The name says it all

Sometimes a headline is just too good not to pass on, and I thought this one would be worthy of sharing. Plus, I like to see democracy in action.
Coming in second place is a story which actually is one that brings some understanding where there was none before. But that doesn't stop it from being funny.

Also, in celebrating multi-culturalism, multi-nationalism and a general enjoyment of holidays, I would like to wish Canadians happy Thanksgiving. Good on you for beating Americans to it yet another year. The only thing I don't understand is why you celebrate by acting like turkeys. It's dangerous.

Africa in Motion

If you happen to be in Edinburgh at the end of October, check out Africa in Motion, the Edinburgh African Film Festival.

Coffee Break

Bush is standing by his man.

Jack Straw would like to see your face.

This weekend could be interesting.

Are US teens abandoning their faith?

The Ig Nobels are awarded.

Americans don't trust or support the GOP.

We Undermine the Perverts at Our Own Peril

I can't add too much to the debate at this point, except to point out my astonishment that the GOP would be willing to cover up for this creep for years, illustrating their utter hypocrisy concerning family values and supposed moral superiority. The newest sickening twist, and there have been several, is that pundits such as those employed by The Wall Street Journal are so desperate about the political fall-out that they're trying to turn the whole Foley saga into an example of liberal hypocrisy. As everyone from Andrew Sullivan to Jon Stewart has noted by now, equating pedophelia and homosexuality is repulsive, and trying to blame Foley's actions on the Democrats' fight for homosexual rights is just...sick.

Hastert, of course, has to go. He thought it was just fine to allow a predatory creep to remain in a position that allowed him access to underage pages, and to keep this information confined to a small circle, and that's just not acceptable. Hastert, hilariously, sees the widespread criticism of him as some sort of attack on the country itself:

But, you know, this is a political issue in itself, too, and what we've tried to do as the Republican Party is make a better economy, protect this country against terrorism -- and we've worked at it ever since 9/11, worked with the president on it -- and there are some people that try to tear us down. We are the insulation to protect this country, and if they get to me it looks like they could affect our election as well.

Yes, undermine the perverts at our own peril, so to speak.

And it's fascinating that he chose Rush Limbaugh's show to defend himself. Let's let Glenn have the last words:

If the term "moral degenerate" has any validity and can be fairly applied to anyone, there are few people who merit that term more than Rush Limbaugh. He is the living and breathing embodiment of moral degeneracy, with his countless overlapping sexual affairs, his series of shattered, dissolved marriages, his hedonistic and illegal drug abuse, his jaunts, with fistfulls of Viagra (but no wife), to an impoverished Latin American island renowned for its easy access to underage female prostitutes.

Yet that is who Hastert chose as the High Priest of the Values Voters to whom he made his pilgrimage and from whom he received his benediction.

Seriousness of the Day

Apparently, opposing specific inhumane torture techniques is unserious and irresponsible:

What kind of damage could this do? Islamists who watch American media will note the exceptions McCain listed and tell their operatives that they will not need to prepare for waterboarding and can prepare for less rigorous techniques. While it isn't quite the same thing as telling them all of the approved techniques, it gives another edge to the Islamists -- an edge we didn't need to give them.

Serious and responsible people would understand this. Apparently, John McCain doesn't qualify as either.

Please, can we have a modicum of seriousness?

Mail-Order Venison

The Editors manage to get George Allen off the hook.

Greenwald vs. Goldberg

Aka, Goldberg vs. History. I love how easily Greenwald hands Jonah's ass to him on a platter:

It is hard to overstate how false Goldberg's claim is, as even Byron York reported, in Goldberg's own magazine, National Review (emphasis added): "Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action [launching cruise missiles at Osama bin Laden] set off a howling debate about Clinton's motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton's critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal -- the so-called 'wag the dog' strategy."

Leading GOP political figures and pundits repeatedly voiced such criticisms against Clinton:

You can read the damning list from there. Jonah is forced to admit that it's a good list, but strikes back with the assertion that...Greenwald's annoying. Snap!

Seriousness of the Day

I mean, Hugh Hewitt of the day:

President Bush and the GOP are serious about the war. The Democrats are not, are in fact dangerously ill-informed about the threat, and their "strategy" is a recipe for disaster. All of this is becoming so blindingly clear that the consequences will show in November.

If Hewitt so desired, I'm sure I could write a simple computer program that would generate his daily posts for him.

Coffee Break

Shrill Clinton gets Rice in a huff. As The Editors note, only shrillness can save us now.

A scrubbed-down and renovated Superdome plays host to an emotional Saints victory.

Cherie Blair apparently thinks Gordon Brown is a liar. Or a similar-sounding word.

I can't wait to see Musharraf on the Daily Show.

Europe: surreptitiously taking over the world.

I'm guessing he was the al Qaeda #2.

Extra Bonus Seriousness of the Day

This is about as succinct as it gets. And he even quotes Hewitt!

Seriousness of the Day

Meetings are not serious:

There have been, what, a thousand meetings at every level from platoon to the Office of the Secretary and the Oval Office, from the mid-ninties until today, and bin Laden is still not captured or known to be dead. By now the Bush Adminsitration has certainly passed the Clinton Adminsitration in "meetings held" by a factor unknowable but certain to be large.

"Meetings held" like the demotion of Richard Clarke are the parts of the Clinton narrative that most offend serious people, because neither mean anything.

Seriousness of the Day

I was in Pittsburgh for a week, so blogging was on hold. But the master, Hugh Hewitt, never goes on vacation. Here's his interview with Thomas Edsall:

HH: One of the interesting passages, and very candid ones in Building Red America is where you recognize the security gap between Democrats and Republicans. And you write about the fact that the Pelosi Democrats, the Ned Lamont Democrats, the Harry Reid and Howard Dean Democrats have really lost the confidence of America on national security issues. Do you think it’s fair for Americans to judge them less serious about security than Republicans?

TE: Yeah, I think they come out of an anti-war tradition, anti…their voting records of Democrats on the whole is much more anti-defense weapons systems. And there is, as I’ve said at the beginning of this interview, an underlying hostility to people in the military among many on the left.

Update: This is too easy.

Extra Bonus Seriousness

It's hard to keep up with the seriousphere. Here's Michael Tanji from the Weekly Standard:

IT TOOK ONLY A FEW MINUTES for media outlets to disseminate headlines about how the recent Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report comparing pre-war intelligence claims against post-war findings was a refutation of the stated reasons for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Focusing on the conclusions of the multi-section report, most news accounts walked down a checklist of the "lies" allegedly perpetrated by the Bush administration.

But the SSCI report is of limited use for anyone seriously attempting to understand what was--and was not--going on in pre-war Iraq.

Senate report, schmenate report. Facts and findings are not serious until we confer seriousness upon them.

Coffee Break

The deputy chairman of the Russian Central Bank, who has crusaded against corruption and money-laundering, is gunned down in Moscow.

A gunman opens up in a Canadian college, killing 1 and wounding 19 before killing himself.

Nancy Grace is the devil.

GOP renegades are standing strong. Good for them.

Northwest coffee culture comes to NYC.

This headline says it all about how it's going in Iraq.

Novak and Armitage disagree about the nature and manner of the leak. Some theories about why Novak's story seems to be changing.

