Slate Magazine has a useful feature under its 'News & Politics' section. 'Election Scorecard' is a handy compilation of the latest polls, broken down nationally and by early voting states. It aggregates lots of polls, shows averages, side by side comparisons, and graphs. It's readable and informative.
The latest update continues the trend of the last few weeks - the Obama/Clinton gap closing in Iowa (O's ahead there), New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
A snippet from the latest update:
A CBS News survey in South Carolina (PDF) reports that fresh ideas (45 percent) are slightly preferred over the right experience (39 percent) ... Of those who think experience is more important, 57 percent support Clinton; 17 percent Obama. Among those who think fresh ideas are more important, the numbers are inverse: 57 percent support Obama; 17 percent Clinton.
The winner in South Carolina may be determined not by whichever candidate voters like best, but which message—change or experience—they are attracted to most.
This is a case of the chicken or the egg, which unfortunately is not mentioned here. Because Hillary Clinton's major weaknesses in a general election are her likability and trustworthiness, I think it's perfectly likely that people are first drawn to Obama as a person, and then they come around to his message.
21 December 2007
20 December 2007
short memory
Joe Conason's article in the New York Observer today, "She's Still in This Race," really misses the mark on a few things. (I concede immediately that his basic premise - elucidated in the title - is entirely correct.)
For example:
It is hard to imagine that the Clinton campaign conspired with Bill Shaheen to introduce the subject of Obama's youthful drug use, or urged Bob Kerrey to blather on about the Sen.'s middle name and Muslim heritage. It is much more likely that both men were simply opening their mouths without thinking too hard about the consequences, which is to say, simply being themselves. Expecting Clinton to control every blurted stupidity of her supporters is unfair.
That's hard to imagine? Does anybody remember the Clintons? This is not about an expectation that Clinton and her campaign should control every word that comes out of operatives' or allies' mouths, but rather an expectation that old habits (and dirty tricks) die hard. After all, Hillary Clinton has been trying to draw our attention to the 90s, so let's not forget some of the political behavior we witnessed during her husband's administration.
For example:
It is hard to imagine that the Clinton campaign conspired with Bill Shaheen to introduce the subject of Obama's youthful drug use, or urged Bob Kerrey to blather on about the Sen.'s middle name and Muslim heritage. It is much more likely that both men were simply opening their mouths without thinking too hard about the consequences, which is to say, simply being themselves. Expecting Clinton to control every blurted stupidity of her supporters is unfair.
That's hard to imagine? Does anybody remember the Clintons? This is not about an expectation that Clinton and her campaign should control every word that comes out of operatives' or allies' mouths, but rather an expectation that old habits (and dirty tricks) die hard. After all, Hillary Clinton has been trying to draw our attention to the 90s, so let's not forget some of the political behavior we witnessed during her husband's administration.
19 December 2007
i <3 the 90s
There's a whole lot of talk in the last week or so about the Clinton campaign's frequent harking back to the prosperous 90s - from Bill joining his wife on the trail/shilling on Charlie Rose to stump speeches by Hillary reminding everyone of how much richer we all were eight years ago. As Hillary has slumped in the polls and the press corps has churned out plenty of articles and shoddy analysis to explain it, the question of how great the 90s really were seems to be floating in the ether.
The NYT's Matt Bai seems to think that the question about the 90s for Democrats is whether or not Clintonism betrayed progressivism or gave it a new lease on life for the 21st century. This is certainly compelling, but its relevance to 2008 needs to be put into perspective. Within the Democratic party Clinton's legacy is perhaps up for debate - yes, he's very popular, but was his presidency ultimately good or bad for the advancement of progressive ideals? But this question cannot be answered by only thinking within the party's (or more generally, the Left's) paradigm - since the consequences of the Clinton legacy affect the general election.
The fact is, despite his personal popularity, Bill Clinton is a fairly polarizing figure. It's dangerous for Hillary Clinton to run on "a return to the 90s" platform (although it's all she has, which is a major reason I refuse to support her). If the 90s were as heady and wonderful as Hillary likes to remind us they were, then what happened in 2000? Why was someone able to run - and win (sort of) - by basically campaigning on a return to the Reagan era if everyone was so deeply satisfied with the Clintons and the 90s? How did Clinton's heir-apparent, Al Gore, who ran in peace time and before the recession set in, not win a landslide? Even though he didn't win the popular vote, Bush still managed to convince 48% of the electorate that maybe the 90s weren't so good. Sure, a good portion of those voters have their feet in their mouths now, but the fact that 50 million people wanted a change after the 90s casts some doubt on the success of Clintonism, doesn't it?
Maybe my experiences cavorting with conservatives and fundamentalist Christians color my view of people's perception of the Clintons. And maybe Clinton did do a service to Democrats by making progressive ideals palatable to the middle class, and maybe that was entirely necessary to begin the process of moving Democrats into the 21st century, beyond the New Deal and Great Society. But let's not forget that those leaps and bounds he initiated by bridging some of the ideological divide between liberals and conservatives were largely nullified, not by Bush, but by his own decadent and scandal-ridden second term. Bush's election (in 2000; by 2004 the new political era post 9-11 had changed the whole game) was a result of anti-Clintonism - not liberals' ambivalence about it, but the general public's abject disgust with the conduct of the Clinton White House.
