Looks like Belfast, but it's not .
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Uranium
The ongoing negotiations with Iran would be slightly humorous were the stakes not so high. The Iranian negotiators are either not the savviest or else they are completely confident that no serious action will ever be taken against them. To recap: they initially refused to end their nuclear weapons program, then agreed to, then said that they would continue to keep centrifuges for a nuclear power program, then under pressure said that they would cancel this as well, and now have announced that the cessation of uranium enrichment is temporary, possibly lasting for only a few months, for the duration of negotiations with Europe. The idea of coming to an agreement that is only valid until people leave the negotiating table doesn't quite add up from my point of view.
And why does this growing scandal still not penetrate European papers? I wonder if, for example, France sees this as an important issue?
And why does this growing scandal still not penetrate European papers? I wonder if, for example, France sees this as an important issue?
Monday, November 29, 2004
Mandate
I've got enough ambition for several New Year's resolutions this year, and one of them will be to no longer mince my words when dealing with Christian fundamentalists of this variety:
Cass wants a U.S. Supreme Court that will outlaw abortion and gay marriage. "Do you want to take your children to a National League baseball game for instance and have homosexuals showing affection to one another? I don't want my kids to see that," he said.
...
Asked about the millions of Americans who are not Christian, or have a different interpretation of Christianity, Kennedy said with another laugh: "I couldn't care less. It's true."
Disgusting and infuriating. The least I can do is make these kind of people uncomfortable in my company, and so I will. If they won't use reason or common sense, I won't use an unwarranted amount of respect for their "moral values."
Thanks to Atrios for the link.
Cass wants a U.S. Supreme Court that will outlaw abortion and gay marriage. "Do you want to take your children to a National League baseball game for instance and have homosexuals showing affection to one another? I don't want my kids to see that," he said.
...
Asked about the millions of Americans who are not Christian, or have a different interpretation of Christianity, Kennedy said with another laugh: "I couldn't care less. It's true."
Disgusting and infuriating. The least I can do is make these kind of people uncomfortable in my company, and so I will. If they won't use reason or common sense, I won't use an unwarranted amount of respect for their "moral values."
Thanks to Atrios for the link.
Complaints and Questions
Donald Rumsfeld on NPR, on the subject of NATO countries refusing to send troops to Iraq to train Iraqi soldiers (I'm paraphrasing):
"It's like you have 5 basketball players training together for weeks, and all of a sudden two of them raise their hands and say "you know what, I don't feel like playing today.'"
Fair enough, but it makes me wonder how many our problems in Iraq might be due to an over-reliance on basketball analogies.
On an unrelated note, I have my Blogger settings set to Greenwich Time Zone, and yet my post timestamps have no relation to reality. I might post at 12:25 and it says 1:15 or 1:56, who knows. I can only surmise that Blogger doesn't realize there is a systematic way of determining the time in another time-zone outside of the US, relying instead on a random number generator or, in the happiest part of my imagination, a dartboard.
"It's like you have 5 basketball players training together for weeks, and all of a sudden two of them raise their hands and say "you know what, I don't feel like playing today.'"
Fair enough, but it makes me wonder how many our problems in Iraq might be due to an over-reliance on basketball analogies.
On an unrelated note, I have my Blogger settings set to Greenwich Time Zone, and yet my post timestamps have no relation to reality. I might post at 12:25 and it says 1:15 or 1:56, who knows. I can only surmise that Blogger doesn't realize there is a systematic way of determining the time in another time-zone outside of the US, relying instead on a random number generator or, in the happiest part of my imagination, a dartboard.
Advice We are Expected to Ignore
Al-Zawahiri:
You can elect Bush, Kerry or Satan himself, it doesn't matter to us," Ayman al-Zawahiri said.
Are those supposed to be in descending order?
Also in the videotape, Al-Zawahiri apparently criticized Egypt for humans rights abuses, which...wow.
You can elect Bush, Kerry or Satan himself, it doesn't matter to us," Ayman al-Zawahiri said.
Are those supposed to be in descending order?
Also in the videotape, Al-Zawahiri apparently criticized Egypt for humans rights abuses, which...wow.
Happy to be Paid in Pounds
Oh man, how did I miss this? I had been wondering how long I'd have to wait till Scott McClellan proclaimed a strong-dollar policy, but I didn't even have to settle for words from the minion. Mr. Bush, I salute you for your consistency.