Seriousness of the Day

It's not that I want to pick on Hugh Hewitt every day, it's just that he consistently delivers the goods:

Most Senate Democrats oppose the legislation, and that opposition should be the centerpiece of the GOP campaign over the next eigth weeks. Democrats are simply not serious about the war or about preventing terrorism.

He must be the most serious blogger of all.

Great Awakening

Knowing that Bush sees the war on terror as a religious struggle really doesn't make me feel better.

Ponnuru

This NYT piece by Ramesh Ponnuru fits into the classic CW as well -- popular among both Republicans and much of the mainstream media -- that everything works to the advantage of Republicans, no matter what. Ponnuru just takes this to its logical extreme: losing is really winning.

I can see some of the logic - that Republicans maintaining absolute power over congress and the presidency until 2008 makes it more likely that voters will turn against the GOP in that election. But I don't buy his assumption, that Dems taking a small majority in the House will sour voters against them for 2008. If Dems re-take the House, it will be a first small step toward regaining some power from this corrupted GOP. And initially it won't be much power, unless they miraculously get a majority in the Senate too.

But most importantly, what Ponnuru doesn't point out is that the Republicans shouldn't lose for strategic reasons; they should lose because they deserve to lose.

And Digby takes Ponnuru to task even further here.

Path to 9/11 Redux

The Guardian gives the lowdown on David Cunningham, the film's director.

Seriousness of the Day

From the master of serious thought, Hugh Hewitt:

The fact is, post 9/11, the parties have come to two very different places on terror. The Republicans may be wrong (I think they’re more right than wrong, but that’s neither here nor there), but at least they’re serious. The Democrats are both wrong and frivolous. So anything that makes people think about terrorism and national security works to the Republicans’ advantage.

This is so perfect and ridiculous, I love it. So, the Republicans may have waged the war on terror with complete ineptitude, but at least they're serious. Not like those frivolous Dems. Hewitt captures so much of the right-wing CW in just a few lines, it's amazing. Like believing that anything relating to security and terrorism works for the GOP, no matter how dangerously incompetent they've been.

Coffee Break

Lincoln Chafee wins the Republican Rhode Island primary, discouraging some Dems but also sending a threatening message to the far-right of the GOP.

Apple unveils its movie download service, though content is limited to Disney-related films.

Chavez and Livingstone, together again.

A day later, enmity between the US and Syria returns.

Police find 65 more bodies of torture victims in Baghdad.

Better use your bell.

Lowry and Kristol

In addition to the Greenwald quote below, I like this short comment from Atrios. Lowry and Kristol are the editors of the two premier conservative magazines in America, and they have been more wrong about American foreign policy than anybody else these past years. Why do they still have a voice in the media, in places like the Post? They should be shunned.

Matt Lauer

This is the best thing I've ever seen from Matt Lauer. My favorite line is when W, who is obviously incredibly uncomfortable at that moment, interrupts and says "Let me remind you, September 11th was a bad day." He has become such a parody of himself. It's amazing that he thinks such simplistic invocations can sweep aside the issues at hand (in this case, our shameful use of torture and secret trials). I'm amazed anyone believes a single word he says anymore.

Seriousness of the Day

Today, Glenn Greenwald takes a close look at Rich Lowry, Serious Foreign Policy Expert:

Just go read a few Rich Lowry columns about Iraq over the last few years -- just pick some randomly -- and then ask yourself if there is anyone you would trust less on national security; ask whether, short of being Bill Kristol, it would be possible to have been more wrong about everything. Virtually every one of his Iraq columns are filled with bitter mockery of those who were right, along with pompous predictions about what would happen which were plainly grounded in a world composed in equal parts of adolescent fantasy and rank ignorance.

But as always with Iraq and terrorism debates, being endlessly wrong is a sign of profound seriousness, and cheering on wars -- no matter how misguided and misinformed the cheering is -- renders one a serious foreign policy expert who recognizes the serious threats we face in these very serious times. That's why, when The Washington Post wants to find someone to counsel us on its Op-Ed page as to what to do in Iraq, it turns to two of the Wrongest People in America.

Poker and the Poorman

Just a little flashback to one of the funniest posts ever.

Coffee Break

Islamic militants attempt to storm the US Embassy in Damascus. Syrian security forces kill 3.

This is ridiculous.

Americans don't believe Bush has any more credibility.

One of the fathers of modern environmentalism, James Lovelock, makes the case for nuclear power.

Why did Bush use a 9/11 commemoration speech to talk about Iraq?

Hamas softens its words but continues its violence.

Coffee Break

Multiple moments of silence are held to remember the 9/11 victims.

Blair doesn't get a very warm welcome in Lebanon.

Tim Russert gives Cheney a long-overdue grilling.

Five years on, development at Ground Zero has been painfully slow.

Sarkozy lines up against Turkey entering the EU.

Cameron isn't a neo-conservative, but Brown might be.

Seriousness of the Day

Hugh Hewitt gets all serious:

Every time I think the Democrats have hit bottom, they dig a new basement.

I suspect the extreme reaction of the Senate Democrats is based on the sudden recogntion that the fall campaign will be waged on the single issue of which party is serious about national security. The president's demand for action on key fronts yesterday has clearly thrown the Dems into disarray as they realize that the American electorate will not reward more fecklessness on the part of Democrats. Now arrives a major television event that exposes the specifics of Democrtaic-era "stewardship" of national security, and they are in a frenzy to do whatever it takes to keep that memory down the memory hole.

BBC2 Responds

So this is the email I got back in response to my complaint:

Thank you for your e-mail.

'The Path to 9/11', to be transmitted over September 10 & 11 is a drama based on real events and, as with any drama, the writer's perspective will be brought to bear on those events. A statement at the beginning of the programme is clear about the sources and methods which have been used:

"The following dramatization is based on the 9/11 Commission Report and other published sources and personal interviews. Composite and representative characters and incidents, and time compression have been used for dramatic purposes".

It is not our practice to engage in public debate about the contents of programmes before they've been transmitted, but what we will say is that this subject matter is always going to be politically controversial. Most of the events take place when the Clinton administration was in power so naturally it will feature heavily.

The programme has been reviewed by the Editorial Policy team and we are confident it lives up to high standards of fairness and accuracy.

With this in mind, we hope you will enjoy the drama.

Regards

BBC Information

FISA Round-Up

Anonymous Liberal summarizes what's at stake with the wiretapping issue:

Is it even possible to be any more disingenuous? The amendments to FISA contained in the Patriot Act were passed with the express purpose of giving the president the ability to listen in on any calls involving al Qaeda agents. Every single politician in the country is unambiguously in favor of listening in on al Qaeda's calls and to suggest otherwise is entirely dishonest.

Bush doesn't need any further Congressional authorization to intercept terrorist communications. What he wants is for Congress--via the Specter Bill--to do away with any requirement that the courts oversee what the executive branch is doing. He wants us to return to the pre-FISA era of unchecked executive power, where the J. Edgar Hoovers of the world could spy on whoever they wanted to without fear of being held accountable.

Thankfully, Republicans such as Heather Wilson understand the issue:

"You need checks and balances in place to make sure future administrations or even civil servants don't get out of line," said Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.), sponsor of the main House surveillance bill. Unlike Specter's bill, she added, "my bill was not authorized by the White House."

