If you guessed that they've engaged in inflaming anti-Americanism, you'd be right. I've always respected Al Gore, but his comments in Saudi Arabia were, for the lack of a wittier expression, over the line. For the purposes of context and accuracy, here's what he said, courtesy of the Calgary Sun-Times:
JIDDA, Saudi Arabia -- Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore told an audience yesterday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.
Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. He said the administration of President George W. Bush was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.
"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jidda Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."
Here's the thing. Even if one submits the idea that some Arabs were mistreated post-9/11, it is utterly false to accuse the U.S of indiscriminate roundups. Were mistakes made? Sure. Was there a lot of anti-Arab sentiment in certain quarters? Sure. But Gore made it seem like we just rounded up all the brown people we could find. The fact is, it didn't happen. I'm sure many on the far-right probably hoped it would happen, but at the end of the day, our response was pretty restrained.
Let's not forget that Muslims and Arabs in America are the freest on the Earth. I'm left wondering how many people realize that Muslims have more religious freedom to be Muslims here, than in Saudi Arabia. Not only is Saudi Arabia a sweeping theocracy, one cannot question the government. In fact, if the Islam you happen to practice is the wrong one, three guesses as to what happens. If Gore wanted to open a dialogue on U.S-Saudi relations, then he should rebuke the Saudis for their theocratic ways, and openly show how the U.S is not only better, but the best, in terms of human rights and religious liberty.
Never mind the fact that he said this in Saudi frickin Arabia!
Of course Gore's behavior seems like small stuff compared to what certain American actors have gotten themselves into, with a Turkish film that is nakedly anti-American, and anti-Semitic.
In a new Turkish movie, called Valley of the Wolves Iraq, is the most expensive Turkish movie ever. In the film, American soldiers are brutal murderers, and B-list actor Gary Busry plays a Jewish doctor, who steals the organs of Iraqis, and sells them to wealthy buyers in New York and Tel Aviv. This of course gives credence to the damnable blood libel against Jews, that Jews steal the organs of Arabs. Billy Zane stars in the film as well.
Aside from trying to make some cash to salvage their washed up careers, what would possess these two idiots to do such a thing? Even if it was for the money, how desperate do you have to be to engage in such filth? Busey's supposed to be a Christian, for God's sake! AS far the larger impact on Hollywood goes, the one saving grace is that these are two B-List actors, and no major Hollywood actors or producers have touched this steaming pile of anti-Semitic dung. I thought Busey was cool.
I'd say a boycott's on the way, but I suspect that the majority of Americans' commitment to good cinema will take care of that.
Story is here.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
One Year Anniversary!
This blog was birthed into existence a year ago today. Huzzah. It's been an interesting year in the blogosphere, interesting and fun.
Oh, and there's that whole Valentine's Day thing.
Oh, and there's that whole Valentine's Day thing.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Passion, Poise, Politics, and Phony Outrage
The funeral for the late, great Coretta Scott King was today. Let me first start by saying that she was truly an American hero, and a woman of strength, dignity and character. Not only did she help strengthen her husband's legacy, she forged her own, and that of the whole King family. The funeral was great and majestic event, even including the supposedly awkward political moments. I'll not dwell on this for too long, because the phony outrage has already worn me out.
Conservatives and Republicans are up in arms over many of the political remarks that were made, many of them interpreted as direct personal attacks on Bush. The Rev. Joseph Lowery made mention of Coretta King's opposition to war in general, and the Iraq war in particular, and made a remark about the lack of WMDs over there, and "weapons of misdirection over here," referring to poverty and other issues. Jimmy Carter also spoke, and made references to Katrina, and the fact that the King's were illegally wiretapped (a reference to the current NSA spy program). He also didn't shake Bush's hand. Ted Kennedy made a great, pretty nonpolitical speech (one of the best ones), and Bill Clinton was at his usual best.
Speaking of Clinton's speech, many felt that he was trying to prop up his wife politically. It must be pointed out that the audience fueled that whole moment. The fact is, the Republicans here are full of phony outrage. With Carter being the possible exception, no one was trying to make this a Bush-bashing event. Coretta King was committed to very real issues, many of them controversial, and in honoring her, many speakers simply spoke to that. It was political, but it was kinda supposed to be. I do have to admit though, that it must have been a bit awkward for Bush, hearing criticisms of his policies (or at least indirect ones), with him sitting right there. In my view, he was a good sport, and I really think it was all about the spirit of the occasion.
Keep in mind also, that nobody ever mentioned Bush by name, except in praise and in a welcoming fashion. There were no calls for troop withdrawal from Iraq (thank God), and let's not forget, nothing that was said was really false-there were no WMDs, and the Kings were wiretapped. I think all in all, it was a moving and respectful day, and the Republicans are trying being overly sensitive here. After all, in the minds of some, if you criticize the President's tie, you're a traitor.
Conservatives seem to want to make a political issue out of this. Some suggest this marred the whole event, comparing it to the legitimately over-political Wellstone memorial. Tucker Carlson says the focus was too much on the politics of the moment. It might seem that way, if you only focus on those couple of speakers. Some accuse the Democrats of trying to use this for political points, as if the King family conspired with the DNC in some shadowy back room, and worked out some sinister plan. This is of course, absurd.
