's Paul Krugman saying it for me." He stands with General Schwartzkopf and A Bunch Of Really Smart People Who Know About Science And Economics in his skepticism of the war effort. He also points out that the International Atomic Energy Commission has not confirmed any resumption of Iraq's nuclear weapons program, which is hearty fare if you happen to think that the IAEC is a highly effective organization that has our best interests in mind. [And it now seems that Schwartzkopf isn't quite as "unconvinced" as Alterman would have us believe. No mention of this, of course. --IW]
I, for one, am somewhere between the cocoamatose Den Beste and the choked-up Sullivan. I wanted a bit more oomph! on Iraq, but I'm content (for now) to let the diplomatic portion of the effort play itself out to the bitter end. I'm all for the ambitious domestic goals, but I would like to see a bit more honest acknowledgement that we're spending ourselves into the red here, especially since certain homeland security measures are being scrapped because of their expense.
So, I'm pretty much back where I was on Monday night. Sigh...
January 30, 2003
In Wednesday's Commentarium, reader Kate is bothered by the Bush administration's focus on abstinence as a method of AIDS prevention, which doesn't have a snowball's chance in a microwave of doing anything for Africans.
And she should be. This very issue came up at Monday's White House press briefing. As a follow-up on the now-tanked nomination of Jerry "Gay Plague" Thacker to the White House AIDS Panel, Press Secretary Fleischer was asked the following:
Q: Ari, the Associated Press reports that in reaction to what they termed your stern rebuke of Jerry Thacker, a group called Human Rights Campaign said that while this was a positive development, the Bush administration's "obsessive focus on abstinence as the solitary mechanism to prevent the transmission of HIV is not based on sound science."
And my question is, what is the Bush administration's response to this charge that you are obsessive and unscientific?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think from the President's point of view he has long made the case that abstinence is more than sound science, it's a sound practice, that abstinence has a proven track record of working. Now, this is part of an approach that includes, under the budget the President has submitted, other approaches as well, not just one approach or another approach.
But the President has indicated that he thinks that we need to have more of a focus in our school system on abstinence as an option for young people.
Q: The AP also reports that after you gave Thacker the stern rebuke, he withdrew his name from a presidential advisory commission. And my question is, do you include this -- in this rebuke the many, many millions who voted for Bush who agree with Mr. Thacker as well as the medical profession, who originally called AIDS "GRID," or Gay Related Immunodeficiency?
MR. FLEISCHER: Lester, I'm in no position to make any judgments about other people's connections to a statement made by Mr. Thacker. I can only give you the President's judgment about what Mr. Thacker said, and I shared that with you last week.
So. Although there are "other approaches" in the budget, abstinence is good enough for our fine, horny American boys and girls.
I wonder what these "other approaches" are?
And I wonder if the administration really thinks it can convince the men and women of the dozens of different African cultures of the "proven track record" of abstinence?
I'm starting to agree with Arthur Silber on this one. I don't particularly want 10 billion dollars of our money pissed away into the hot sand of a distant continent on programs that will be ineffective and increasingly expensive.
Looks like I've been hornswoggled by rhetoric!
January 31, 2003
A story from today's NYT online:
Cheney, Little Seen by Public, Plays a Visible Role for Bush
By ELISABETH BUMILLER and ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30--The vice president has almost disappeared from public view since last fall, but White House advisers say he is more powerful than ever.
"I've seen him bend steel bars like paperclips," said Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel. The vice president's other feats include dead-lifting Marine One, the Presidential helicopter, free-climbing the Washington monument in less than 90 seconds, and squeezing Ted Kennedy into a 1-quart Thermos.
"Since we replaced his heart with a nuclear-powered pump, and began regular injections of bioengineered growth hormones, vice president Cheney has turned into an unstoppable juggernaut," said a high-ranking member of the White House medical staff.
It is widely expected that, in the event of war with Iraq, the vice president will be sent into the theater on a search and destroy mission.
"Let there be no doubt: the vice president will find Saddam Hussein," said Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at a recent press conference. "The vice president will lift Sadaam Hussein over his head. The vice president will then break Sadaam Hussein's spine across his knee. I have watched Mr. Cheney tear through a wall of reinforced concrete six feet thick, so I don't anticipate that there's anywhere Saddam Hussein can hide."