I like that quote, because it reinforces how the Bush administration is so often short-sighted in the sense that it does things for the benefit of their administration. If GOP lawmakers look ahead to a time when they are no longer in control of the White House, do they really want the president to have unfettered surveillance powers? Of course not. It should never be the case. But because they are in power, every decision is calculated to give the president more power. If they have their way, I suspect the GOP will come to regret this one day. In other words, this shouldn't be a partisan issue, but rather a checks-and-balances issue.

NYT on Secret Prisons

It's refreshing when a newspaper points out that the president is lying. Not everything should be framed as a debate between two parties. Some things are simply true or not.

Coffee Break

Belgian doctors discover that some patients in persistent vegetative states are aware of their surroundings and able to understand instructions.

ABC might head back to the editing room.

A coalition of Senate Republicans, Democrats and military lawyers resist Bush's tribunal proposals.

Marion Jones is clear. Makes you wonder about Floyd Landis and Justin Gatlin.

Belgian police arrest neo-Nazis in alleged terror plot.

Israel ends naval blockade of Lebanon.

BBC2

Also, BBC2 is going to be showing Path to 9/11 over here as well. If you want to drop them a complaint, here's how. You might ask how buying programmes from the US Republican Party is the best use of license fee money.

ABC and 9/11

There's hope yet. Apparently ABC is being inundated with criticisms from viewers as well as lawyers from the Clinton cabinet.

What I think is most interesting is that conservatives aren't even pretending that The Path to 9/11 is fair or balanced. They just keep saying that they need to get Republicans rallied around this movie, and that Dems shouldn't complain since they had Fahrenheit 9/11. In other words, they're admitting it's a partisan piece.

As Jonah should note, there are huge differences. Michael Moore makes no pretenses of being nonpartisan, and he has been lambasted for dishonesty and disingenuousness by people on both ends of the spectrum, myself included. But supposedly, The Path to 9/11 is based on the 9/11 commission report and is a nonpartisan docudrama to commemorate the 5-year anniversary of the attacks. Now that it's been revealed to be a right-wing hit piece on the Clinton administration, ABC should feel compelled to pull it.

Seriousness of the Day

Unsurprisingly, from National Review:

Civil-liberties extremists have already decried the CIA program under which these terrorists have been held and the interrogation techniques used against them. But the simple fact is that they are crucial to saving lives. That’s why the White House has proposed legislation to ensure that they continue — giving voters a chance, before the midterm elections, to see how serious their senators and congressmen are about keeping them safe.

Seriousness of the Day

From Hugh Hewitt:

I’m especially uncomfortable with this controversy since it’s so unnecessary. The record of the Clinton administration on terrorism is an embarrassment and a disgrace. All serious studies of the matter have reached the same conclusion.

Politics of the Guantamo Move

Josh Marshall understands the simple politics of the Guantanamo 14. It's a clear challenge from Bush, who believes that engaging this issue before November will benefit the GOP politically. So now we have to pin our hopes on the integrity of 3 senators. Here's hoping they stand firm.

Coffee Break

Bush admits use of torture in secret CIA prisons.

When Glenn Greenwald and John Podhoretz both believe that Bush is now committed to military action against Iran, it's time to be concerned.

Tony Blair looks ready to cave to pressure and name a departure date.

GOP blocks Rumsfeld no-confidence vote.

Two are dead in a Russian nuclear sub fire.

ABC and the Path to 9/11

So, ABC is marketing this as a "dramatization...not a documentary," which contains "fictionalized scenes." They also claim that it's based on the 9/11 Commission report, although, as the Post notes, the ABC drama and the 9/11 report conflict with each other. Figures such as Richard Clarke, Madeline Albright, and Sandy Berger have disputed key events of the ABC drama. ABC has further inflamed matters by providing sneak previews to right-wing pundits and right-wing blogs, but not allowing former Clinton officials to see the same previews.

First off, why ABC thinks that the five-year anniversary of 9/11 warrants a fictionalized version of the build-up to the attack, rather than a documentary or non-fiction docudrama, is anybody's guess. Second, ABC has clearly betrayed their biases to the world on this. If they were attempting to tell the truth, they would be open to giving advance viewings to all interested and relevant parties, but they're not forthcoming in doing so. How deep in the GOP pockets are they?

ABC and 9/11

Digby asks the right questions: why would ABC choose far-right filmmakers to make a supposed documentary about 9/11? And does this illustrate a pattern of ABC caving to the far right in its programming decisions?

Via Greenwald, we're reminded of CBS caving to the wingers regarding an "insufficiently reverent" docudrama about Reagan. Why do the major networks lose their spine when the right-wing makes a little noise? They're willing to go as far as false historical revisionism to make the Republicans happy.

Seriousness of the Day

From Red State:

A note on this: the Democrats have taken it upon themselves to issue a critique of the President's policy before he gave his speech, which they archly call "Neo-'Con.'" Now I'm as big of a fan of a good pun as anyone, but there is a time and a place for such things. Even if you are awed by the cleverness of the genius who crafted this rapier word play on "conservative" and "confidence trick," you should probably resist the temptation to make a pun the title of your counter-terrorism policy, which you are issuing in an attempt to make voters believe you have a serious alternative to Mr. Bush's strategy to propose. Of course, the Democrats have no such thing.

Malkin Ahmadinejad

Andrew Sullivan finds out just how damningly similar Christianists and Islamists can be.

Homelife of a Justice

What exactly has Justice John Roberts been telling his kids?:

"Let me explain the government to you. There’s God, then there’s the president and then there’s my father.”

— Jack Roberts, 6-year-old son of Chief Justice John Roberts, overheard speaking to one of his young peers on the last day of summer camp

Scarily, Kathryn Lopez thinks that qualifies him as the smartest kid in the country.

Coffee Break

The final decision in the Mexican election should come today.

Kofi Annan will help mediate discussion between Israel and Hezbollah to free the kidnapped soldiers.

Summer break is over for Congress.

GOP puts immigration overhaul on hold in advance on the November elections.

Israel settles in.

Somehow, opium cultivation is up by 59% in Aghanistan.

In better Aghani news, some 200 Taliban fighters are killed.

The Fear of Mark Steyn

Steyn apparently has a problem with the Fox newsman and cameraman participating in a videotaped "conversion" to Islam in order to save their lives. The typically brilliant Glenn Greenwald dismantles Steyn here.

Appeasement

This is a great and much-needed discussion of appeasement. What with Rumsfeld and Cheney bringing out that bogeyman again and again recently, some historical perspective is in order. I particularly like the points about Lyndon Johnson becoming trapped in Vietnam because he didn't want to appear like another Neville Chamberlain and about Reagan making enemies in the 1980s for holding talks with the USSR rather than confronting them militarily. It's good to remember where the fear of appeasement can lead. Don't let Rumsfeld and Co. get away with using the same bogeyman in Iran that they used in the build-up to Iraq.

Seriousness of the Day

Jonah:

Alas, if you spend even a fraction of time reading the comments sections at even eggheady leftwing blogs (Tapped, for example) your faith in the good will and intellectual seriousness of the opposition will not be bolstered.

Now, for something serious: Community colleges.

Coffee Break

Steve Irwin, 'crocodile hunter', killed by a stingray.

The NYT gives a breakdown of the House seats up for grabs.

The Battle of Seattle is to get the Hollywood treatment.

More trouble at TNR.

Your Daily Doone.