Many suggest that some remarks were out of line, and maybe some were, but the idea that Republican Bush-coddlers are going to try to stain this funeral, because Bush got zinged about wiretaps is disgusting. I have to wonder, are they really THAT passionate about the NSA spying program? Maybe that explains why Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who doesn't back the plan.
Talk about your weapons of misdirection.
Conservatives and Republicans are up in arms over many of the political remarks that were made, many of them interpreted as direct personal attacks on Bush. The Rev. Joseph Lowery made mention of Coretta King's opposition to war in general, and the Iraq war in particular, and made a remark about the lack of WMDs over there, and "weapons of misdirection over here," referring to poverty and other issues. Jimmy Carter also spoke, and made references to Katrina, and the fact that the King's were illegally wiretapped (a reference to the current NSA spy program). He also didn't shake Bush's hand. Ted Kennedy made a great, pretty nonpolitical speech (one of the best ones), and Bill Clinton was at his usual best.
Speaking of Clinton's speech, many felt that he was trying to prop up his wife politically. It must be pointed out that the audience fueled that whole moment. The fact is, the Republicans here are full of phony outrage. With Carter being the possible exception, no one was trying to make this a Bush-bashing event. Coretta King was committed to very real issues, many of them controversial, and in honoring her, many speakers simply spoke to that. It was political, but it was kinda supposed to be. I do have to admit though, that it must have been a bit awkward for Bush, hearing criticisms of his policies (or at least indirect ones), with him sitting right there. In my view, he was a good sport, and I really think it was all about the spirit of the occasion.
Keep in mind also, that nobody ever mentioned Bush by name, except in praise and in a welcoming fashion. There were no calls for troop withdrawal from Iraq (thank God), and let's not forget, nothing that was said was really false-there were no WMDs, and the Kings were wiretapped. I think all in all, it was a moving and respectful day, and the Republicans are trying being overly sensitive here. After all, in the minds of some, if you criticize the President's tie, you're a traitor.
Conservatives seem to want to make a political issue out of this. Some suggest this marred the whole event, comparing it to the legitimately over-political Wellstone memorial. Tucker Carlson says the focus was too much on the politics of the moment. It might seem that way, if you only focus on those couple of speakers. Some accuse the Democrats of trying to use this for political points, as if the King family conspired with the DNC in some shadowy back room, and worked out some sinister plan. This is of course, absurd.
Many suggest that some remarks were out of line, and maybe some were, but the idea that Republican Bush-coddlers are going to try to stain this funeral, because Bush got zinged about wiretaps is disgusting. I have to wonder, are they really THAT passionate about the NSA spying program? Maybe that explains why Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who doesn't back the plan.
Talk about your weapons of misdirection.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Thoughts on the Decay of Civilization
You know, I recognize that the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, that started in Denmark, and have outraged Muslims worldwide are crude, indecent, and offensive. One has to wonder though, when does it stop? There is no excuse for extremist violence. It is wholly unacceptable to attempt to silence free expression through death threats and real violence. Keep in mind that I'm not defending these cartoons, but if their intent was to make a statement against the intolerance of radical Islam, then it seems that the radicals have only proved them right. What really bothers me about this is that a lot of leaders, particularly European ones, seem more concerned with apologizing for the cartoons, than comdemning the violence. Muslims leaders plead for their fellow Muslims to be reasonable, but it seems that their calls for peace are not as full of energy as their outrage over these cartoons.
Last I checked, free speech still counts for something, and that includes offensive speech. The West should not apologize for free expression. Again, I'm not defending these images, but violence cannot be the acceptable response here. While I'm sure the caricature of Muhammad is offensive to all Muslims, you'd think Muslims would be equally offended by the extremists that have corrupted their faith. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have never seen a reaction approaching anything like this, over the numerous anti-Semitic stuff spread worldwide.
I hate to rant, but it bothers me when people begin to sanction the subjugation of free speech and thought under fear and violence. If sense is to have any dominion at all in our society, we must forcibly condemn, and compel all civilized people of all religions to condemn this violent mania.
OK, I'll dismount from my high horse, now.
The story is here, BTW.
Last I checked, free speech still counts for something, and that includes offensive speech. The West should not apologize for free expression. Again, I'm not defending these images, but violence cannot be the acceptable response here. While I'm sure the caricature of Muhammad is offensive to all Muslims, you'd think Muslims would be equally offended by the extremists that have corrupted their faith. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have never seen a reaction approaching anything like this, over the numerous anti-Semitic stuff spread worldwide.
I hate to rant, but it bothers me when people begin to sanction the subjugation of free speech and thought under fear and violence. If sense is to have any dominion at all in our society, we must forcibly condemn, and compel all civilized people of all religions to condemn this violent mania.
OK, I'll dismount from my high horse, now.
The story is here, BTW.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Alito Confirmed: Final Vote 58-42.
It's official. Samuel Alito has become our 11oth Associate Justice. 4 Dems (Byrd, Conrad, Johnson, Ben Nelson) crossed party lines to vote yes, and Lincoln Chafee voted no, as well as Jim Jeffords.
And that's that.
SOTU speech tonight, BTW.
And that's that.