Others have said that Mr. Cheney's transformation is an understandable consequence of his long career in politics. "One of the formative experiences of his life was being chief of staff during the Ford presidency when they lost the White House," said former Representative Vin Weber of Minnesota, now an influential lobbyist, who served with Mr. Cheney in the House. "If you've been through that experience, you don't want to go through it again. It's only natural that he has turned himself into a genetically-engineered, nuclear-powered, superhuman killing machine."
March 21, 2003
From a small victory, we have this morning another sterling example of...what, idiocy? Ideological cramping? Brain hemorrhage? I don't know, but Ted Rall made it, and I'm sure he's happy with it. It's yet another everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-a-Nazi bit of phlegm, a cynical expectoration from a man who perhaps needs medication, or a different social clique, or maybe just a boot to the head and a face-full of mud.
I've become fascinated by this sort of thing, not because of the ideas themselves, but because of the psychology of the people who proudly proclaim them. At the risk of sounding equivalently knee-jerk, I've come to believe that anyone who is truly interested in debating ideas, who is a sincere seeker of the truth of a thing, does not make such broadly drawn comparisons with any seriousness. Not because the comparisons are Offensive, or Wrong in a PC-sort of way. Rather, they are so sweepingly, demonstrably false that proclaiming brave faith in them does not demonstrate cleverness, but instead reveals an entire, thickly-gnarled, trunk-like structure of belief with roots deeply gripped by a near-total lack of moral awareness and a deep, abiding hatred.
However, this lack and this hatred have found a home, and that's where my fascination comes in. There is a social psychology that must accompany these beliefs, because--like it or not--rare indeed is the person who holds such beliefs in complete isolation, or who holds beliefs that do not result in some perceived benefit to him. Rall is not in his Unabomber-style shack somewhere, making his own inks from goose-gall and pens from feathers, generating poorly-drawn panels and writing lengthy treatises on the Bush-Hitler-Oil-Bilderberg-Zionist-Martha Raye conspiracy that rules us all. He's got friends. A community. A readership. All of which must feel pretty good, to him.
In short, he's found a way to satisfy himself and his own needs with this output, just as I have with mine, and countless others have with theirs. That's generally how people work. They tend to avoid doing things that make them feel badly about themselves, and try to do things that build themselves up and project their core positive image of themselves out to the world. Problems--called "neuroses"--arise when their actions do not project that core positive image, or run counter to it. If, for example, someone believes that they are a moral person of good ethical character, yet actively participates in (for example) the consignment of a certain ethnicity to ovens and gas chambers, they must resolve that contradiction in some fashion in order to remain functional.
One of these ways people do this is by surrounding themselves with other people who are doing the same thing, or who profess the same beliefs. They clique up, which reduces the opportunity for confrontation and self-examination. This is a phenomenon easily observable in the online weblog communities--it's called cocooning, and it's soft and comfortable. People often do the same sort of things in meatspace as well, choosing friends and forming relationships based upon comfortable idea-kinship.
Another way that people do this is by using any number of methods that blunt introspection. Drugs, alcohol, and and activities like sex and eating can all work for this, particularly if (like me) you're not very good at forming social bonds.
These ideas are fresh in my mind because of a brief exchange I had recently in a Tech Central Station forum with a fellow named Brad. Brad, it turns out, is a Constitutional absolutist. Or he would be, if he knew what the term meant. Which is unfortunate for him, because he would be hard-pressed to find the definition of a "declaration of war" within the hallowed Constitution, without which, he believes, the Iraq campaign is unconstitutional, a crime against humanity, and so forth. So wedded is our Brad to the idea of Bush's sheer evilness that he has forfeited his ability to reason cogently. I provided links to three relevant legislative documents, and suggested he read them before continuing th discussion. But no. He is unable to reconcile Article I Section 8 of the Constitution with the War Powers Act of 1973 and the authorization for the use of force in Iraq issued by Congress on October 12 of last year. He can't do it. It would break his head. So he continued arguing from ignorance which, to him, was what he already knew to be true. No further input required, thanks.
For a brief while, I toyed with the idea of pedagogical responsibility. If I could just...reach...the...Bat-Methodology...belt...I could help him out.
But, in the end, there's nothing that can be done for such folks. This is because, for them, there is more at stake than simply the refinement of an idea, or the changing of a position. There are deep-seated needs involved, and established interpersonal social structures, all of which serve to resolve uncomfortable psychological conflict. It's pointless to wrestle against that, and arrogant to try.