This is a central factor in my core of disdain for Hillary Clinton. Her entire candidacy is predicated on the alleged success of the first Clinton Administration, which in my view deserves a great deal of the blame for the mess we've found ourselves in for the last seven years.
The NYT's Matt Bai seems to think that the question about the 90s for Democrats is whether or not Clintonism betrayed progressivism or gave it a new lease on life for the 21st century. This is certainly compelling, but its relevance to 2008 needs to be put into perspective. Within the Democratic party Clinton's legacy is perhaps up for debate - yes, he's very popular, but was his presidency ultimately good or bad for the advancement of progressive ideals? But this question cannot be answered by only thinking within the party's (or more generally, the Left's) paradigm - since the consequences of the Clinton legacy affect the general election.
The fact is, despite his personal popularity, Bill Clinton is a fairly polarizing figure. It's dangerous for Hillary Clinton to run on "a return to the 90s" platform (although it's all she has, which is a major reason I refuse to support her). If the 90s were as heady and wonderful as Hillary likes to remind us they were, then what happened in 2000? Why was someone able to run - and win (sort of) - by basically campaigning on a return to the Reagan era if everyone was so deeply satisfied with the Clintons and the 90s? How did Clinton's heir-apparent, Al Gore, who ran in peace time and before the recession set in, not win a landslide? Even though he didn't win the popular vote, Bush still managed to convince 48% of the electorate that maybe the 90s weren't so good. Sure, a good portion of those voters have their feet in their mouths now, but the fact that 50 million people wanted a change after the 90s casts some doubt on the success of Clintonism, doesn't it?
Maybe my experiences cavorting with conservatives and fundamentalist Christians color my view of people's perception of the Clintons. And maybe Clinton did do a service to Democrats by making progressive ideals palatable to the middle class, and maybe that was entirely necessary to begin the process of moving Democrats into the 21st century, beyond the New Deal and Great Society. But let's not forget that those leaps and bounds he initiated by bridging some of the ideological divide between liberals and conservatives were largely nullified, not by Bush, but by his own decadent and scandal-ridden second term. Bush's election (in 2000; by 2004 the new political era post 9-11 had changed the whole game) was a result of anti-Clintonism - not liberals' ambivalence about it, but the general public's abject disgust with the conduct of the Clinton White House.
This is a central factor in my core of disdain for Hillary Clinton. Her entire candidacy is predicated on the alleged success of the first Clinton Administration, which in my view deserves a great deal of the blame for the mess we've found ourselves in for the last seven years.
03 December 2007
bros before hoes?
Thanks to Angel for this ridiculous graphic. The lame thing is that this really is central to the discourse among the chattering class about the Obama vs. Clinton decision so many Democrats are mulling. Oh, the agony of being black or female or both (!) this election cycle!
Serious articles abound. If every major media outlet insists on writing feature after feature on this topic (instead of analyzing any policy, personality, or leadership style differences), it must be of utmost importance.
27 November 2007
hillary and katie dish
Katie Couric interviewed Hillary Clinton last night.
Here's the clip and attached CBS drivel.
An excerpt:
"If it's not you, how disappointed will you be?" Couric asked.
“Well, it will be me,” she said.
But she said she would stand behind any other Democratic nominee, if it came to that. “We're going to have unified party, behind whoever we nominate.”
Clearly, she has considered the possibility she won't be the nominee?
"No, I haven't," Clinton said.
This is interesting. The recurring theme of Hillary making sure everyone knows how tough and confident she is rears its head once more. But what's really something to notice here is the fact that she is playing to her fundamental strength - the perception of inevitability her campaign has been so effective at creating.
I really believe this is the single factor that has launched her poll numbers so high. She has been hovering consistently around 35-40% for weeks now, with about 15 points between her and Obama. Do 40% of Democrats (and an even higher percentage of Americans in general election polls) really favor Clinton? I'm not so sure.
It's no mystery that Clinton has her hard core of supporters. But Ann Lewis can only be cloned at HillaryLabs so many times before things start getting fishy, and I have trouble accepting that her numbers would be the same if desperate-for-a-win Democrats weren't so brainwashed into thinking it must be Hillary.
Here's what's nice about democratic politics and the primary elections system - it musn't be anyone! With the exception of Kucinich, the difference between each candidate's electability (or better yet, defeatability) is marginal, at least at this point.
The responsibility of registered Democrats (and for their part, Republicans) in the primary season is to deliver a candidate for the general election who best represents their views and hopes for the next administration.
Nothing is inevitable - you'd think two bitter and close losses would have taught Dems this lesson.
Here's the clip and attached CBS drivel.
An excerpt:
"If it's not you, how disappointed will you be?" Couric asked.
“Well, it will be me,” she said.
But she said she would stand behind any other Democratic nominee, if it came to that. “We're going to have unified party, behind whoever we nominate.”
Clearly, she has considered the possibility she won't be the nominee?
"No, I haven't," Clinton said.
This is interesting. The recurring theme of Hillary making sure everyone knows how tough and confident she is rears its head once more. But what's really something to notice here is the fact that she is playing to her fundamental strength - the perception of inevitability her campaign has been so effective at creating.