SOTU speech tonight, BTW.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Cloture Passes 72-25, Filibuster Is Defeated
Not that I'm surprised. Frankly, I thought the filibuster was bad form, IMO, and seemed to only delay the inevitable. Alito's confirmation is a foregone conclusion at this point. Honestly, I'm worn out with the whole mess. All the grandstanding, vitriol, phony outrage, and nonsense from the right and the left wore me out. I'm talking about the whole judicial circus, including previous judges (Roberts, etc).
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm just glad it's over.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm just glad it's over.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Some Dictionary Words for Your Edification
Consider the definition of the word hyperbole:
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
And now this one, for the word demagoguery:
n : impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace [syn: demagogy]
Now, consider this story:
Speaking at an event in Harlem honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., the senator said the GOP-controlled House of Representatives "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about. It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."
Source: Newsday
OK. First off, as I hope the above definitions will help to illustrate, Clinton's remarks above were at best hyperbole, and at worst, crude and brutal demagoguery. I'll not defend the use of the word plantation. She clearly used the wrong word. Keep in mind that the plantation's infamy had less to do with inhibiting debate and free speech, than with subjugating a people under the brutality of slavery. Essentially, one could argue that she compared House Republicans to slaveowners. There is a legitimate point of debate about the stifling of debate by the GOP in the House, but using the word plantation smacks of hyperbole. Or race-baiting.
We must not forget however, that Republicans (contrary to their assertions) have engaged in equal amounts of the same demagoguery. I didn't hear that much outrage when high-profile Republicans accuse Dems of "keeping blacks on the plantation," or "in bondage." Not much outrage when Republicans accused Dems and black leaders of racism for opposing conservative black nominees (Condi Rice, Janice Rogers-Brown, Clarence Thomas), as if we're supposed to support them just because they're black. No outrage over the eminations of The Rev. Jesse Lee Petersen, who once declared that blacks had no moral character, and could not think for themselves. Of course, the very idea that blacks are somehow brainwashed or misled for voting for any party is absurd. Black America is not stupid. Most know that the modern GOP has had a lousy track record on civil rights, and the Democratic Party also has some problems with regards to black issues. The fact is, the reason why Dems get 98 percent of the black vote is no real mystery. The Dems may take us for granted, but the GOP takes us for fools, at least it seems that way.
The fact is, this whole mess about Clinton's remarks is yet another predictable exercise.
And then there's Ray Nagin's remarks....
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
And now this one, for the word demagoguery:
n : impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace [syn: demagogy]
Now, consider this story:
Speaking at an event in Harlem honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., the senator said the GOP-controlled House of Representatives "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about. It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."
Source: Newsday
OK. First off, as I hope the above definitions will help to illustrate, Clinton's remarks above were at best hyperbole, and at worst, crude and brutal demagoguery. I'll not defend the use of the word plantation. She clearly used the wrong word. Keep in mind that the plantation's infamy had less to do with inhibiting debate and free speech, than with subjugating a people under the brutality of slavery. Essentially, one could argue that she compared House Republicans to slaveowners. There is a legitimate point of debate about the stifling of debate by the GOP in the House, but using the word plantation smacks of hyperbole. Or race-baiting.
We must not forget however, that Republicans (contrary to their assertions) have engaged in equal amounts of the same demagoguery. I didn't hear that much outrage when high-profile Republicans accuse Dems of "keeping blacks on the plantation," or "in bondage." Not much outrage when Republicans accused Dems and black leaders of racism for opposing conservative black nominees (Condi Rice, Janice Rogers-Brown, Clarence Thomas), as if we're supposed to support them just because they're black. No outrage over the eminations of The Rev. Jesse Lee Petersen, who once declared that blacks had no moral character, and could not think for themselves. Of course, the very idea that blacks are somehow brainwashed or misled for voting for any party is absurd. Black America is not stupid. Most know that the modern GOP has had a lousy track record on civil rights, and the Democratic Party also has some problems with regards to black issues. The fact is, the reason why Dems get 98 percent of the black vote is no real mystery. The Dems may take us for granted, but the GOP takes us for fools, at least it seems that way.
The fact is, this whole mess about Clinton's remarks is yet another predictable exercise.
And then there's Ray Nagin's remarks....
A Fishing Expedition?
I've been thinking about this lawsuit that the ACLU and other groups are filing, in order to bring a halt to the NSA wiretap program. The fact that they're trying to end this program is clear-- they've basically come out and said it. This lawsuit does have plaintiffs, but it seems that the entire thrust of the case is based on potential abuses. Rather, they're suing because they might have been spied on, or could be spied on. This doesn't seem to wash that well with me, and this case seems doomed for failure.
There are legit arguments for the halting of this program, and I'm not just talking about Gore's speech. However, can a person sue the government based on potential abuses? I suspect these broad matters are better left to Congress.
There are legit arguments for the halting of this program, and I'm not just talking about Gore's speech. However, can a person sue the government based on potential abuses? I suspect these broad matters are better left to Congress.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Inter Arma, Enim Silent Leges
Inter arma, enim silent leges.
For those who don't know their Latin, Cicero's phrase translates as "in times of war, the law falls silent." In Shakespeare, Cicero uses the phrase to describe a Rome that believed that Caesar could do no wrong. In other words, in wartime, we ought to support our government, no matter what.