Everyone ever arrested was was the No. 2 al-Qaeda man.

Europe attacks moon.

What Hannity Would Die For

Via Atrios:

Sean Hannity thinks that preventing Pelosi from becoming House leader is worth dying for.

Good to see his priorities are straight.

And meanwhile, of the many people Ann Coulter would like to kill, Lincoln Chafee is but one.

Coffee Break

Another day, another bold California initiative.

Sanctions it is.

Pelosi says Rumsfeld's judgment is impaired.

Nobody can stop our children from calling Bush a lying drunk-driver chicken-hawk in chief who abused marijuana and cocaine.

Jonathan Woodward on justice in Uganda.

Annan scolds Israel over the use of cluster bombs in Lebanon.

What Year Do You Think It Is?

I missed this when it originally came out, but I was amused by the clever categorization of foreign policy types. I guess I'm a 1948ist, if any of those. I'm not sure it's helpful to think of the novel terrorism threat in any of these terms, though.

Iran Shelling Iraq

When I read this a few days back, I was amazed that I hadn't seen anything about this in the American press. If it's true that Iran has been shelling Kurds in Northern Iraq, and that Iran and Turkey are talking about conducting operations across the Iraqi border to root out Kurdish rebels, how can this not be pertinent to the US operations there? You would think that America's current enemy #1 shelling the country in which more than 100,000 US soldiers are stationed and which is already in a low-level civil war would be setting off a lot more alarms. Not to mention, Kurdistan has pretty much been the only stable region of Iraq until now. So how is the US addressing these actions?

Press Conferences

From the NYT:

The free-wheeling news conference veered off into an unruly question and answer session with reporters praising the president, questioning the president and some jumping from their seats, demanding that their questions be taken. The president politely admonished one reporter saying he needed to behave better.

One reporter said he had no question, but wanted to recite poetry.

“I was hoping when you arrived I would share my pain with you,” said a reporter for a small newspaper called The Path of the People, when he stood to ask a question. “Now I have no pain in my heart, only happiness.”

Did Jeff Gannon move to Iran?

Holder Who Dare Not Speak His Name

It looks like there's finally an answer to the Secret Holder mystery. TPMmuckraker is reporting that Ted Stevens is the man. This isn't really a surprise, what with Stevens being a petty curmudgeon, legendary pork-loving politician, and generally the worst senator in the country. It is odd that this article has gone unnoticed for the past couple of weeks while bloggers tried to eliminate senators one by one by calling their offices.

The entire secret holds thing seems very odd and mysterious to me. I have to admit, I didn't realize that legislation could be stopped in such an opaque way. And it's pretty funny that a piece of legislation encouraging transparency in government is being blocked by a "secret hold."

Coffee Break

Because I'm in Britain, this is what I see if I try to read this article. Here's the reason why.

Classy Rumsfeld.

Richard Armitage admits what Corn and Isikoff have reported, i.e. that he was the initial leak source for Plame's CIA identity.

Another investigation of Kenneth Tomlinson reveals his abuses at the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Universal Music aims to steal Apple's thunder.

So which is it, the Freedom Falcons, The Freedom Hawks, or the Liberation Hawks?

Coffee Break

The California legislature prepares to do what the federal government won't.

If you decide to form a violent separatist group, don't give it a name that sounds like an American junior high football team.

After ten million articles about John Karr and utter media devotion to this case, charges against him are dropped.

26 more bodies are found in Baghdad.

The NYT has a piece on Bill Clinton's AIDS work.

This is odd timing on the part of Mr. Kerry.

Warren Steed Jeffs is in custody.

With a Thursday deadline looming, Ahmadinejad proposes a televised debate with Bush.

Jill Carroll

The release of the Fox News reporter and camera-man, coupled with the recently published details of Jill Carroll's kidnapping and release, reminds me of the right-wing blogosphere's widespread reaction to Carroll's ordeal. Think Progress kept track of the attacks. The gist is that Jill Carroll was somehow understood by right-wingers to be sympathetic to the terrorists and their cause. The most egregious attacks on Carroll came from Jonah Goldberg and John Podhoretz of The Corner, and Don Imus's producer, who likened Carroll to a suicide bomber. Even when the truth came out, that Carroll was forced at gunpoint to make propoganda videos and lied in her first public interview because she feared for her safety, the Cornerites in particular were unapologetic about their previous statements.

It's interesting that they slander someone so awfully and with no evidence to support their accusations, and yet when reporters from a Bush-friendly news outlet are kidnapped and forced to take part in videotaped propoganda, there's no mention of mental instability or Stockholm Syndrome or hidden sympathies. Why is that?

Update: Oh, I just found some new NRO stuff. First, we have Cliff May announcing the release of the Fox News guys, but lamenting that the reporter and camera-man said that their ordeal shouldn't dissuade reporters from covering Gaza and telling Palestinian stories to the world. May apparently thinks that the kidnapping may have badly affected the mens' impartiality, making them more sympathetic to their kidnappers.

Then we have Andy McCarthy, who takes the cake for NRO hypocrisy, as he accuses Reuters of bias for reporting that a video had appeared in which the men appeared to convert to Islam. After all the mud-slinging that NRO aimed at Jill Carroll for wearing Muslim garb and appearing in propoganda videos, they accuse Reuters of bias for reporting that the Fox guys did something similar? That's fucking rich. And I wonder if McCarthy will apologize after reading this. The reason the original article didn't mention that they converted at gunpoint is because the article was published before the men were released and held a press conference. NRO idiots.

Coffee Break

Richard Armitage was the first, but not the last, official to leak Plame's identity.

The American version of The Office gets some recognition.

Fox News journalists are released after vowing to convert to Islam.

Kofi Annan is in Lebanon to shore up the ceasefire talks.

This P-I commentary on Katrina reminds me of an old Mike Myers sketch from SNL. Anyone remember the hyper hypo?

The US is preparing to test its missile defense system again, this time with lowered expectations: "we're not going to try to hit the target"

Marine soldiers guarding Saddam Hussein have reportedly been forcing him to repeatedly watch the South Park movie which features him as the devil's lover.

Chutzpah

Indeed.

Valerie's identity was exposed by Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others in Bush Administration in the summer of 2003 [as] she was doing undercover work to monitor, detect, and interdict nuclear technology going to Iran.

Now House members are criticizing US intelligence agencies for not coming up with enough damning evidence about Iran's nuclear activities. Memo to the GOP: maybe if you let our intelligence agencies do their jobs without injecting political sabotauge into the works, things would be different.

Also, since when do you come up with a foreign policy game plan and then wait for the intelligence to conform to the plan, rather than the other way around? What an ass-backwards administration we have.

Bad Cat

This is a great story. A 4-year-old boy camping with his family on Vancouver Island was attacked by a cougar, but his dad sprinted over and jumped full on its chest, chasing the cougar away and leaving the boy with only very minimal injuries. The boy's response: "It's a bad cat that made a bad choice."

His dad surely deserves consideration for father of the year.

Fortune Cookies

This is a pretty funny dig at neoconservative arguments, and I think it also hits on an important truth: when neocons go on and on about how serious they are, how their arguments are serious and that only other serious thinkers can appreciate them, and that realists and progressives aren't serious enough, the seriousness basically boils down to those three little words that Michael Brendan tacks on. They think of themselves as more serious because all of their solutions are militaristic. Maybe they should substitute "serious" with "grim."