I really believe this is the single factor that has launched her poll numbers so high. She has been hovering consistently around 35-40% for weeks now, with about 15 points between her and Obama. Do 40% of Democrats (and an even higher percentage of Americans in general election polls) really favor Clinton? I'm not so sure.
It's no mystery that Clinton has her hard core of supporters. But Ann Lewis can only be cloned at HillaryLabs so many times before things start getting fishy, and I have trouble accepting that her numbers would be the same if desperate-for-a-win Democrats weren't so brainwashed into thinking it must be Hillary.
Here's what's nice about democratic politics and the primary elections system - it musn't be anyone! With the exception of Kucinich, the difference between each candidate's electability (or better yet, defeatability) is marginal, at least at this point.
The responsibility of registered Democrats (and for their part, Republicans) in the primary season is to deliver a candidate for the general election who best represents their views and hopes for the next administration.
Nothing is inevitable - you'd think two bitter and close losses would have taught Dems this lesson.
31 October 2007
insight
A quick snippet from Maureen Dowd's NYT op-ed today:
But maybe the qualities that many find off-putting in Hillary — her opportunism, her triangulation, her ethical corner-cutting, her shifting convictions from pro-war to anti-war, her secrecy, her ruthlessness — are the same ones that make people willing to vote for a woman.
Few are concerned that Hillary is strong enough for the job. She is cold-eyed about wanting power and raising money and turning everything about her life into a commodity. Yet, the characteristics that are somewhat troubling are the same ones that convincingly show she will do what it takes to beat Obama and Rudy. She will not be soft or vulnerable. She will not melt in a crisis.
Full article.
This is exactly right. The constant chattering on whether or not Americans are ready for a woman president, if Hillary can overcome the gender thing, etc. has been so annoying to me precisely because it is a sideshow. Everybody knows she's got the biggest dick in the whole horse race. The list of qualities that Dowd lays out here - opportunism, triangulation, questionable ethics, ruthlessness, et al - effectively cancel out any perceived weakness HRC's femaleness may engender.
But does our reaction to this list of characteristics stop at "Great, the woman thing won't be an obstacle, because she more than compensates on these other fronts!"? I hope not.
Is ruthless opportunism and secretiveness and flip-flopping what we're looking for in our next president? Are these the things that will repair at least some of the damage of the last seven years? Strength, sobriety, discretion ... these are all good - always good - in leaders. But does Hillary Clinton take these to a level where they become problematic? Certainly, on some levels, many people's viscerally negative reaction to her has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with a fundamental understanding that she is just as Ms Dowd says she is.
But maybe the qualities that many find off-putting in Hillary — her opportunism, her triangulation, her ethical corner-cutting, her shifting convictions from pro-war to anti-war, her secrecy, her ruthlessness — are the same ones that make people willing to vote for a woman.
Few are concerned that Hillary is strong enough for the job. She is cold-eyed about wanting power and raising money and turning everything about her life into a commodity. Yet, the characteristics that are somewhat troubling are the same ones that convincingly show she will do what it takes to beat Obama and Rudy. She will not be soft or vulnerable. She will not melt in a crisis.
Full article.
This is exactly right. The constant chattering on whether or not Americans are ready for a woman president, if Hillary can overcome the gender thing, etc. has been so annoying to me precisely because it is a sideshow. Everybody knows she's got the biggest dick in the whole horse race. The list of qualities that Dowd lays out here - opportunism, triangulation, questionable ethics, ruthlessness, et al - effectively cancel out any perceived weakness HRC's femaleness may engender.
But does our reaction to this list of characteristics stop at "Great, the woman thing won't be an obstacle, because she more than compensates on these other fronts!"? I hope not.
Is ruthless opportunism and secretiveness and flip-flopping what we're looking for in our next president? Are these the things that will repair at least some of the damage of the last seven years? Strength, sobriety, discretion ... these are all good - always good - in leaders. But does Hillary Clinton take these to a level where they become problematic? Certainly, on some levels, many people's viscerally negative reaction to her has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with a fundamental understanding that she is just as Ms Dowd says she is.
10 October 2007
c'est vrai
"...[P]artisan rancor and mutual recrimination are the sad legacy of two self-destructive administrations in a row. Bill Clinton's lies about his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky paralyzed the government and tainted his legacy, while George Bush's poor judgment and managerial ineptitude have mired us in an endless, brutal war with little chance for a happy ending.
I find it hard to believe that my fellow Democrats want to backtrack and relive every tedious scandal from the Clinton era. But that's what we'll get if Hillary is the nominee -- a long, sulfurous night of the walking dead, with chattering skeletons tumbling out of every closet. I've been discouraged by the clumsy missteps of the Edwards campaign, but I'm still hopeful about Barack Obama, who had the guts and good sense to publicly oppose the Iraq war from the start and whose ascent promises a clean, invigorating break from the sordid past."
Paglia's been a bit stale lately in her Salon column, but in this month's (which is a letter-answering one), she exactly summarizes my sentiments on our choices for 2008.
Full article here.