Before certain people get their panties in a wad, this is not going to be some post calling for Bush's impeachment. I am dealing with the spying controversy (in the larger context of approaches to the War on Terror), but I'm merely asking some questions. First off, let it be known that I believe the President, as commander-in-chief, should have broad powers in matters of foreign intelligence, during wartime. Of course, this must always be clearly checked by Congressional, judicial, and democratic oversight, and be done within the rules. One of the problems with this current controversy is that as far the warrantless searches and wiretaps go, it appears that Bush may not have done everything on the up and up. I'm not sure if what he did was legal or not. The debate is raging as I write this--you have people like Charles Krauthammer suggesting Bush has the power, and groups like the ACLU saying that he doesn't. As I've said before, we don't even know all the details on this yet, so I think it's unfair to start even hinting about impeachment. The Republicans made a mockery of the Constitution during the 90's impeachment circus--certain anti-Bush Democrats ought not do the same.
The fact is, only a couple of high-profile Democrats have actually used the I-word, but as I said, we ought not even go there. We ought to have independent hearings on this, to decide whether Bush has the legal powers in this matter, and if not-see that he gets them-with clear limits of course. The limits are important, I must emphasize this. To be honest with you, it's not so much the spying that bothers me. Rather, it's the attitude that has risen up around this controversy. What bothers me is the idea that many have that the President has limitless power in times of war.
This didn't start with the NSA spying controversy. This goes much deeper. Secret prisons. Extraordinary rendition. Certain provisions in the Patriot Act. Criticism of the war (or any of his policies, for that matter). Most sensible people recognize that in wartime, we must find a way to balance civil liberties and security. This requires open and honest debate, and even dissent in many cases. The debate it seems, has been taken over by extremists. People on the right dismiss any talk of protecting civil liberties as aiding the terrorists. To them, dissent is disloyalty. O'Reilly calls the ACLU "the most dangerous group in the country." The press is seen as a fifth-column, deliberately undermining the war effort. Not that the incessant negativity from a lot of the press these days, especially regarding Iraq, hasn't become a nuisance, and in certain cases a hinderance. Many suggest that we should back the President no matter what, and those that don't are nothing short of traitors. Reports of possible torture are dismissed as either fantasy, or neccessary. "Who gives a damn about terrorists?" they say. Of course, we must remember that its not about being as bad as the terrorists. We'd have to go a long way to come even close to the brutality that our enemies represent. The problem is, we don't have to go nearly as far to abandon our own compass. These things are all well-established, so there's no need to dwell on them. There's no need to be high-handed.
On one extreme, we have the far-right, which thinks that basically anything goes, and liberals are at best a pathetic nuisance, and at worst, a fifth column. You need only listen to the screeds to hear this. On the other extreme is the far-Left, which thinks the greatest threat is not al-qaeda but Bush, and that the war on terror is really an excuse to take away our liberties. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about mainstream liberals here. I'm talking about the Michael Moores, the Ward Churchills, the Noam Chomskys, and the ANSWER-types. The hardcore antiwar types. The moonbats, as it were. These are the types who think the Iraq war is a war crime, an illegal and unjust war. They dismiss the millions of Iraqis who voted in the elections. While the right seems committed to ignoring the bad news, the far-Left only seems to focus on the bad news. These types will see any attempt to fight an effective terror war as unjust, so they can't be reasoned with either.
Also, it doesn't help that you have a press that only seems to feed this division, that divides us with labels and sloppy political constructs, like the Red State-Blue State nonsense.
As with many other issues, the debate on civil liberties in wartime has ceased to be a debate. The political pendulum has shifted rightward, so the right controls a lot more of the debate (contrary to their assertions).
We need to debate these issues openly and honestly, always from the standpoint of winning the terror war. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, but it's more than "a damn piece of paper." We need to remember who the real enemy is. Enough of this "Bush is a terrorist," or "Liberals want us to lose the war" nonsense.
And getting back to the original point, the President's warmaking powers are not unlimited. Bush can, and has made mistakes. As for the press, while I too wondered why the New York Times felt the need to print umpteen Abu Ghraib stories, and while I'm troubled that the press was complicit in an illegal leak of classified info, I have to ask: What is the role of the press with regards to this matters? Can we really shoot the messenger?
Again, all these are questions I'm trying to answer. The pundits and politicians are playing their familar roles, with all the high talk and phony outrage, on both sides. All the famous quotes by Ben Franklin and others are bandied about ad nauseum. We've all spent time on our high horses, except of course for our brave troops, who fight for us every day in the trenches, asking only that we not piss on their sacrifice, or exploit them for political gain.
And that we not pull them out until the mission's done.
-Cicero
For those who don't know their Latin, Cicero's phrase translates as "in times of war, the law falls silent." In Shakespeare, Cicero uses the phrase to describe a Rome that believed that Caesar could do no wrong. In other words, in wartime, we ought to support our government, no matter what.
Before certain people get their panties in a wad, this is not going to be some post calling for Bush's impeachment. I am dealing with the spying controversy (in the larger context of approaches to the War on Terror), but I'm merely asking some questions. First off, let it be known that I believe the President, as commander-in-chief, should have broad powers in matters of foreign intelligence, during wartime. Of course, this must always be clearly checked by Congressional, judicial, and democratic oversight, and be done within the rules. One of the problems with this current controversy is that as far the warrantless searches and wiretaps go, it appears that Bush may not have done everything on the up and up. I'm not sure if what he did was legal or not. The debate is raging as I write this--you have people like Charles Krauthammer suggesting Bush has the power, and groups like the ACLU saying that he doesn't. As I've said before, we don't even know all the details on this yet, so I think it's unfair to start even hinting about impeachment. The Republicans made a mockery of the Constitution during the 90's impeachment circus--certain anti-Bush Democrats ought not do the same.