I've crammed a couple of friendships into the crapper over the past eighteen months because I was no longer willing to be part of their idea-kinship group. That sucks, really, because I would have been happy to find out that the friendships were based on mutual respect, rather than the need to maintain a comfortable relationship with our own psychologies and to minimize the emergence of neuroses. That's a shallow bond, easily sundered by the intrusion of dread reality, and I'm just as guilty of mistaking that shallowness for depth as they were.
Fortunately, I'm not friends with Mr. Rall, and need not shoulder the burden of minimizing the inevitable neuroses caused by his True Believer's faith.
May 30, 2003
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote this:
People tend to believe in the things that most reinforce a positive self-image. Thus, if the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Axis of Oil is the tripartite embodiment of all that is petroleum-based and evil, then the constant decrying of that Axis and all of its nefarious schemes makes one, by corollary, righteous. Similarly, if the Clinton/Clinton/Gore triumvirate of Lewdness, Feminism and Earthy-Crunchy-College-Boy Amoralism is the fount of all devilry, then by standing in opposition to it one becomes pure.
Today, I read this:
In short, the justification for bigoted comments directed at those with whom the educated Left disagrees politically is based on two foundations: 1) We're a lot smarter than they are; and 2) We're better people than they are. That logic leads to three inescapable conclusions: We're right. They're wrong. QED: All Republicans are assholes.
Label-wise, I'm politically vague. Nevertheless, Willy Stern is brilliant because he agrees with me and is, therefore, correct. Read the rest, if you would.
[Via Mr. Reynolds]
TANGENTIAL UPDATE: For a thought-provoking treatment of what "tolerance" means these days, check out Paul Griffiths' Proselytizing for Tolerance.
June 23, 2003
Courtesy of Sullivan, here's a piece that's relevant, I think, to the ongoing discussion that began last Wednesday. It's a bit on Emerson and blogging, by NPR talkshow host Christopher Lydon.
It was Lydon's characterization of Emerson's thinking--"Speak your own convictions, and your own contradictions, he urged"--that caught my eye. Upon reading further, I was struck by his ultimate description of today's Emersonian as:
...in short, an ecstatic melancholic, an unquenchable optimist in a darkening world, aware that the big trick for grown-ups is to look unblinking at the torture and tyranny, the pandemic disease and progressive brutalization of people and the planet—and know that is not the whole story and that this is no time to give up.
That, in a nutshell, is what drives me batshit about the knee-jerk simple doomsaying found at Indymedia, BoingBoing, and elsewhere: Bush is polishing up his jackboots and growing his little mustache; millions of Iraqis will die for our oiiiil; any and every foolish overreach of Big Gov'mint is surely the tip of the fascist iceberg; and on and on, a litany of What Oppression Means To The Comfortable Me. That's not the whole story. Lydon is right: it takes an adult to realize this.
And, further: this is no time to give up, and that's the precipice that I've been toddling along the edge of for several weeks, now. It is my social neuroses, not my intellectual or spiritual failings, that have robbed me of my confidence.
In this, I am Bugs Bunny on the darkened stage, looking out into the blackness beyond the footlights...hearing a cough, the rustling of the watching audience...and then realizing what's Out There: PEOPLLLE! he shrieks.
People with wrong ideas! Dastardly beliefs! And foolishness! Great big heaps of foolishness! Good God, look at the size of that pile of fools! I've never seen such a towering, wobbling mass of sheer wrong-headedness! And they might even have the temerity to defend their nonsense with still more foolishness!
Hell with all of that. Buck up son, you're a man, now!
That's what I say.
We'll see how it pans out.
July 28, 2003
Oh, this is good:
Let's begin with [Michael Moore's] bold-faced lies. In an appearance on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" in March 2002, Mr. Moore announced that during the period that planes were grounded for two days after the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration allowed a Saudi jet to whisk away bin Laden family members over FBI objections. As Snopes.com, an Internet site devoted to tracking down urban legends, points out, the planes did pick up bin Laden family members--on Sept. 18 and 19, days after commercial flights had already begun flying again--and they did so only after the FBI had questioned the departing Saudis. At the college talk, I witnessed another stunner, when Mr. Moore announced--without so much as a blip on the polygraph line--that even though the media report that children in intact families are better off, "every study shows that's a big lie. Children of single mothers do better in life."