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Is There a Bigger Son of a Bitch in the US?
Quotes from Jerry Falwell from today's Meet the Press:
"And I think it's unthinkable that we're debating what a family is, a man married to a woman. They've got that right in the barnyard. We've had that for 6,000 years and to think that we're trying to redefine families."
---
In the midst of the values talk, Tim Russert, the moderator of "Meet the Press," quoted from a recent Newsweek article that states that Marc Cherry, the creator of the hit television series "Desperate Housewives," is "a somewhat conservative, gay Republican."
Dr. Falwell said, "Well the fact that he's a gay Republican means he should join the Democratic party."
"And I think it's unthinkable that we're debating what a family is, a man married to a woman. They've got that right in the barnyard. We've had that for 6,000 years and to think that we're trying to redefine families."
---
In the midst of the values talk, Tim Russert, the moderator of "Meet the Press," quoted from a recent Newsweek article that states that Marc Cherry, the creator of the hit television series "Desperate Housewives," is "a somewhat conservative, gay Republican."
Dr. Falwell said, "Well the fact that he's a gay Republican means he should join the Democratic party."
2 Deep 4 Me
I Heart Huckabees was the dumbest movie I've seen in a while, though I admittedly have not seen a lot lately. Surprisingly, I read quite a few good reviews in advance of seeing it, but the whole thing was a let-down, full of lazy quasi-philosophy that lead to an asinine conclusion. It had its comic moments, but otherwise was too full of itself. I think that David O. Russell was trying to work in the vein of Wes Anderson while lacking Anderson's subtlety and general lightness of touch, opting instead for heavy-handedness and some cheap laughs. Anderson's best work, in contrast, never seems like it has to try to hard to be incredibly funny and moving at the same time. I'm counting the days until The Life Aquatic.
But maybe it's just the shallow American in me, as Joe Queenan seems to think the film was just too deep for Americans. Oh, Europe, if this qualifies as deep then I despair for you. But I'm not losing hope; after seeing it last night, I read this mauling in the Observer this morning:
David O Russell's deeply disappointing I Heart Huckabees is a lesser product of 'the new whimsy', that school of surreal, absurdist comedy to which Charlie Kaufman, Spike Jonze, Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson belong.
Any of those directors would I'm sure be embarrassed to be associated with this product. It's obviously derivative of their various styles, but you can't lump it into "the new whimsy" school when it is so self-consciously trying to be important and big. I hope that Russell sticks with what he does best, as in the excellent Three Kings.
But maybe it's just the shallow American in me, as Joe Queenan seems to think the film was just too deep for Americans. Oh, Europe, if this qualifies as deep then I despair for you. But I'm not losing hope; after seeing it last night, I read this mauling in the Observer this morning:
David O Russell's deeply disappointing I Heart Huckabees is a lesser product of 'the new whimsy', that school of surreal, absurdist comedy to which Charlie Kaufman, Spike Jonze, Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson belong.
Any of those directors would I'm sure be embarrassed to be associated with this product. It's obviously derivative of their various styles, but you can't lump it into "the new whimsy" school when it is so self-consciously trying to be important and big. I hope that Russell sticks with what he does best, as in the excellent Three Kings.
IHT
Incidentally, the Toledo Blade link came off the wires and has this paragraph:
Although the amounts involved in this trade dispute are modest compared with other recent cases, the WTO's decision about the Byrd amendment is unusual in that it involved several countries taking action against one.
The International Herald Tribune story is simply by Paul Meller and has this:
Although the amounts involved in this trade dispute are modest compared with other recent cases, the Byrd Amendment decision is unusual in that it involved several countries taking action against one.
You tell me, babies. How hard is it to write "Paul Meller and wire services"?
Although the amounts involved in this trade dispute are modest compared with other recent cases, the WTO's decision about the Byrd amendment is unusual in that it involved several countries taking action against one.
The International Herald Tribune story is simply by Paul Meller and has this:
Although the amounts involved in this trade dispute are modest compared with other recent cases, the Byrd Amendment decision is unusual in that it involved several countries taking action against one.
You tell me, babies. How hard is it to write "Paul Meller and wire services"?
When Conservatives Were Conservatives
Hey, why do the Republicans hate free trade? And why does Robert Byrd?