The fact is, only a couple of high-profile Democrats have actually used the I-word, but as I said, we ought not even go there. We ought to have independent hearings on this, to decide whether Bush has the legal powers in this matter, and if not-see that he gets them-with clear limits of course. The limits are important, I must emphasize this. To be honest with you, it's not so much the spying that bothers me. Rather, it's the attitude that has risen up around this controversy. What bothers me is the idea that many have that the President has limitless power in times of war.
This didn't start with the NSA spying controversy. This goes much deeper. Secret prisons. Extraordinary rendition. Certain provisions in the Patriot Act. Criticism of the war (or any of his policies, for that matter). Most sensible people recognize that in wartime, we must find a way to balance civil liberties and security. This requires open and honest debate, and even dissent in many cases. The debate it seems, has been taken over by extremists. People on the right dismiss any talk of protecting civil liberties as aiding the terrorists. To them, dissent is disloyalty. O'Reilly calls the ACLU "the most dangerous group in the country." The press is seen as a fifth-column, deliberately undermining the war effort. Not that the incessant negativity from a lot of the press these days, especially regarding Iraq, hasn't become a nuisance, and in certain cases a hinderance. Many suggest that we should back the President no matter what, and those that don't are nothing short of traitors. Reports of possible torture are dismissed as either fantasy, or neccessary. "Who gives a damn about terrorists?" they say. Of course, we must remember that its not about being as bad as the terrorists. We'd have to go a long way to come even close to the brutality that our enemies represent. The problem is, we don't have to go nearly as far to abandon our own compass. These things are all well-established, so there's no need to dwell on them. There's no need to be high-handed.
On one extreme, we have the far-right, which thinks that basically anything goes, and liberals are at best a pathetic nuisance, and at worst, a fifth column. You need only listen to the screeds to hear this. On the other extreme is the far-Left, which thinks the greatest threat is not al-qaeda but Bush, and that the war on terror is really an excuse to take away our liberties. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about mainstream liberals here. I'm talking about the Michael Moores, the Ward Churchills, the Noam Chomskys, and the ANSWER-types. The hardcore antiwar types. The moonbats, as it were. These are the types who think the Iraq war is a war crime, an illegal and unjust war. They dismiss the millions of Iraqis who voted in the elections. While the right seems committed to ignoring the bad news, the far-Left only seems to focus on the bad news. These types will see any attempt to fight an effective terror war as unjust, so they can't be reasoned with either.
Also, it doesn't help that you have a press that only seems to feed this division, that divides us with labels and sloppy political constructs, like the Red State-Blue State nonsense.
As with many other issues, the debate on civil liberties in wartime has ceased to be a debate. The political pendulum has shifted rightward, so the right controls a lot more of the debate (contrary to their assertions).
We need to debate these issues openly and honestly, always from the standpoint of winning the terror war. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, but it's more than "a damn piece of paper." We need to remember who the real enemy is. Enough of this "Bush is a terrorist," or "Liberals want us to lose the war" nonsense.
And getting back to the original point, the President's warmaking powers are not unlimited. Bush can, and has made mistakes. As for the press, while I too wondered why the New York Times felt the need to print umpteen Abu Ghraib stories, and while I'm troubled that the press was complicit in an illegal leak of classified info, I have to ask: What is the role of the press with regards to this matters? Can we really shoot the messenger?
Again, all these are questions I'm trying to answer. The pundits and politicians are playing their familar roles, with all the high talk and phony outrage, on both sides. All the famous quotes by Ben Franklin and others are bandied about ad nauseum. We've all spent time on our high horses, except of course for our brave troops, who fight for us every day in the trenches, asking only that we not piss on their sacrifice, or exploit them for political gain.
And that we not pull them out until the mission's done.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
The Last Post of the Year
Well, the tumultous year that was 2005 has come to a close. This post won't be long, but I just wanted to share some quick thoughts.
This was a rough year for President Bush. Whether it was the Katrina mess, the Terri Schiavo mess, Plamegate, the Harriet Miers mess, the domestic spying mess, torture, and troubles in Iraq--he's taken some hits. His supporters will blame the "liberal media," but he really has to take the heat for this. Undoubtedly, there have been those in the press drunk on anti-Bush zeal, but Bush has control of three branches of government, and an electorate that in many cases seemed to overlook even the most blatant lapses in judgment. Heck, the Dems are out of power. This was his accountability moment.
It's been lousy for Republicans this year. I almost feel sorry for them. I had predicted that the Republican victory in 2004 would be followed by an overreach that would cost them. I had no idea it was happen so quickly, and so brazenly. The naked hubris displayed was astounding. There was the aforementioned Schiavo disgrace, the Nuclear option mess, the increases in spending, Tom DeLay...it goes on and on.
That being said, the Dems have a lot of opportunities to lead, but there is still the problem of the fact that the Democratic Party is basically fractured. We seem unable to offer up a sustained alternative to Bush's policies, without going off the deep end (a la Howard Dean). Jack Murtha thinks we ought to withdraw our troops. He's no coward, but he's wrong on the issue. Dean doesn't think we can win in Iraq. The only high-ranking Dem consistently for staying the course is Joe Lieberman, and I guess, Hillary.