Go read, and chortle. The piece begins to hit its stride with the above passage, followed by accounts of Moore's "lies of omission", his "artistic lies," his "insinuating lies," and his "lies of exaggeration."
It builds to a nicely damning account of Moore's "moral stupidity," including:
..external threats by foreign terrorists? It just cannot be. "Many families have been devastated tonight. This is just not right," Mr. Moore wrote on Sept. 12, 2001, as the World Trade Center and the bodies of 3,000 lay in smoking ruins. "They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him. Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes' destination of California--these were the places that voted AGAINST Bush." In Mr. Moore's Manichaean world, if Republicans alone had died on September 11, they would have had it coming.
Now, that is what I mean when I say "frothing Bush-hater" and "loather of Western Civilization." Someone so wrapped up with deep, personal animosity, so devoted to hatred, that he or she is incapable of reason or ethical thought. Facts simply bounce off, never to be seen again.
As far as memes go, Moore's brand of insensate, ideological sewage is of the utmost virulence. We'll have to send the jackboots after him, and lock him up in the Montana Gulag. Or maybe we should get the Cigarette-Smoking Man to put a bullet in his eyeball. Yes, I think that would be best. After all, we can't leave him free to make millions of dollars from purveying such dangerous ideas, now can we? I mean, he might publish best-selling books, or even win an Oscar.
UPDATE: Noted Sensible Loon Steven Den Beste writes about being targeted by the frothers and the loathers and speculates about the causes of their failure to impact anyone outside of their special, select choir.
August 03, 2003
Norman Geras, self-described member of the left and a professor of government at the University of Manchester, on the recent moral failures of the left:
"If war opponents can't eliminate the inconvenient side of the balance, they denature it. The liberation of Iraq from Saddam's tyranny can't have been a good, because of those who effected it and of their obviously bad foreign-policy record: Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua and the rest. It can't therefore have been a liberation. Even allowing the premise to go unchallenged--which in point of fact I don't, since recent U.S. and British foreign policy also has achievements to its credit: evicting the Iraqis from Kuwait, intervening in Kosovo, intervening in Sierra Leone, getting rid of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan--it is a plain fallacy. A person with a bad record is capable of doing good. There were some anti-Semitic rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust. This argumentative move just fixes the nature of the act via a presumption about those who are responsible for it, sparing one the necessity of examining the act for what it actually brings about and of assessing this in its own right. It's a bit like saying that because the guy who returned me the expensive book he'd borrowed has previously stolen things from others--you can fill in the rest yourself, and yes, it's silly."
Words worthy of careful consideration; read the whole thing. Geras makes the point that I've sort of been jumping on for the past couple of weeks: "[...] an uncontrollable animus towards George W. Bush and his administration [...] has produced a calamitous compromise of the core values of socialism, or liberalism or both, on the part of thousands of people who claim attachment to them."
I'm not a Bushophile by any means. But I sincerely believe that this constant denunciation and treatment of the Texan as the Embodiment of Evil is having a strange, warping affect on the sensibilities of many in the press and on the Net to whom I might otherwise lend a more sympathetic ear. He is not The Issue.
August 22, 2003
I find the various ways in which people choose to structure their beliefs fascinating and puzzling. In particular, I've been alternately baffled and intrigued by the Bush Is A Baaaad Man meme which has become so firmly entrenched in the minds of so many, to the point where the Texan becomes the focus of all that is wrong in America, often to the exclusion of all else. Authors, pundits, even good friends of mine--some very sensible people, in fact--have either wholeheartedly embraced the idea of the Evil Cowpoke or are quite favorably disposed towards it.
It's obvious that this is not a new phenomenon in American politics, and it observes no political boundaries--witness the rabid, incoherant loathing many on the right reserved for the Bubba-in-Chief, Bill Clinton. I found that no less puzzling or irritating, and I didn't much care for Bill.
As I sweated through my morning ride today, I pedalled along a section of road bordered by heavily-scented cow pasture, which brought this political problem to mind. A fragrant bit of my own recent babble came to me:
"Spiritual faith represents a kind of personal certainty coupled with a dual epistemological stance; that is, one chooses to believe, but very often the 'bar' for what constitutes sufficient evidence for that belief is lowered."