The administration signaled it would accept the penalties short term but warned that the United States would aggressively protect its own trading interests and expects fair treatment from the WTO.
Well, let it not be said again that the WTO is merely an arm of the U.S. government.
If any of you considers yourself to be a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, I'd encourage you to examine which traditional conservative beliefs the Republican party still stands for:
1) Fiscal responsibility? Nope. Deficits don't matter.
2) Cautious and strategic foreign policy? Nope. Democratic realism is surpassed by democratic globalism, the Trotskyite legacy of the neoconservative movement. Worldwide revolution, comrades!
3) Free trade? Clearly not.
4) Protection of civil liberties? Was Ashcroft just a dream?
I wonder how the Clinton presidency would fare with these questions.
The administration signaled it would accept the penalties short term but warned that the United States would aggressively protect its own trading interests and expects fair treatment from the WTO.
Well, let it not be said again that the WTO is merely an arm of the U.S. government.
If any of you considers yourself to be a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, I'd encourage you to examine which traditional conservative beliefs the Republican party still stands for:
1) Fiscal responsibility? Nope. Deficits don't matter.
2) Cautious and strategic foreign policy? Nope. Democratic realism is surpassed by democratic globalism, the Trotskyite legacy of the neoconservative movement. Worldwide revolution, comrades!
3) Free trade? Clearly not.
4) Protection of civil liberties? Was Ashcroft just a dream?
I wonder how the Clinton presidency would fare with these questions.
Saturday, November 27, 2004
St. Paul
While this is generally an interesting article on the relationship between Hmong and whites in St. Paul, I do have a particular problem with the piece. I'm obviously in no position to know whether or not Mr. Vang's claims about being called racist names and being shot at are true, and even if true they would in no way justify what he did, but the article really gives short shrift to the possibility that Mr. Vang didn't start the altercation, without any firm evidence for discounting the idea offhand:
Some said they wondered whether there was more to the case - and thought they might have gained some understanding when they learned Mr. Vang had told the police that the local hunters used ethnic slurs against him and fired at him before he started shooting. A police statement by a hunter wounded in the incident makes no mention of ethnic slurs.
Well, if the white hunter didn't mention any racist slurs, I guess it's case closed.
But people in Wisconsin said that complaints by some Asian hunters of insults or harassment from white hunters were exaggerated. "I haven't heard any anger against the Hmong," said Patty Behrndt, manager of a bookstore in Rice Lake, the main town in this part of the North Woods.
I can't even begin to see the relation between the first sentence and the supposedly supportive quote. Accusations of racism can't be swept aside so easily, and it is lazy journalism to use a random man-on-the-street quote in an attempt to do so. The writer is understandably walking on eggshells in an attempt to respect the dead when there is not yet any evidence to dishonor their names, but the end result is pretty atrocious.
Some said they wondered whether there was more to the case - and thought they might have gained some understanding when they learned Mr. Vang had told the police that the local hunters used ethnic slurs against him and fired at him before he started shooting. A police statement by a hunter wounded in the incident makes no mention of ethnic slurs.
Well, if the white hunter didn't mention any racist slurs, I guess it's case closed.
But people in Wisconsin said that complaints by some Asian hunters of insults or harassment from white hunters were exaggerated. "I haven't heard any anger against the Hmong," said Patty Behrndt, manager of a bookstore in Rice Lake, the main town in this part of the North Woods.
I can't even begin to see the relation between the first sentence and the supposedly supportive quote. Accusations of racism can't be swept aside so easily, and it is lazy journalism to use a random man-on-the-street quote in an attempt to do so. The writer is understandably walking on eggshells in an attempt to respect the dead when there is not yet any evidence to dishonor their names, but the end result is pretty atrocious.
Friday, November 26, 2004
Malenkaya Kholodnaya Voyna
(or "little cold war," continuing on the Scoop Jackson theme...)
Ah, the good ol' days, when international crises simply meant a tug-of-war between Russia and the West regarding influence in the Eastern bloc. After Powell escalated the rhetoric a couple of days ago, Putin responded in kind yesterday:
But Putin warned the international community against interference and said only Ukrainians could decide the winner of their election.
Oops, he'll be pissed when he realizes he was tricked into admitting that! What ever happened to Russian message discipline?