It was a rough year for New Orleans, who suffered the wrath of nature, politics, and incompetence.
It was a good year of TV. We had some damn good TV this year. Rome. Deadwood. Battlestar Galactica. 24. The Office. Lost. Everybody Hates Chris. It was good year.
It was a good year for comics. A good year for video games.
And despite the daily casualties, and all the mess here at home, it was a good year for the Iraqis, who managed to vote in three successful elections, and give a purple thumbs up to democracy.
And, at the end of the day, it was good overall, all things considered.
This was a rough year for President Bush. Whether it was the Katrina mess, the Terri Schiavo mess, Plamegate, the Harriet Miers mess, the domestic spying mess, torture, and troubles in Iraq--he's taken some hits. His supporters will blame the "liberal media," but he really has to take the heat for this. Undoubtedly, there have been those in the press drunk on anti-Bush zeal, but Bush has control of three branches of government, and an electorate that in many cases seemed to overlook even the most blatant lapses in judgment. Heck, the Dems are out of power. This was his accountability moment.
It's been lousy for Republicans this year. I almost feel sorry for them. I had predicted that the Republican victory in 2004 would be followed by an overreach that would cost them. I had no idea it was happen so quickly, and so brazenly. The naked hubris displayed was astounding. There was the aforementioned Schiavo disgrace, the Nuclear option mess, the increases in spending, Tom DeLay...it goes on and on.
That being said, the Dems have a lot of opportunities to lead, but there is still the problem of the fact that the Democratic Party is basically fractured. We seem unable to offer up a sustained alternative to Bush's policies, without going off the deep end (a la Howard Dean). Jack Murtha thinks we ought to withdraw our troops. He's no coward, but he's wrong on the issue. Dean doesn't think we can win in Iraq. The only high-ranking Dem consistently for staying the course is Joe Lieberman, and I guess, Hillary.
It was a rough year for New Orleans, who suffered the wrath of nature, politics, and incompetence.
It was a good year of TV. We had some damn good TV this year. Rome. Deadwood. Battlestar Galactica. 24. The Office. Lost. Everybody Hates Chris. It was good year.
It was a good year for comics. A good year for video games.
And despite the daily casualties, and all the mess here at home, it was a good year for the Iraqis, who managed to vote in three successful elections, and give a purple thumbs up to democracy.
And, at the end of the day, it was good overall, all things considered.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Friday, December 02, 2005
Quotes of Wisdom
"The ballot is stronger than the bullet."
-Abraham Lincoln
In the context of our current struggle, we can also say that the ballot is stronger than the bullet, the car bomb, the beheader, the missile, the madrassah...
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
-Orwell
"Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, political parties, nations, and eras it's the rule."
-Nietzsche
I think that one sums up the problem with ideologues perfectly.
-Abraham Lincoln
In the context of our current struggle, we can also say that the ballot is stronger than the bullet, the car bomb, the beheader, the missile, the madrassah...
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
-Orwell
"Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, political parties, nations, and eras it's the rule."
-Nietzsche
I think that one sums up the problem with ideologues perfectly.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Blog Recommendation: Booker Rising
I'm always on the lookout for great blogs, covering the whole of the political spectrum. Do check out Booker Rising. It's a great site run by black moderates and conservatives, discussing issues important to the black community at large (as well as America in general), all while paying homage to the great Booker T. Washington.
At the risk of tooting my own horn, a lot of my articles at Centerfield are carried on their blog. I'm moving up in the world, baby!
At the risk of tooting my own horn, a lot of my articles at Centerfield are carried on their blog. I'm moving up in the world, baby!
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
A Needless Update
I'll post something substantial either later in the day or tomorrow. Just wanted to inform the millions of readers that I like to pretend I have, that all is well.
Oh, and I do plan on starting on my theology blog real soon.
Oh, and I do plan on starting on my theology blog real soon.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Counterattacks, Dirty Tricks, and Hard Questions
The GOP has put out a new ad, attacking the Democrats for attacking Bush's handling of prewar intelligence. It uses quotes from high-profile Dems (Dean, the Clintons, Ted Kennedy, etc) favoring the removal of Saddam. On a purely visceral level, it's damn effective. It's dirty, but effective. The ad does a good job of making the Dems look stupid. That, combined with Bush's open assault on Democrats at his Veteran's Day speech, amounts to a major counterattack by the President and the GOP.
Bush can't really vindicate himself on the current status of the war in Iraq, or his handling of it, but the plan seems to be to diffuse the "Bush lied" argument (an argument I never supported- Bush didn't deliberately make up intel), and say that "hey, the Dems were wrong, too, and now they're trying to play politics, and it's hurting the troops."
The Democratic argument is that Bush had special intel that the Congress didn't have, and thus made the decision to invade based on that intel, and he went to war on flimsy grounds. The fact is, unless this is true (meaning Bush had more intel than Congress), the Democrats have a problem. They have to take a lot of the blame for giving the President the authority to go to war (if they're going to criticize the handling of prewar intel, or the case for war). It;s not fair to blame Bush for esentially coming to the same conclusions that a lot of other Democrats did. However, it's entirely legitimate to criticize the conduct of the war, and considering the mistakes made and still not owned up to, even pro-war hawks like myself ought to expect that. Of course, this should lead to actual results-meaning that it should help us win in Iraq, and not just bash Bush.