Suddenly, the obvious occurred to me in flash of divine light, and knocked me from my bicycle and into a ditch. This reflexive loathing which I find so strange, this unaccountably blinkered view of the Texan, his administration, and his actions, is a faith. The True Believers will filter out all that contradicts their faith, and seize upon only that which confirms--or seems to confirm--their belief. Whatever normal reasoning process they use is suspended in favor of the same "good enough" standard of proof that is often used by the spiritually faithful. The public expositors of this faith--folks like Ted Rall, Michael Moore, and Noam Chomsky--supply a steady flow of uplifting messages and rationaliziations. Thus you end up with expressions of righteous activist piety such as
"This is no part-time, do-gooder hobby. We are in a fight for our lives here. It really is that simple. These guys [the Bush Administration] go down, or we don't survive." [emphasis in original]
It is no more productive to engage in debate with such believers than it is to engage in debate with a Bible-believing creationist.
This is a result, I believe, of the too-rigorous maintainance of a rigid separation between the secular and the sacred in American public life. If it's not about God, it can't be a matter of faith...right?
Wrong.
People have faith in all sorts of things, and generally maintain various levels of satisfactory proof to go with their various faiths. By perpetuating the fiction that the only beliefs that are matters of faith are religious beliefs, we have created an entire political class which is firmly convinced that their political beliefs are determined with scientific rigor, yet which argues with all the intemperate zeal of a tent-preacher. Those who believe that Bush Is An Evil Man Who Will Pocket Billions Once He Gets All That Oil Out Of Iraq Through The New Afghanistan Pipeline are cut from the same cloth as those who believe that Clinton Is An Amoral Rapist Who Shot Vince Foster In The Eyeball.
In each case, conviction, belief, and feelings come first, with facts and logic a distant second...if they put in an appearance at all.
August 25, 2003
I listen to NPR because it's often interesting. But sometimes their blatant bias just pisses me off. And that's just the national service: WAMC, the local NPR affiliate, is a teeming horde of true-believing, sneering, self-righteous leftists who hijack the frequency on the weekends to tell me what a baby seal-killing consumerist amoral fascist bastard-on-a-stick I am. The name Alan Chartok--who recently criticized NPR's "move to the right"--springs to mind.
On August 22nd, the Earth Liberation Front claimed responsibility for the following acts in California:
- The destruction by fire of 20 Hummers, the damage of another 20, and the torching of a warehouse at the Clippinger Chevrolet dealership
- The vandalization of SUVs at dealerships in Arcadia and Duarte
- The spraypainting of SUVs parked in residential streets in Monrovia with "ELF" and slogans such as "Fat, lazy Americans"
- The torching of an SUV parked in front of the owner's home.
They're also suspected of setting a multimillion-dollar arson fire on August 1 that destroyed a five-story apartment complex under construction in San Diego, although they've denied contact with the arsonists in that case.
ELF's website contains handy articles for the environmentally-friendly terrorist, such as "Setting Fires With Electrical Timers: An Earth Liberation Front Guide."
This morning on the drive to the train station, NPR reported ELF's SUV-torching blow for Gaia. Not during the regular news cycle, but with a brief "top-of-the-show" blurb. That spot is often used to report strange or ironic news, or stupid-criminal-type stories. Never with any depth, and usually with a sort of "Well, isn't that amusing" tone.
NPR reported the ELF vandalism listed above as: "ELF engaged in military-style action, setting several SUVs on fire."
Military-style? I guess, for NPR, if you blow stuff up then presto! You're military-style.
I wonder how the Joint Chiefs would have reported on the Iraq campaign if it were run with "ELF-style" military tactics...
Bush: General Shinseki...how are the troop deployments going?
General Shinseki: Well...let's see here...the 172nd Airborne is around somewhere...and the the 2nd and 3rd Armored Calvary Regiments are in-country, we think...
Bush: What do you mean, "we think"?
General Shinseki: We don't know where they all are, really. It' s this new, decentralized, anonymous cell-structure thing we've got going. No soldier is in contact with more than two other soldiers. It keeps the Iraqis on their toes, no doubt!
Bush: Really. Let's look at this again later some more, OK? General Jumper? What about last night's bombing runs? What are the BDAs?
General Jumper: Our fighter and support aircraft pilots decided to remain on the ground last night, actually.
Bush: What? Why?
General Jumper: They arranged a coordinated sit |