I Want a Pair of These

This is awesome, and Stephon Marbury is my new hero. I know what I want for Christmas.

Turkey

I think Turkey was already doomed on its ambition to join the EU, but this would seal it.

Electra Glide in Blue

One of the very best things I've seen in this year's festival is the film Electra Glide in Blue, part of the retrospective of early 1970s lost classics. It's unbelievable that this movie is not more well-known, because the acting by Robert Blake is perfect, the cinematography by Conrad Hall is breath-taking, and the screenplay is just beautiful, striking the perfect balance of humor, drama and majesty. It feels very contemporary too, like something the Coen Brothers might achieve at their best. This was a one-off by director James Guercio and it's a shame that he didn't pursue film-making. I feel very lucky to have caught this one on the big screen.

John Banville

I saw an interview with John Banville this morning, as part of the Edinburgh Book Festival. I've been a fan of his for several years, since I lived in Ireland and read Book of Evidence and the Revolutions Trilogy, and it was exciting to see the writer sometimes referred to as the greatest living novelist of the English language. The conversation mostly centered around The Sea, his novel which won the Booker last year. He gave some great insight into the writing process, was witty and friendly and seemed like a man with genuine curiosity and astonishment at the things around him. But I have to say, both the interviewer and the audience questioners were horrible. The worst question from the interviewer: "You said a bit ago that you've always loved watching the sky and the clouds. And yet you called your last book The Sea. Why didn't you call it The Sky, or The Sea and the Sky?" And one audience member saw fit to waste all of our time by asking Banville which recent detective novels he liked. Banville did not answer.

Donkeyfuhrer

Via Atrios, I found this bit of GOP insanity: the Republican National Committee website posted a photo of several high-profile Democrats including Howard Dean, but in this photo they drew a faint Hitler-style moustache on Dean. Someone must've come to their senses, because it was soon removed, but luckily some bloggers copied the photo before they replaced it with a moustache-less one.

Click here to compare the two photos. Mind you, this isn't from some far-right blogger. This was posted on the Republicans' own national website.

This comes after Fox News anchor John Gibson goes on this tirade:

"Hang on, Dems. Here come the Pol Pots of your party. And if you were for national security, you are now emphatically not. Or else. Remember the mountain of skulls in Cambodia? It's the Democrats new reality now that the anti-war rabble has tasted blood by taking Lieberman down,"

Yes, they think of Democrats as akin to Hitler and the Khmer Rouge.

The Fear of Stefan Sharkansky and Co.

It's not a helpful fear.

I had remembered that Stefan Sharkansky wrote a few pieces in The Stranger a while back and was curious to check out his blog, Sound Politics. I was intrigued that Sharkansky was writing as a staunch conservative in the progressive bastion of Seattle and was curious to see his blog's conservative take on politics both local and beyond. But I was a bit shocked by what I found there.

Apparently, Stefan's favorite blogging theme right now is that the Seattle area Muslim community has not been apologetic enough in the aftermath of last week's Jewish center shooting. He has particularly singled out a Jeff Siddiqui of American Muslims of Puget Sound. Note Stefan's cute headline about 'reluctantly expressing sympathy,' trying to make Saddiqui seem very cold-hearted about the shooting. Here's Saddiqui's actual point:

We struggled for some time about whether a statement should be sent out or not, because we would like this to be recognized for the grievous crime that it is, rather than an event that calls for an explanation or apology by Muslims.

In the end, it was decided that we need to extend our sympathies and good will to those who were victimized by this crime because it would prevent misunderstandings between the faiths.

Now, I don't know the first thing about Siddiqui and am not going to try to judge him in general, but if we're just discussing his words, then Stefan is way off the mark in his interpretation. Siddiqui is saying that it should not be assumed that all Muslims are sympathetic with the gunman unless they explicitly come out and say that they are not.

But Stefan plods on. Apparently 9 days before the shooting, Siddiqui had a letter to the editor published in the Everett Herald, in which he wrote the following:

I grieve that once more Muslims will sit it out and watch the slaughter of Muslims and Arabs (many are Christians) [in Lebanon] and only grumble among ourselves.

I fear there may be some idiotic Muslim who will decide to take matters into his own hand and perpetrate some terrible act on people whose only guilt is inaction (just like the Muslims themselves). This will only fuel more fire against us.

His letter can be read in its entirety here. Stefan's comment is just plain nuts, saying that Siddiqui was making veiled threats and that it's 'not unreasonable' to surmise that the gunman was inspired by Siddiqui. In fact, Siddiqui's point seems to be that terrorists like Naveed Haq, the Seattle shooter, are not only committing terrible acts but also causing a great deal of grief for other Muslims, because the community holds all Muslims responsible. And in that respect Siddiqui is remarkably prescient, because that's exactly what Stefan and his crew are doing.

And then Stefan goes from the ridiculous to the sublime, apparently outraged that Muslims are organizing a peace march in Seattle. Stefan even puts 'peace march' in scare quotes. Shouldn't he be celebrating these Muslims? What do you want, Stefan?

I encourage you to read a few of the comment threads, as much as you can stomach. It gives an interesting taste of how deranged the far-right is in the US. I posted a few comments challenging Stefan's arguments and was threatened with decapitation and having a bullet put through my head. And these are the folks who brush all Muslims as being violent and sick.

It's sad, but people like Stefan and many of his readers seem to have sold their souls, thinking that doing so is necessary to fight the war on terror. Should we be concerned about fanatical Muslims? Absolutely - just look at the news today. But Stefan and many of his readers are demented and dangerous and afraid of everything, and they're absolutely not helpful, to say the least.

Update: I also found this, which Sharkansky seems to ignore.

British Muslims

Timothy Garton Ash should be required reading today.

Trans-Atlantic Plot

This is amazing and heartening news that authorities were able to thwart what sounds like a massive terrorist operation; impressive that the intelligence was there and that they could act on it successfully. It's also pretty scary for those of us who regularly fly from the UK back to North America. Sounds like those journeys will be much different in the immediate future, too (BA is not even allowing hand luggage).

I haven't heard yet if this was a joint US/UK intelligence operation, but the threat levels in both countries are at maximum.

Lamont Wins

In the US, the rate of incumbents being returned to office is pretty astronomical, so the fact that 3 incumbents lost primaries last night is huge. And the most significant by far is Lieberman's loss to newcomer Ned Lamont, which serves as an enormous boon to the grassroots and netroots progressive movements and bodes well for November. Yes, the Democrat tent needs to be big enough to support both those who initially supported the war and those who didn't, but it doesn't need to be big enough to support those who think it's going just fine today. Lieberman is delusional, he is blindly supportive of Bush, and he has gone so far as to warn that any criticism of Bush and the war is dangerous. Obviously, he had to go. Hopefully now he'll change his mind about running independent.

But it's interesting to see right-wingers try to spin this as good news for them, that 'the loony left' are taking over the party again. And this spin gets under some people's skin. Check out the comment thread in the Stranger when the decision was announced and you can see that people like commenter Fnarf buy heavily into this line. And I'm convinced that the only danger for Dems is precisely people like Fnarf believing this spin, which subsequently makes us seem fractured. You can see how this discussion unfolded in the thread linked above.