That being said, this won't really help Bush gain support for Iraq. The CIA-leak case is a bog problem whether you supported the war or not. But, this will hurt Democrats, unless they can come up with a consistent alternative to Bush's approach, that hopefully doesn't involve artifical timetables for withdrawal. And hopefully Bush will seriously consider coming to terms with the reality in Iraq, that hopefully goes beyond the "stay the course" mantra we've all become accustomed to hearing.
Also, in another dirty ad from the far-right side of the aisle comes a particularly nasty ad in support of Judge Alito. This ad is standard form in the crusade against "activist judges," so I'm not surprised. To be fair, the pro-choice group NARAL did put out that vicious ad attacking Chief Justice Roberts, but all that shows it that both sides can play dirty.
Although the right seems to do it a helluva lot more often.
hat tip: Ann Althouse
Bush can't really vindicate himself on the current status of the war in Iraq, or his handling of it, but the plan seems to be to diffuse the "Bush lied" argument (an argument I never supported- Bush didn't deliberately make up intel), and say that "hey, the Dems were wrong, too, and now they're trying to play politics, and it's hurting the troops."
The Democratic argument is that Bush had special intel that the Congress didn't have, and thus made the decision to invade based on that intel, and he went to war on flimsy grounds. The fact is, unless this is true (meaning Bush had more intel than Congress), the Democrats have a problem. They have to take a lot of the blame for giving the President the authority to go to war (if they're going to criticize the handling of prewar intel, or the case for war). It;s not fair to blame Bush for esentially coming to the same conclusions that a lot of other Democrats did. However, it's entirely legitimate to criticize the conduct of the war, and considering the mistakes made and still not owned up to, even pro-war hawks like myself ought to expect that. Of course, this should lead to actual results-meaning that it should help us win in Iraq, and not just bash Bush.
That being said, this won't really help Bush gain support for Iraq. The CIA-leak case is a bog problem whether you supported the war or not. But, this will hurt Democrats, unless they can come up with a consistent alternative to Bush's approach, that hopefully doesn't involve artifical timetables for withdrawal. And hopefully Bush will seriously consider coming to terms with the reality in Iraq, that hopefully goes beyond the "stay the course" mantra we've all become accustomed to hearing.
Also, in another dirty ad from the far-right side of the aisle comes a particularly nasty ad in support of Judge Alito. This ad is standard form in the crusade against "activist judges," so I'm not surprised. To be fair, the pro-choice group NARAL did put out that vicious ad attacking Chief Justice Roberts, but all that shows it that both sides can play dirty.
Although the right seems to do it a helluva lot more often.
hat tip: Ann Althouse
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Eddie Guerrero: 1967-2005
The wrestling world, and wrestling fans everywhere are devastated by the loss of Eddie Guerrero, at the age of 38. He passed away Sunday. They had a great tribute show on Raw last night. You'll be missed, brother.
RIP, Eddie. You were truly one of the best ever.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Alito and Race Baiting
Apparently the next chapter in the war over judges has begun, and it's the "race baiting chapter." A memo was released earlier this week reflecting on Judge Alito's legal history, and it showed how he failed to prosecute mobsters in one of the longest federal trials in history. Apparently, the memo referenced his nickname "Scalito," given to him to show him being a Scalita lite, in terms of their shared judicial philosophy and ideology (Scalia+Alito=Scalito). The DNC started putting out the memos. This case was one of 15 cases mentioned in the report.
How do Matt Drudge, Orrin Hatch and Chris Matthews see this?
According to them, the Democrats are anti-Italian. Would to God I was making this up.
The crew over at DailyKos covered this. They were not happy, to say the least.
I really don't need to add anything else. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how the Right pulled ant-Italian bigotry out of the report, unless it was in their minds to begin with.
How do Matt Drudge, Orrin Hatch and Chris Matthews see this?
According to them, the Democrats are anti-Italian. Would to God I was making this up.
The crew over at DailyKos covered this. They were not happy, to say the least.
I really don't need to add anything else. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how the Right pulled ant-Italian bigotry out of the report, unless it was in their minds to begin with.
Friday, November 04, 2005
The Blogosphere Under Siege
The House today, with bipartisan support, passed a bill that would exempt bloggers from FEC campaign finance regulations. It passed 225-182, 47 votes shy of a clear two-thirds majority that would have allowed it to pass under the rules in play. For all intents and purposes, "the vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet."
Newsflash to the Congress: This is tyranny. The campaign finance laws wear never meant to go this far. Bloggers for all sides of the political spectrum are up in arms over this, and rightly so. The story continues (hat tip: Yahoo):
Opposition was led by Rep. Marty Meehan (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., who with Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), R-Conn., championed the 2002 campaign finance law that banned unlimited "soft money" contributions that corporations, unions and individuals were making to political parties.
"This is a major unraveling of the law," Meehan said. At a time when Washington is again being tainted by scandal, including the CIA leak case, "it opens up new avenues for corruption to enter the political process."
Actually, what it does is in effect allow the government to regulate what bloggers can say and link to.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said the federal government should encourage, rather than fetter, a phenomenon that was bringing more Americans into the political process.