I find it hard to believe that my fellow Democrats want to backtrack and relive every tedious scandal from the Clinton era. But that's what we'll get if Hillary is the nominee -- a long, sulfurous night of the walking dead, with chattering skeletons tumbling out of every closet. I've been discouraged by the clumsy missteps of the Edwards campaign, but I'm still hopeful about Barack Obama, who had the guts and good sense to publicly oppose the Iraq war from the start and whose ascent promises a clean, invigorating break from the sordid past."
Paglia's been a bit stale lately in her Salon column, but in this month's (which is a letter-answering one), she exactly summarizes my sentiments on our choices for 2008.
Full article here.
08 October 2007
the end of enda?
The ENDA, or Employment Non-Discrimination Act, will be the first federal law protecting the rights of the LGBT community ever if and when it passes. Unfortunately, the if factor is growing, due in no small part to the political pressure on Democrats by gay rights groups.
Read a full article from Salon.com opinion here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/08/lgbt/
(Thanks, John Aravosis.)
The question Aravosis raises here: Is it worth tossing out this bill, putting it on indefinite hold, or just point-blank dooming it to failure if it does not include gender identity in its protections? (The original version covered only sexual orientation, a category of protection missing from the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Transgender/transexual/etc components of gay rights agendas precipitated the addition of "gender identity" into the bill, which is what may be its downfall.)
For a little background reading, check out this excerpt from a March 2001 Camille Paglia column, from the same:
...Which brings us to another subject, the furor this past month over a report by psychiatrist Robert Spitzer of Columbia University that, from his rather cursory interviews with 153 men and 47 women, the "reparative therapy" endorsed by conservative Protestant groups can in some cases change sexual orientation from gay to straight. That Spitzer had helped to persuade the American Psychiatric Association to drop the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 makes his current study harder to dismiss.
Nevertheless, screeching gay activists immediately descended on the media to denounce and defame Spitzer as a tool of the far right. This was a good example of the fascist policing of public discourse in this country by nominal liberals who have become as unthinkingly wedded to dogma as any junior member of the Spanish Inquisition. Why should the fluidity of sexual orientation threaten any gay secure in his or her identity?
What gay ideologues, inflated like pink balloons with poststructuralist hot air, can't admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature's norm, enforced by powerful hormonal cues at puberty. In the past decade, one shoddy book after another, rapturously applauded by p.c. reviewers, has exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality in the animal world and, without due regard for reproductive adaptations caused by environmental changes, toxins or population pressure, reductively interpreted bonding or hierarchical behavior as gay in the human sense.
Because of the unblushing dishonesty of strident activists and campus "queer theorists," whose general knowledge of science would fit into Marie Antoinette's thimble, we are ironically further from understanding homosexuality than we were in 1970, when popular culture was moving into the seductive gender-bending era typified by the brilliant David Bowie. With the emphasis on external "politics," all respect for psychology has been lost. Did no one notice the grotesquely misogynous dialogue put into gay men's mouths on "Queer as Folk"? That kind of catty aversion to the female body is learned, not inborn, and it can be partly traced to early family relations, before personal memory has even gelled.
My political philosophy as a libertarian says that government has no business intervening in any consensual private behavior. My professional ethic as a thinker and writer, however, says that self-knowledge is our ultimate responsibility. In vicious attacks like the one on Spitzer, gay activists, with all their good intentions, are aligning themselves with the forces of ignorance and repression. Too little reliable work is currently being done in homosexuality because free inquiry cannot be conducted in a politicized atmosphere of harassment and intimidation.
(Emphases mine.)
I feel the need to point out that, despite all the ire she continually incites (much of which she deserves and, dare I say, enjoys), Paglia is herself a gay woman and has identified as such for at least 40 years. This is perhaps a bit over the top, but her central point continues to be true, and the same attitudes she is writing about (in light of the repression of scholarship) are potentially driving this essential legislation into the ground.
Read a full article from Salon.com opinion here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/08/lgbt/
(Thanks, John Aravosis.)
The question Aravosis raises here: Is it worth tossing out this bill, putting it on indefinite hold, or just point-blank dooming it to failure if it does not include gender identity in its protections? (The original version covered only sexual orientation, a category of protection missing from the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Transgender/transexual/etc components of gay rights agendas precipitated the addition of "gender identity" into the bill, which is what may be its downfall.)
For a little background reading, check out this excerpt from a March 2001 Camille Paglia column, from the same:
...Which brings us to another subject, the furor this past month over a report by psychiatrist Robert Spitzer of Columbia University that, from his rather cursory interviews with 153 men and 47 women, the "reparative therapy" endorsed by conservative Protestant groups can in some cases change sexual orientation from gay to straight. That Spitzer had helped to persuade the American Psychiatric Association to drop the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 makes his current study harder to dismiss.
Nevertheless, screeching gay activists immediately descended on the media to denounce and defame Spitzer as a tool of the far right. This was a good example of the fascist policing of public discourse in this country by nominal liberals who have become as unthinkingly wedded to dogma as any junior member of the Spanish Inquisition. Why should the fluidity of sexual orientation threaten any gay secure in his or her identity?
What gay ideologues, inflated like pink balloons with poststructuralist hot air, can't admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature's norm, enforced by powerful hormonal cues at puberty. In the past decade, one shoddy book after another, rapturously applauded by p.c. reviewers, has exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality in the animal world and, without due regard for reproductive adaptations caused by environmental changes, toxins or population pressure, reductively interpreted bonding or hierarchical behavior as gay in the human sense.