Anyway, it's refreshing to see one conservative admitting that the Lamont win is very bad for the GOP:

Well, someone has to be gloomy about this, so it might as well be me: I don't think that Lamont's win bodes well for the GOP in November. In fact, I think it's very bad news indeed. Yes, yes, Connecticut may not be typical of the nation, and, yes, yes, voters enthusiastic enough to vote in a primary may not be representative of the electorate as a whole, but add in some of the other results from last night, and Lamont's win adds yet more weight to the idea that "throw the bums out" is going to be an important factor this fall. As the National Journal asked last night, "when was the last time in a non-redistricting midterm that 3+ incumbent members of Congress have lost in primaries?" Clue: Newt Gingrich knows the answer.

Then there's the fact that the Lamont win makes it even more likely that the November vote will be a referendum on (a) a president whose ratings are, well, choose your grim adjective and (b) a war for which public support has ebbed substantially.

There are plenty of ways that the topic of debate could shift in a more favorable direction (for the Republicans) between now and November, but it's difficult to use last night's result as evidence for that case.

Border Force

This decision by Lebanon to send 15,000 troops to the Southern border seems like the first major breakthrough we've had in ending this conflict. A positive aspect of having a large Lebanese force there is that if Hezbollah continues fighting after a cease-fire is brokered, and Lebanese troops are stationed in the danger zone, it could turn Lebanese sentiment against Hezbollah again, which would be great. Of course, the preferred outcome is that Hezbollah agrees to a ceasefire.

Having heard the news so far on the draft UN resolution, however, I'm not certain that the US and Israel want a ceasefire at all. The keys words are Rice's:

We'll see who is for peace and who isn't.

Well, that's fine, but it reminds me of just the kind of trip-wire this administration loves, like the UN resolution regarding Iraq which they knew Iraq would not heed. Well, if they craft a ceasefire resolution that is pro-Israeli enough, they know that Hezbollah will not heed it and that it will open doors toward further action, perhaps against Syria and Iran. If that seems far-fetched, check this post again.

Edinburgh Festival - Smoking

This is the most hilarious example of Godwin's Law that I've seen in a while:

[Performer Les] Smith told an Edinburgh paper: "It would have delighted Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler, as you know, was anti-smoking. You couldn't smoke at Adolf Hitler's dining table, so he'd be pleased, wouldn't he? Congratulations Scotland."

Lieberman/Lamont

Well, today's the day then. Apparently the most recent poll shows Lieberman with a bounce and the linked article says he's optimistic (of course). The pro-Lamont blogs have been trying to dampen expectations a bit the past few days, partly to fight complacency and convince Lamont supporters that they need turn out in numbers, but also because I'm sure some of these bloggers know that Lieberman still has a very good chance of taking it all. And they don't want that result to be seen as a failure, since the movement that brought Lamont from zero to credible challenger has been pretty amazing, and that alone is a success for the movement that opposed the Iraq War and is tired of Lieberman's deference to Bush.

Festival

The Edinburgh Festival, 'the biggest assembly of arts in the world', is just under way and the crowds are already overwhelming. We're going to this tonight and I'm excited about that. They've come the last couple years and got rave reviews.

Also saw Talk Radio, the Eric Bogosian play directed by Stewart Lee. I thought the performances were great, especially Phil Nichol as Ray Champlain, though had some qualms with parts of the writing.

Anyway, lots of good happenings. Check it out.

Neocon Ambition

This Salon piece nicely captures how fucking nuts these guys are.

Heat: Fake Controversy

It's interesting that a few conservative commentators insist that there is still no scientific consensus on global warming and its ramifications. Add to that list of commentators one Tim Graham of NRO, who seems never to have heard of the European heatwave of 2003 and doesn't seem to believe that it killed so many:

The Washington Post just throws out today that 52,000 Europeans died of heat in the summer of 2003. Ex-squeeze me?

He then links to some conservative media watchdog that dismisses the source of those stats as hard-core greenies.

It doesn't take much googling to find the official numbers on how many died that summer. In France alone, the Health Ministry's own tally was astounding:

France's summer heatwave killed a total of 14,800 people, according to official figures released on Thursday.
The figure covers 1-30 August, including a fortnight of record-breaking heat.

News Busters doesn't seem like much of a watchdog. Sorry, Tim.

John Pilger

I've started reading The New Statesman recently, and find it to be pretty informative and more or less balanced on foreign affairs issues. But I was pretty stunned by how awful John Pilger's piece in the current issue is. He's passionately anti-Israeli with nary a condemning word about Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in Gaza, and he writes with all the subtlety of a battering ram. Here are some of the worst bits:

An Israeli soldier belonging to an invasion force was captured and held, legitimately, as a prisoner of war. Reported as a "kidnapping", this set off yet more slaughter of Palestinian civilians.

This reminds me of a CNN International bit that I saw on the first day or so of Israeli response to Hezbollah. The anchor (Fanulah something or other?) interviewed the Israeli ambassador to Britain and was literally yelling at him, asking him how many innocent civilians he had killed so far. Mind, this was before Israel had accelerated to a full-out response and before they started tripping all over themselves. To be sure, Israel has lacked any strategy and shown true cruelty these past weeks, though not at that point. The anchor was just determined to villify Israel from the get-go. But the interesting thing is, they then cut to a demonstration in Trafalgar Square against the Israeli response, and they interviewed a Respect MP and a leader of the British Muslim Council. These interviewees also referred to Gilad Shalit as a legimiate prisoner of war, as John Pilger does above. The correspondent allowed them to go on for a long while with an anti-Israel tirade, then simply thanked them for their comments without so much as a challenge.

So where does this idea that Shalit was a legitimate prisoner of war come from? Palestinian militants tunneled under an Israeli base, killed several soldiers, kidnapped Shalit and withdrew to Gaza with him. Pilger endorses this is as legitimate. Something to remember when you read his stuff.

Another bit from Pilger:

"I want nobody to sleep at night in Gaza," declared the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, as children went out of their minds. In their defence, the Palestinians fired a cluster of Qassam missiles and killed eight Israelis: enough to ensure Israel's victimhood on the BBC; even Jeremy Bowen struck a shameful "balance", referring to "two narratives". The historical equivalent is not far from that of the Nazi bombardment and starvation of the Jewish Warsaw Ghetto. Try to imagine that described as "two narratives".

Shameful words from Mr. Pilger. Comparing Jews to Nazis is a classic tactic of the anti-Semite, and it's amazing that the New Statesman finds this fit to print

Reverse Ink Spot

Ack:

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Monday directed his country's military to heighten its readiness, vowing to back Lebanese resistance against Israel, the state news agency SANA reported.

On Tuesday, a senior Iranian cleric in Tehran called on Muslim states to arm Hezbollah in the struggle, according to an Iranian Students News Agency report monitored by The Associated Press.

"Now, it is expected that Muslim states not spare any assistance to Hezbollah and the Lebanese people, especially providing weapons, medicine and food," Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati told ISNA.

Gibson

From the NYT:

“I don’t think he should be doing a film on the Holocaust,” said Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who had previously criticized what he saw as anti-Semitic overtones in Mr. Gibson’s hit, “The Passion of the Christ.” “It would be like asking someone associated with the K.K.K. to do a movie on the African-American experience.”

It's astounding that ABC ever thought that was a good idea.