Ah, the good ol' days, when international crises simply meant a tug-of-war between Russia and the West regarding influence in the Eastern bloc. After Powell escalated the rhetoric a couple of days ago, Putin responded in kind yesterday:
But Putin warned the international community against interference and said only Ukrainians could decide the winner of their election.
Oops, he'll be pissed when he realizes he was tricked into admitting that! What ever happened to Russian message discipline?
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Scoop
"Free men are engaged in a bitter contest with powerful and resourceful adversaries. The responsibility of America is to defend vital national interests, promote the economic well-being of the nation, and to use its power and influence with the good sense that marks a great nation. This is no easy task.
If our country is to stay the course until the world finds a way to assure peace with justice, then the Presidency, and the State and Defense Departments, as well as other national security agencies, must measure up to the highest standards of competence. And members of Congress, too.
Americans have a healthy distrust of the concentration of power. I say 'healthy' because it is so easy for a man to confuse his possession of power with the possession of wisdom. The tendency to this confusion is difficult to resist, as every parent knows. Wisely, the American people suspect claims to omniscience."
Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, The National Security Council, 1965
If our country is to stay the course until the world finds a way to assure peace with justice, then the Presidency, and the State and Defense Departments, as well as other national security agencies, must measure up to the highest standards of competence. And members of Congress, too.
Americans have a healthy distrust of the concentration of power. I say 'healthy' because it is so easy for a man to confuse his possession of power with the possession of wisdom. The tendency to this confusion is difficult to resist, as every parent knows. Wisely, the American people suspect claims to omniscience."
Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, The National Security Council, 1965
Better Planning in State and Defense
"One point seems beyond argument. Today, effective national security planning depends on intimate day-to-day contact between the diplomat, the soldier and his civilian colleagues, the scientist, the economist, and others.
Many believe that the planning process in State and Defense would be improved by enlisting the talents of officials experienced in a wider variety of fields than is now the case. They also seeks ways of encouraging planning cross-fertilization through greater use of planning teams whose members represent diverse viewpoints and backgrounds.
These questions follow:
1. Should officials with more diverse backgrounds and experience be brought into the policy-planning process in State and Defense?
2. Is there need for a joint Planning Staff for the State Department, Defense Department, and Joint Chiefs of Staff?
3. Can greater use be made of ad hoc interdepartmental task forces on special issues of national security policy?
4. What is the proper relationship between the State and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and/or the Joint Staff of the JCS)? Should a representative of the Secretary of State participate in discussions of the JCS when appropriate?"
Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, The National Security Council, 1965
Many believe that the planning process in State and Defense would be improved by enlisting the talents of officials experienced in a wider variety of fields than is now the case. They also seeks ways of encouraging planning cross-fertilization through greater use of planning teams whose members represent diverse viewpoints and backgrounds.
These questions follow:
1. Should officials with more diverse backgrounds and experience be brought into the policy-planning process in State and Defense?
2. Is there need for a joint Planning Staff for the State Department, Defense Department, and Joint Chiefs of Staff?
3. Can greater use be made of ad hoc interdepartmental task forces on special issues of national security policy?
4. What is the proper relationship between the State and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and/or the Joint Staff of the JCS)? Should a representative of the Secretary of State participate in discussions of the JCS when appropriate?"
Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, The National Security Council, 1965
Poisoning the Challenger
I have to admit that I am impressed by the stand that the Bush administration is taking against the fraudulent election in the Ukraine. The reason is that it is no secret that Russia wants Moscow-friendly Yanukovich in as president, and for the last few years the US/Russia relationship has consisted of a lot of looking the other way so as to maintain friendly relations. In fact, Putin said just before the US elections that he favored Bush because Bush didn't meddle in Russian affairs. The Ukraine is obviously not an internal Russian affair, it is its own affair, but anyway it is impressive to see Powell speak out so boldly against "Moscow's candidate."
Coming in from the Cold
The Goss-era CIA exodus continues:
A former intelligence official described the two as "very senior guys" who were stepping down because they did not feel comfortable with new management.
These guys were at the very top of CIA covert operations: the heads of the Europe and Far East divisons.
A former intelligence official described the two as "very senior guys" who were stepping down because they did not feel comfortable with new management.
These guys were at the very top of CIA covert operations: the heads of the Europe and Far East divisons.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Confidential to Bill
Here is the full text of the 9/11 Commission's recommendation on moving covert actions to the Defense Department, including motivations for said recommendation:
Recommendation: Lead responsibility for directing and executing paramilitary operations, whether clandestine or covert, should shift to the Defense Department. There it should be consolidated with the capabilities for training, direction, and execution of such operations already being developed in the Special Operations Command.