Because of the unblushing dishonesty of strident activists and campus "queer theorists," whose general knowledge of science would fit into Marie Antoinette's thimble, we are ironically further from understanding homosexuality than we were in 1970, when popular culture was moving into the seductive gender-bending era typified by the brilliant David Bowie. With the emphasis on external "politics," all respect for psychology has been lost. Did no one notice the grotesquely misogynous dialogue put into gay men's mouths on "Queer as Folk"? That kind of catty aversion to the female body is learned, not inborn, and it can be partly traced to early family relations, before personal memory has even gelled.
My political philosophy as a libertarian says that government has no business intervening in any consensual private behavior. My professional ethic as a thinker and writer, however, says that self-knowledge is our ultimate responsibility. In vicious attacks like the one on Spitzer, gay activists, with all their good intentions, are aligning themselves with the forces of ignorance and repression. Too little reliable work is currently being done in homosexuality because free inquiry cannot be conducted in a politicized atmosphere of harassment and intimidation.
(Emphases mine.)
I feel the need to point out that, despite all the ire she continually incites (much of which she deserves and, dare I say, enjoys), Paglia is herself a gay woman and has identified as such for at least 40 years. This is perhaps a bit over the top, but her central point continues to be true, and the same attitudes she is writing about (in light of the repression of scholarship) are potentially driving this essential legislation into the ground.
05 September 2007
maureen's back from vacay!
Maureen Dowd is back from summer vacation with an Op-Ed in today's NYT called "The 46-Year-Old Virgin." She should get out of town more often - it's one of her better pieces in months.
Highlights include:
Obama doesn’t understand that his new approach — obliquely attacking Hillary by dismissing “those who tout their experience working the system in Washington” — cedes ground to her by admitting she has more experience working the system.
He allows Hillary to present herself as having the experience to be president just because she was married to one. He should be making the opposite case, that Hillary — go ahead, use her name, she won’t bite you, or even if she does, you’ll get over it — knew from nothing about the system.
In the White House, she botched health care and bungled dealing with special prosecutors — remember that talent she had for losing critical files? And in the Senate, she played it safe and became a Democratic Senator Pothole while helping W. launch his disaster in Iraq.
...
By conjuring a scenario where Hillary is the deft insider and he’s the dewy outsider, Obama only plays into her playbook again.
Highlights include:
Obama doesn’t understand that his new approach — obliquely attacking Hillary by dismissing “those who tout their experience working the system in Washington” — cedes ground to her by admitting she has more experience working the system.
He allows Hillary to present herself as having the experience to be president just because she was married to one. He should be making the opposite case, that Hillary — go ahead, use her name, she won’t bite you, or even if she does, you’ll get over it — knew from nothing about the system.
In the White House, she botched health care and bungled dealing with special prosecutors — remember that talent she had for losing critical files? And in the Senate, she played it safe and became a Democratic Senator Pothole while helping W. launch his disaster in Iraq.
...
By conjuring a scenario where Hillary is the deft insider and he’s the dewy outsider, Obama only plays into her playbook again.
23 August 2007
dilemma indeed
Good news for people who like bad news! (Really, though.)
Penguin released the paperback of Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma this month. Check it out.
The intersection between food, politics, economics, and the environment should pique everyone's interest, except for that exquisite breed of New York female who doesn't actually eat. Regardless of how politically inclined an American is, he certainly eats the food for sale here. And that's why Pollan's book is required reading, as far as I'm concerned.
Here's an article, by Salon's Eli Rosenberg, that touches a bit on the subject and features an interview with the wonderful Dan Barber, one of the guys behind Blue Hill Restaurant in Greenwich Village.
I have lots to say on this whole topic: organics, the slow food movement, sustainability in farming, petroleum-based agribusiness, Cargill, etc etc etc but I don't want to just regurgitate Pollan's work (chew someone else's cud?). Read it!!
Penguin released the paperback of Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma this month. Check it out.
The intersection between food, politics, economics, and the environment should pique everyone's interest, except for that exquisite breed of New York female who doesn't actually eat. Regardless of how politically inclined an American is, he certainly eats the food for sale here. And that's why Pollan's book is required reading, as far as I'm concerned.
Here's an article, by Salon's Eli Rosenberg, that touches a bit on the subject and features an interview with the wonderful Dan Barber, one of the guys behind Blue Hill Restaurant in Greenwich Village.
I have lots to say on this whole topic: organics, the slow food movement, sustainability in farming, petroleum-based agribusiness, Cargill, etc etc etc but I don't want to just regurgitate Pollan's work (chew someone else's cud?). Read it!!
22 August 2007
usa!, usa!, usa!
HuffPo headline today: another White House possibly illegal/certainly unethical activity exposed.
In this case, it's to do with a White House Manual that provides strategies for keeping protesters away from (or at least out of sight of) Monsieur le President. The article is from WaPo.