Qana

From the beginning of this conflict, I've believed that Israel had a right to respond to Hezbollah's incursion into Northern Israel. And I believed, and still believe, that those who immediately criticized Israel's decision to attack in the first day or two after the attack began are simply pre-disposed to opposing anything that Israel does in its own defense. But Israel has made an unbelievable muck-up of this. Has Hezbollah suffered any significant setbacks? And even if you believe that "collateral damage" is warranted in order to make in-roads to Hezbollah's hideouts, has anything good come from these attacks? I can't recall reading or hearing anything that makes me think the past two or three weeks have strengthened Israel in any way.

I see that the shameless folks at The Corner have put up several posts touting Israel's report that Hezbollah was launching from Qana, as if that settles the matter.

Israel's actions just serve, yet again, to make our enemies in the war on terror believe that we really don't know what we're doing.

Goss - Breaking News

Wow, CNN is reporting that Porter Goss has resigned as head of the CIA. This could mean anything, but his name has been linked to the growing Watergate prostitution scandal. This could be huge if scalps as big as Goss's are taken in this scandal.

Update: If you want some background.

Comment is Free

The Guardian's new group blog is still getting up on its feet, but a glance at the list of contributors shows how good it could potentially be. Timothy Garton Ash in particular is always balanced and intriguing when he writes in the paper. Not sure how some of these writers will transfer to the blog format, though.

Eyman Idiot

Recently, the Washington legislature passed House Bill 2661, outlawing discrimination against homosexuals in matters of housing, banking and employment. The passage was largely thanks to the tireless work of Ed Murray, who predicted on the day of its passage that there would be many challenges ahead. Well, we didn't have to wait long. Tim Eyman has announced that he will put an initiative on the ballot this Fall to strike down the bill. First of all, David Schmader hits it right on the head when he says that having minority rights determined purely by the majority is a bit fucked. Can you imagine if, after forced desegregation, Southern states were simply able to put popular initiatives on the ballot saying in so many words "nope, you know what, we're not crazy about this"? Good government looks after the minority when majority opinion threatens.

Anyway, when I heard about jackass Eyman's intention, I began to wonder how you could possibly justify such a move in the press. I mean, is there any appeal other than to straight-up bigotry? How can you possibly argue that anti-discrimination laws are undesirable? So I did a bit of searching and found that, unsurprisingly, he's not providing any explanation:

Eyman would not discuss his motivation for filing the measures except to say that voters should have the right to decide an issue this important and that "I do not believe a majority of voters are in favor of preferential treatment based on what group they belong to."

Uh, jackass, anti-discrimination isn't the same as preferential treatment. What this means is that you can't decide not to rent an apartment to a couple solely because they are gay, or to deny them a job for which they are qualified for the same reason. He doesn't attempt any other explanation because we all know that it boils down to conservative bigotry. The Christian Coalition of Washington is backing Eyman's effort. So, fuck you to Tim Eyman and to any so-called Christians who support discrimination.

Cuba and Denmark

The Poor Man is one of the funniest and most entertaining blogs out there, and one of the few that I read on a daily basis, but I gotta take him to task for this post on the Muhammad cartoon issue. Seems like a pretty dodgy game of moral equivalence that he's playing. Yes, the situation in Guantanamo Bay is outrageous; so is the violence being threatened and carried out by Islamist protesters. Neither justifies the other. If the Left cedes the protection of freedom of speech to the Right, then we're truly lost as a movement. It should be possible to recognize the Bush administration's abuses of power without subsequently bending over to anyone who challenges our ideals.

Extraordinary Rendition

If the moral case against torture isn't persuasive enough for you, here's strong evidence that it doesn't work, either. This particular case is apparently just coming to light, but we've known for months that our torture techniques are derived from techniques designed to extract false confessions. First, today's piece:

The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.

Jane Mayer has been reporting on this phenomenon in several outlets, especially the New Yorker. Here's a bit from her February expose on extraordinary rendition:

Ten hours after landing in Jordan, Arar said, he was driven to Syria, where interrogators, after a day of threats, “just began beating on me.” They whipped his hands repeatedly with two-inch-thick electrical cables, and kept him in a windowless underground cell that he likened to a grave. “Not even animals could withstand it,” he said. Although he initially tried to assert his innocence, he eventually confessed to anything his tormentors wanted him to say. “You just give up,” he said. “You become like an animal.”

There you have it. Our intelligence-gathering bodies are no longer in the business of gathering intelligence, but rather creating false intelligence. Not particularly useful for fighting a war on terror, but a handy way to skew information to support your pre-set agenda.

Privatisation and the Wider Good

I thought this was an interesting Newsweek interview with the head of Fred Hutch on the development of an AIDS vaccine - particularly this bit:

There are several aspects organizationally of how we make vaccines that have been very tough. Initially we left it to the private sector. In retrospect, that was not the best idea.

Why?

Society will benefit more from an HIV vaccine than any company will.

Conservatives may tend to believe that there isn't anything that couldn't be improved and streamlined via privatization, but this is a clear counter-example to that viewpoint.

Murtha

I think pieces are starting to come together which help explain why the GOP went so quickly and intensely on the offensive in smearing John Murtha after he suggested that troops should begin withdrawing within 6 months. It seems that this is precisely what the GOP wants to propose themselves, and the last thing they want is to have it seem that they were bowing to Democratic pressure. Thus the House resolution that the GOP put forward in an attempt to embarrass Murtha (a resolution no Dem was suggesting, i.e. no one wanted immediate withdrawal). Thus Rep. Jean Schmidt calling Murtha a coward. And then Bush saying that he will only withdraw based on the advice of Iraqi leaders, and subsequently saying that withdrawal will be based solely on advice of US officers in the field. So expect Bush to report in the next few months that they have been given the go-ahead for the beginning of withdrawals (in time for midterms), and get ready for the GOP attempting to claim that this was their idea and that Dems had wanted immediate withdrawal regardless of the consequences (obviously not true).

Murtha was on All Things Considered today.

2 P.M.

Steve Clemons advocating the citizens' arrest of Ahmed Chalabi is one of the most brilliant things I've heard in a while.

Select

Hooray for the NYT's bold venture into irrelevance!

What Would Philip Do?

Philip Pullman, author of the great His Dark Materials series, has an op-ed piece in The Guardian today about how the UK Conservative party can regain power by revisiting some old conservative ideas which have no manifestation in modern conservatism. This seems very relevant to the post-Katrina debate about conservative social policy in the US.

Similarly, it's a conservative idea that provision of such things as healthcare and education should not be the subject of trading in the marketplace. The old-fashioned idea here is that looking after the sick and educating the young are matters of charity, not of business: you do them because they are good things to do, not because you can see profits to be made.

I would be curious to find out if anyone has written extensively on how so many conservatives and especially Christian conservatives became associated with you're-on-your-own social darwinism and market determinism.

Anyway, we'll see if the Tories take heed of Pullman's advice. Of course, he doesn't mention this, but a truly ascendant party would also have a magical knife that would allow them to visit multiple universes at will.

Heckuva

As the countdown begins to Brownie's Medal of Freedom and eventual replacement of Sandra Day O'Connor on the bench, I wonder why I keep expecting Ahmed Chalabi to be named as the new FEMA director. It fits some sort of pattern, though I can't figure out what that is. Spectactularly defying expectations, I guess. Ah, no - W's blind loyalty to the most discredited and slimy of his friends. Yeah, that's it.