Before 9/11, the CIA did not invest in developing a robust capability to conduct paramilitary operations with U.S. personnel. It relied on proxies instead, organized by CIA operatives without the requisite military training. The results were unsatisfactory.
Whether the price is measured in either money or people, the United States cannot afford to build two separate capabilities for carrying out secret military operations, secretly operating standoff missiles, and secretly training foreign military or paramilitary forces. The United States should concentrate responsibility and necessary legal authorities in one entity.
The post-9/11 Afghanistan precedent of using joint CIA-military teams for covert and clandestine operations was a good one. We believe this proposal to be consistent with it. Each agency would concentrate on its comparative advantages in building capabilities for joint missions. The operation itself would be planned in common.
The CIA has a reputation for agility in operations. The military has a reputation for being methodical and cumbersome. We do not know if these stereotypes match current reality; they may also be one more symptom of the civil-military misunderstanding we described in chapter 4. It is a problem to be resolved in policy guidance and agency management, not in the creation of redundant, overlapping capabilities and authorities in such sensitive work. The CIA's experts should be integrated into the military's training, exercises, and planning. To quote a CIA official now serving in the field: "One fight, one team."
So what Safire terms "radical" is really a move towards consolidation, eliminating redundancy, improving training, and generally removing the turf mentality of the current intelligence setup. I have plenty of problems with the Defense Department, especially under Rumsfeld - as the Commission states earlier in their report, the Defense Department has become an empire, with a budget larger than the GDP of Russia. They have their own in-house "state department" and intelligence gathering operations which help to keep them insular, bloated and generally uncooperative with other governmental agencies, but I don't think that transferring covert operations to the Defense Department will worsen this problem. Taken together with the other Commission recommendations, the Pentagon will go back to being what it is supposed to be: one cog among several working together, with new central oversight and less redundancy. "One team, one fight."
All of the Commission's reasons for this move seem irrefutable to me.
Recommendation: Lead responsibility for directing and executing paramilitary operations, whether clandestine or covert, should shift to the Defense Department. There it should be consolidated with the capabilities for training, direction, and execution of such operations already being developed in the Special Operations Command.
So what Safire terms "radical" is really a move towards consolidation, eliminating redundancy, improving training, and generally removing the turf mentality of the current intelligence setup. I have plenty of problems with the Defense Department, especially under Rumsfeld - as the Commission states earlier in their report, the Defense Department has become an empire, with a budget larger than the GDP of Russia. They have their own in-house "state department" and intelligence gathering operations which help to keep them insular, bloated and generally uncooperative with other governmental agencies, but I don't think that transferring covert operations to the Defense Department will worsen this problem. Taken together with the other Commission recommendations, the Pentagon will go back to being what it is supposed to be: one cog among several working together, with new central oversight and less redundancy. "One team, one fight."
All of the Commission's reasons for this move seem irrefutable to me.
Replacing Bill
What with Safire leaving his Op-Ed podium (though staying on with the 'On Language' bit), rumors and suggestions are flying around regarding the impending replacement. My first thought was Andrew Sullivan, and apparently a lot of others had the same idea . The main assumption is that Safire will be replaced with another conservative, which I think is a good idea. Brooks and Friedman fall to the right, but the rest of the NYT Op-Ed contributors could be considered centrist or left-leaning.
My number two choice is Christopher Hitchens, who is not exactly a conservative but has nonetheless been one of the most prominent hawks in the commentariat these past few years.
My third choice is Francis Fukuyama, an intellectual with impeccable neocon credentials who also has demonstrated the ability to point out when the emperor has no clothes . And what with the very public fallout between Fukuyama and Charles Krauthammer, it could make for some interesting shots across the bows of the NYT and the Post.
My number two choice is Christopher Hitchens, who is not exactly a conservative but has nonetheless been one of the most prominent hawks in the commentariat these past few years.
My third choice is Francis Fukuyama, an intellectual with impeccable neocon credentials who also has demonstrated the ability to point out when the emperor has no clothes . And what with the very public fallout between Fukuyama and Charles Krauthammer, it could make for some interesting shots across the bows of the NYT and the Post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)