Here are a few snippets:
The "Presidential Advance Manual," dated October 2002 ... was released under subpoena to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of a lawsuit filed on behalf of two people arrested for refusing to cover their anti-Bush T-shirts at a Fourth of July speech at the West Virginia State Capitol in 2004...The lawsuit was filed by Jeffery and Nicole Rank, who attended the Charleston event wearing shirts with the word "Bush" crossed out on the front; the back of his shirt said "Regime Change Starts at Home," while hers said "Love America, Hate Bush." Members of the White House event staff told them to cover their shirts or leave, according to the lawsuit. They refused and were arrested, handcuffed and briefly jailed before local authorities dropped the charges and apologized. The federal government settled the First Amendment case last week for $80,000, but with no admission of wrongdoing.
Arrested, handcuffed and jailed?! WHAT?
The manual offers ... guidelines for assembling crowds. Those invited into a VIP section on or near the stage, for instance, must be " extremely supportive of the Administration," it says...
To counter any demonstrators who do get in, advance teams are told to create "rally squads" of volunteers with large hand-held signs, placards or banners with "favorable messages." Squads should be placed in strategic locations and "at least one squad should be 'roaming' throughout the perimeter of the event to look for potential problems," the manual says.
..."The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protestors (USA!, USA!, USA!). As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site."
At least this makes it a little funnier, but not enough for me to stop being completely horrified.
In this case, it's to do with a White House Manual that provides strategies for keeping protesters away from (or at least out of sight of) Monsieur le President. The article is from WaPo.
Here are a few snippets:
The "Presidential Advance Manual," dated October 2002 ... was released under subpoena to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of a lawsuit filed on behalf of two people arrested for refusing to cover their anti-Bush T-shirts at a Fourth of July speech at the West Virginia State Capitol in 2004...The lawsuit was filed by Jeffery and Nicole Rank, who attended the Charleston event wearing shirts with the word "Bush" crossed out on the front; the back of his shirt said "Regime Change Starts at Home," while hers said "Love America, Hate Bush." Members of the White House event staff told them to cover their shirts or leave, according to the lawsuit. They refused and were arrested, handcuffed and briefly jailed before local authorities dropped the charges and apologized. The federal government settled the First Amendment case last week for $80,000, but with no admission of wrongdoing.
Arrested, handcuffed and jailed?! WHAT?
The manual offers ... guidelines for assembling crowds. Those invited into a VIP section on or near the stage, for instance, must be " extremely supportive of the Administration," it says...
To counter any demonstrators who do get in, advance teams are told to create "rally squads" of volunteers with large hand-held signs, placards or banners with "favorable messages." Squads should be placed in strategic locations and "at least one squad should be 'roaming' throughout the perimeter of the event to look for potential problems," the manual says.
..."The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protestors (USA!, USA!, USA!). As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site."
At least this makes it a little funnier, but not enough for me to stop being completely horrified.
08 August 2007
the end of the world, or, just another new york wednesday
The extremely scary and loud thunder that woke me up in the wee hours this morning was apparently a bad sign. Trees were uprooted all over Brooklyn by a severe thunderstorm, and most subway lines closed completely today due to track flooding. The MTA, in its infinite wisdom and preparedness, advised people to "stay home," and did not update their website once between about 9:30 am and 11:30 am. Oh, and their site was down for much of that time, too.
Is this kind of like what the next terrorist attack is going to feel like? I just hope it isn't 90 and humid when that happens (or when it rains again and the entire fucking city shuts down).
All the chaos this morning brings up a few points:
Is this kind of like what the next terrorist attack is going to feel like? I just hope it isn't 90 and humid when that happens (or when it rains again and the entire fucking city shuts down).
All the chaos this morning brings up a few points:
- New York City infrastructure is totally decrepit and will only get older and worse. Meanwhile, the city is growing. MTA = Malthusian Transportation Apocalypse.
- If Manhattan ever has to be evacuated for any reason whatsoever, we're fucked.
- It no longer rains normally. Every storm event makes headlines.
New York City Transit System is Crippled by Flooding [NYT]
03 August 2007
obama naïve?
Ben Smith, who blogs for The Politico, posted an excerpt from Sen. Joe Biden's (D-DE) appearance on the Diane Rehm Show yesterday (Aug 2).
First of all, Diane Rehm is one of things I miss most about DC. That voice!
Second, here's what Biden said:
“… in order to look tough [Barack Obama has] undermined his ability to be tough, were he president. Because if you’re going to go into Pakistan -- which is already our policy by the way, if there’s actionable intelligence-- you need actionable intelligence from moderates within Pakistan working with you. Now if you’re already going to say I’m going to disregard whatever the country thinks and going to invade, the likelihood you’re getting the cooperation you need evaporates. It’s a well intended notion he has, but it’s a very naïve way of figuring out how you’re going to conduct foreign policy.”
This is in response to a statement Obama made recently - he said that he would consider unilateral strikes on terrorists within Pakistan. Here's a WaPo article about it.
So, bit by bit:
Going after the real Al-Qaeda (as opposed to "Al-Qaeda in Iraq") has been Obama's (and most Democrats') central anti-terrorism foreign policy for a while. It's no secret that Pakistan is where AQ is. Put them together and you end up with Obama's statement -- seems pretty rudimentary to me.