Public Service

Simon Schama in the (new Berliner!) Guardian today, on helpful humane government:

Historians ought not to be in the prophecy business but I'll venture this one: Katrina will be seen as a watershed in the public and political life of the US, because it has put back into play the profound question of American government. Ever since Ronald Reagan proclaimed that government was not the answer but the problem, conservatism has stigmatised public service as parasitically unpatriotic, an anomaly in the robust self-sufficiency of American life. For the most part, Democrats have been too supine, too embarrassed and too inarticulate to fight back with a coherent defence of the legitimacy of democratic government. Now, if ever, is their moment; not to revive the New Deal or the Great Society (though unapologetically preserving social security might be a start) but to stake a claim to being the party that delivers competent, humane, responsive government, the party of public trust.

Clueless, Compassionless Conservatism

From the Houston Chronicle blog via The Washington Note, this shocking Tom DeLay anecdote:

DeLay to evacuees: 'Is this kind of fun?' U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's visit to Reliant Park this morning offered him a glimpse of what it's like to be living in shelter.
While on the tour with top administration officials from Washington, including U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao and U.S. Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, DeLay stopped to chat with three young boys resting on cots.

The congressman likened their stay to being at camp and asked, "Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?"

They nodded yes, but looked perplexed.

Yes, Mr. DeLay, we're learning outdoor skills!

Survival

Cornel West in the Observer today, on the nature of conservative social policy.

Katrina

I was preparing to go to Lisbon and was in Lisbon during the hurricane and its immediate aftermath and that's why there hasn't been a post on it up till now. There is a massive amount of things to comment on, many of which have already been commented on more eloquently than I can muster at the moment. The onset of flooding and descent into chaos was horrifying, made more so by the obvious lack of governmental intervention during the first days. The lack of both short-term and long-term preparations is beyond baffling, it is infuriating. Both in Edinburgh and Lisbon I had conversations with people asking why my government was so slow to move, and all I could tell them was that most Americans were asking the same questions and being increasingly strident in demanding answers as the hours and days went by. Such a shameful episode for America, to fail our most vulnerable people this profoundly.

From my perspective, there are two major failures. The first one is a governmental organizational failure, and that is obvious enough and has been commented on everywhere. There was lack of communication, lack of preparation, lack of mobilization, and no over-arching game-plan agreed on between various levels of government. But the second failure is an ideological one, and is a kind of rot that has been setting in in our country. It's this large-scale shift to the right, in which the gospel of small government, gutted infrastructure, tax cuts for the wealthy, reduced social spending, social darwinism, opposition to equal opportunity measures, denial of affordable health care, and massively expensive (not to mention horrendously misguided and dangerous) foreign policy has been pushed forth repeatedly. Like David Wessel wrote in the Wall Street Journal (article subscription only), Katrina ended the era of small government. Note that this opinion is coming from the conservative opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal. Even they can apparently see the writing on the wall, that it is desirable and the right thing to do to have a strong government that looks after its people, can respond to crises, can make sure that no one falls through the cracks as hard as the poorest residents of New Orleans did. This doesn't necessitate massive, bloated bureaucracy. The Grover Norquists of the world had their day and blew it big time, dragging our country down with them. Look at what even the conservative Friedman has to say to the despicable and massively influential GOP guru Norquist. Theirs is a failed ideology.

One silver lining was the performance of the media, who did brilliantly and refused to play nice with the administration, and other local and state officials, when the incompetence became painfully obvious (e.g. FEMA head Michael Brown commenting on Thursday that he had only just found out that people were stranded in the Superdome). So you had people like Anderson Cooper, Aaron Brown, Tim Russert, Ted Koppel, even Shephard Smith at Fox, asking for accountability and generally tearing Michael Brown a new one. Eric Alterman commends them here and here.

There had better be soul-searching long into the future with regards to both of the types of failure mentioned above, because there is a hell of a lot of rot in our country. I think Katrina could cause a shift in our national consciousness much more profound than even 9/11 did, and I so strongly hope that the introspection over time leads our country to a more compassionate, socially just and fair society. I can't tell you how much this episode has soured my view of the current state of the US.

All of the Daily Show hurricane segments are worth watching, and I thought Brian Williams's interview was particularly good.

Fukuyama's Regret

Francis Fukuyama, perhaps the foremost conservative thinker of the past 20 years, has a fairly scathing opinion piece on the folly of Bush's foreign policy. I expect this will make pretty big waves in conservative discussion circles over the next few days. Who will be the first stooge at The Corner to argue that Fukuyama has lost his conservative credentials?

Oh, Jonah

He did it! Godwin's law has been upheld yet again. Jonah Goldberg took the Cindy Sheehan discussion to a predictable conclusion, and realized along the way that he had dug himself quite a hole. Watch him backtrack here and here.

A very weird aspect of his latter post is where he decries the left doing guilt-by-assocation with groups such as the so-called "Minuteman" (the border vigilantes), when that is precisely what he's trying to do with Sheehan. It seems that his own follow-up point argues against his original post. I emailed him with that point and he promptly responded:

not really. the point is that when the left does it, as in that example, it's
unfair.

So, to summarize Jonah: implying that a grieving war mother is in cahoots with Nazis is okay, but questioning the motives of border vigilantes is crossing the line. Or, a more concise summary: it's only wrong if you're on the left.

Jonah is actually one of my favorite conservative writers, along with Andrew Sullivan, but like Sullivan he feels obliged to make at least one bat-shit crazy post per year.

Sheehan

I haven't commented on this story about Cindy Sheehan and her son Casey, partly because it has been so grotesquely used by pundits and bloggers on the far right and left. Juan Cole calls her a media whore and Michelle Malkin employs the improbable phrase "grief pimps" to describe Sheehan's supporters, while the likes of Michael Moore try to capitalize on the Sheehan family's misfortune. But I support her very strongly and find it very distressing to see the amount of vitriol hurled at her from the Right. I found Walter Kirn's passing comment on the matter to be a simple and profound summary:

...a war that can't survive a mourning mother shouldn't be going on at all.

What does it say about the uneasiness of the few remaining war supporters, that even the act of a mother mourning her dead son amounts to treason in their eyes?

Some Candor on the Right

The administration is losing its own party members as this war goes on:

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska on Thursday said the United States is "getting more and more bogged down" in Iraq and stood by his comments that the White House is disconnected from reality and losing the war.

The longer U.S. forces remain in Iraq, he said, the more it begins to resemble the Vietnam war.

Hagel mocked Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion in June that the insurgency in Iraq was in its "last throes," saying the U.S. death toll has risen amid insurgent attacks.

"Maybe the vice president can explain the increase in casualties we're taking," the Nebraskan told CNN.

"If that's winning, then he's got a different definition of winning than I do."

Savage Blogging

Hooray for Dan Savage guest-blogging over at Andrew Sullivan's site for the week.

Worst Advice Ever

Michael Lind suggests that, in order to regain the majority, Democrats must become socially conservative and economically liberal. Seriously, is this guy a plant? That's the exact opposite of what a party seeking centrist votes should offer. There are a lot of what Andrew Sullivan dubs "Eagles" -- socially liberal, fiscally conservative, fairly hawkish on defense -- out there, and very few, I imagine, social conservatives with leanings towards liberal economics.