"The newest battlefield in the fight to protect the First Amendment is the Internet," he said. "The Internet is the new town square, and campaign finance regulations are not appropriate there."
Without his legislation, Hensarling said, "I fear that bloggers one day could be fined for improperly linking to a campaign Web site, or merely forwarding a candidate's press release to an e-mail list."
Exactly right. The broad powers the government would have in this regard are so open to abuse that on its face it's a bad deal. However, Meehan and Shays disagree:
But Meehan said no one wants to regulate bloggers. He said he and Shays have an alternative that would protect the free speech rights of bloggers while closing the cyberspace loophole where a lawmaker could vote for a prescription drug bill and then ask pharmaceutical interests to write six-figure checks for campaign ads for them to run on the Internet.
I'd sure love to see how they're going to reconcile that with the Constitution. They'd better come up with something quick. BTW, it shouldn't be lost on people how much bipartisan support this bill had:
Bloggers from liberal and conservative perspectives made similar predictions at a hearing on the subject in September. "Rather than deal with the red tape of regulation and the risk of legal problems, they will fall silent on all issues of politics," said Michael J. Krempasky, director of the Web site RedState.org.
and this:
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada has introduced a companion bill to the Hensarling measure, but the Senate has yet to take it up.
Newsflash to the Congress: This is tyranny. The campaign finance laws wear never meant to go this far. Bloggers for all sides of the political spectrum are up in arms over this, and rightly so. The story continues (hat tip: Yahoo):
Opposition was led by Rep. Marty Meehan (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., who with Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), R-Conn., championed the 2002 campaign finance law that banned unlimited "soft money" contributions that corporations, unions and individuals were making to political parties.
"This is a major unraveling of the law," Meehan said. At a time when Washington is again being tainted by scandal, including the CIA leak case, "it opens up new avenues for corruption to enter the political process."
Actually, what it does is in effect allow the government to regulate what bloggers can say and link to.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said the federal government should encourage, rather than fetter, a phenomenon that was bringing more Americans into the political process.
"The newest battlefield in the fight to protect the First Amendment is the Internet," he said. "The Internet is the new town square, and campaign finance regulations are not appropriate there."
Without his legislation, Hensarling said, "I fear that bloggers one day could be fined for improperly linking to a campaign Web site, or merely forwarding a candidate's press release to an e-mail list."
Exactly right. The broad powers the government would have in this regard are so open to abuse that on its face it's a bad deal. However, Meehan and Shays disagree:
But Meehan said no one wants to regulate bloggers. He said he and Shays have an alternative that would protect the free speech rights of bloggers while closing the cyberspace loophole where a lawmaker could vote for a prescription drug bill and then ask pharmaceutical interests to write six-figure checks for campaign ads for them to run on the Internet.
I'd sure love to see how they're going to reconcile that with the Constitution. They'd better come up with something quick. BTW, it shouldn't be lost on people how much bipartisan support this bill had:
Bloggers from liberal and conservative perspectives made similar predictions at a hearing on the subject in September. "Rather than deal with the red tape of regulation and the risk of legal problems, they will fall silent on all issues of politics," said Michael J. Krempasky, director of the Web site RedState.org.
and this:
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada has introduced a companion bill to the Hensarling measure, but the Senate has yet to take it up.
This is one of those issues you have to draw the line on. Congress needs to make this right. House members and Senators, of either party, who support the curtailing of free speech of the blogosphere, be ye warned: Elections are coming up real soon.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
More on Pajamas Media
Look, my previous post on Wolcott still stands. My views on him are established. I still stick up for David Corn, but it seems that they may have real problems over at Pajamas Media, and it goes beyond the fact that right-wingers like Charles Johnson of LGF are running things.
Take this as you will, but I found this interesting.
Take this as you will, but I found this interesting.
Wolcott Strikes Again
This time he's gone after David Corn, because he's on the editorial board for Pajamas Media, an up-and-coming network of blogs, covering the political spectrum, that happens to be founded by right-of-center bloggers. The fact is, there are a lot of suspect and scurrilous types associated with that group, and clearly the politics of many of those bloggers (certainly LGF) are not mine, and certainly not David Corn's, but there are some good blogs and bloggers at PM. Liberal and conservative blogs. In fact, half of them are already on my blogroll.
The fact is, James Wolcott sees anyone who even hangs out with pro-types as traitors to his cause. Liberal hawks, Liberals who hangs out with conservatives, were all suspect in his eyes.
BTW, Corn's on the Editorial Board for God's sake.
UPDATE: Apparently it's been revealed that Judy Miller is keynoting at Pajamas Media's opening gala. Maybe there's more cause for concern than I thought...
Honestly, I'm still not sure how this will turn out. I'm just saying the Left shouldn't hate on David Corn because he's blogging over there.
The fact is, James Wolcott sees anyone who even hangs out with pro-types as traitors to his cause. Liberal hawks, Liberals who hangs out with conservatives, were all suspect in his eyes.
BTW, Corn's on the Editorial Board for God's sake.
UPDATE: Apparently it's been revealed that Judy Miller is keynoting at Pajamas Media's opening gala. Maybe there's more cause for concern than I thought...
Honestly, I'm still not sure how this will turn out. I'm just saying the Left shouldn't hate on David Corn because he's blogging over there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)