Biden is a Senate Foreign Relations Committee veteran. He's probably one of the most knowledgeable senators when it comes to foreign policy, which is basically the only thing he has going for him as a presidential candidate. That's what makes this excerpt so lame. Clearly it's just part of this noisy political nonsense that Obama is impetuous and naïve about foreign policy. In reality, who's the naïve one? I'd say anyone who supported going into Iraq and who now continues to stand by a Pakistan policy that makes our actions dependent upon "moderates" in the government informing on Al Qaeda is the truly naïve one.
Also, it's necessary to make a distinction here: Obama was not referring to invading Pakistan. Musharraf's government insists it has nothing to do with AQ's presence within its borders, so they shouldn't mind Obama's "willingness" to strike at whomever is hiding in those caves in the least.
First of all, Diane Rehm is one of things I miss most about DC. That voice!
Second, here's what Biden said:
“… in order to look tough [Barack Obama has] undermined his ability to be tough, were he president. Because if you’re going to go into Pakistan -- which is already our policy by the way, if there’s actionable intelligence-- you need actionable intelligence from moderates within Pakistan working with you. Now if you’re already going to say I’m going to disregard whatever the country thinks and going to invade, the likelihood you’re getting the cooperation you need evaporates. It’s a well intended notion he has, but it’s a very naïve way of figuring out how you’re going to conduct foreign policy.”
This is in response to a statement Obama made recently - he said that he would consider unilateral strikes on terrorists within Pakistan. Here's a WaPo article about it.
So, bit by bit:
Going after the real Al-Qaeda (as opposed to "Al-Qaeda in Iraq") has been Obama's (and most Democrats') central anti-terrorism foreign policy for a while. It's no secret that Pakistan is where AQ is. Put them together and you end up with Obama's statement -- seems pretty rudimentary to me.
Biden is a Senate Foreign Relations Committee veteran. He's probably one of the most knowledgeable senators when it comes to foreign policy, which is basically the only thing he has going for him as a presidential candidate. That's what makes this excerpt so lame. Clearly it's just part of this noisy political nonsense that Obama is impetuous and naïve about foreign policy. In reality, who's the naïve one? I'd say anyone who supported going into Iraq and who now continues to stand by a Pakistan policy that makes our actions dependent upon "moderates" in the government informing on Al Qaeda is the truly naïve one.
Also, it's necessary to make a distinction here: Obama was not referring to invading Pakistan. Musharraf's government insists it has nothing to do with AQ's presence within its borders, so they shouldn't mind Obama's "willingness" to strike at whomever is hiding in those caves in the least.
02 August 2007
someone please punch this guy in the mouth
From Salon's "War Room" Blog (posted by Tim Grieve) - Quote of the Day for 8/2/07
"Please understand, Senators, that I have the utmost respect for this committee. And a contempt citation is not something that I take lightly. To the contrary, if a court ultimately determines that Congress' need for the information outweighs the president's assertion of executive privilege, I would welcome the opportunity to answer your questions on the U.S. attorneys matter.
"Until that time, however, I am compelled to abide by the president's directive, particularly given my status as a current White House employee. In light of these considerations, as well as a desire to be as consistent as possible and avoid even the appearance of selectively answering questions, I will be unable at this time to answer any questions concerning White House consideration, deliberations or communications related to the U.S. attorneys matter, regardless of whether specific documents or conversations may already have been discussed publicly by others. To do otherwise would directly violate the president's order."
-White House political aide J. Scott Jennings (29 years young) testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the U.S. Attorney scandal
"Please understand, Senators, that I have the utmost respect for this committee. And a contempt citation is not something that I take lightly. To the contrary, if a court ultimately determines that Congress' need for the information outweighs the president's assertion of executive privilege, I would welcome the opportunity to answer your questions on the U.S. attorneys matter.
"Until that time, however, I am compelled to abide by the president's directive, particularly given my status as a current White House employee. In light of these considerations, as well as a desire to be as consistent as possible and avoid even the appearance of selectively answering questions, I will be unable at this time to answer any questions concerning White House consideration, deliberations or communications related to the U.S. attorneys matter, regardless of whether specific documents or conversations may already have been discussed publicly by others. To do otherwise would directly violate the president's order."
-White House political aide J. Scott Jennings (29 years young) testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the U.S. Attorney scandal
rightful home
Bravo, Getty Museum, for deciding to return 40 antiquities back to their rightful home in Italy. These are valuable as pieces of art, but they are invaluable as national treasures and symbols of Italy.
Next up: march on Paris! Demand our treasures back from the Louvre! And we want Corsica, too.
Next up: march on Paris! Demand our treasures back from the Louvre! And we want Corsica, too.
01 August 2007
snap out of it!
A key Sunni political bloc announced that it would be withdrawing from Nouri Al-Maliki's fragile Coalition government in Baghdad today. And all this amidst about 70 people dying in suicide bombings. [Reuters]
This story broke two hours ago.
NYT.com just posted this, though the Sunni bloc withdraw part is not even the goddamn headline. HELLO?!?
The server at NYT is too busy processing the number one most e-mailed story (Findings: The Whys of Mating: 237 Reasons and Counting) I guess.
What is wrong with this picture?
This story broke two hours ago.
NYT.com just posted this, though the Sunni bloc withdraw part is not even the goddamn headline. HELLO?!?
The server at NYT is too busy processing the number one most e-mailed story (Findings: The Whys of Mating: 237 Reasons and Counting) I guess.
What is wrong with this picture?
31 July 2007
give me a break, joan
Gawker linked to this brief interview with Salon's Joan Walsh on MediaWatch yesterday evening.
And Gawker is right: she must be high. I love her and I love the website, but Joan sort of makes a fool of herself here. She is not the most talented writer on Salon, but she is at the helm of one of the better written news and politics sites around. Still, to say that Salon is not liberal is stupid. It absolutely is lefty; it may not speak for all progressives, and it may not identify as movement press, but c'mon.
Also, in her rundown of opinion on '08 candidates, she betrays Salon's apparent and reflexive support for Hillary Clinton, both for the Democratic nomination and success in the general election. This is the one area I've consistently found lacking on Salon. Maybe Joan's refusal to call the site liberal is behind its abdication of responsibilty to scrutinize the front runner from within her own party. Even if we, as Democrats, ultimately choose to support Clinton, it should be after serious critique and soul-searching -- otherwise the conservative media will dominate all discussion about her if and when she wins the nomination. Think of it as pre-emptive war.
Joan, your site is great and I love reading you. But get with the program.
And Gawker is right: she must be high. I love her and I love the website, but Joan sort of makes a fool of herself here. She is not the most talented writer on Salon, but she is at the helm of one of the better written news and politics sites around. Still, to say that Salon is not liberal is stupid. It absolutely is lefty; it may not speak for all progressives, and it may not identify as movement press, but c'mon.
Also, in her rundown of opinion on '08 candidates, she betrays Salon's apparent and reflexive support for Hillary Clinton, both for the Democratic nomination and success in the general election. This is the one area I've consistently found lacking on Salon. Maybe Joan's refusal to call the site liberal is behind its abdication of responsibilty to scrutinize the front runner from within her own party. Even if we, as Democrats, ultimately choose to support Clinton, it should be after serious critique and soul-searching -- otherwise the conservative media will dominate all discussion about her if and when she wins the nomination. Think of it as pre-emptive war.
Joan, your site is great and I love reading you. But get with the program.
30 July 2007
26 July 2007
the ugly american apparel
Dear American Apparel,
I think I really fucking hate you. I know your clothes fit me, which is why I don't care that they can be a rip off. But you've got some major kinks to iron out of your 100% cotton tees.
Basically, can you please hire some grown ups? I understand you're selling a hipster aesthetic, but don't the too-tight, occasionally neon clothes suffice? I don't really need both the average age AND body mass index of the people waiting on me to be under 23, since they clearly have no idea what is happening, how to use their registers, etc. And please ask them to refrain from stopping the transaction at the checkout to skip the song on their iPod that's broadcasting throughout the store because it's so "six months ago." Also, tell them to wait to discuss the show they're going to on the LES tonight until after I've paid for my t-shirt.
Sorry to have my Baby Rib Men's Briefs in a bunch, but the people need their metallic leotards and Tyvek jackets, and your underweight and overestimated staff is fucking shit up.
Best regards,
Jesse
I think I really fucking hate you. I know your clothes fit me, which is why I don't care that they can be a rip off. But you've got some major kinks to iron out of your 100% cotton tees.
Basically, can you please hire some grown ups? I understand you're selling a hipster aesthetic, but don't the too-tight, occasionally neon clothes suffice? I don't really need both the average age AND body mass index of the people waiting on me to be under 23, since they clearly have no idea what is happening, how to use their registers, etc. And please ask them to refrain from stopping the transaction at the checkout to skip the song on their iPod that's broadcasting throughout the store because it's so "six months ago." Also, tell them to wait to discuss the show they're going to on the LES tonight until after I've paid for my t-shirt.
Sorry to have my Baby Rib Men's Briefs in a bunch, but the people need their metallic leotards and Tyvek jackets, and your underweight and overestimated staff is fucking shit up.
Best regards,
Jesse
24 July 2007
lessons from john yoo
Glenn Greenwald has a terrific (in both senses of the word) post today about John Yoo's recent Wall Street Journal Op-Ed.
Here's Yoo's psychotic contribution to the political discourse.
I say psychotic not just for the obvious reasons, but because Yoo is no stranger to the WSJ Op-Ed page, and looking back on a 1998 appearance on the page is disconcerting, to say the least. In his earlier Op-Ed, Yoo is criticizing President Clinton's invocation of Executive Privilege. Clearly, it's nothing new to approve of the President you like and disprove of the one you don't, but it's alarming to see the exact same reasoning used for totally opposite conclusions.
Anyway, Glenn Greenwald picks this apart very nicely.
But this all brings up an important point that no one seems interested in discussing, and that is how Clinton's conduct in office laid so much of the groundwork for the unfortunate Constitutional crisis in which we are currently embroiled. Glenn Greenwald's post makes mention of the distinction between person and office in a democratic government. Follow that trail: Clinton's likeable politics, persona, whathaveyou, does not recuse him of at the very least criticism over his own actions in office, and the degree to which they expanded presidential power and routine abuse of the justice system. These issues seem to be Democrats' new mantle against Bush (justifiably so), but we won't get very far with people who disliked Clinton (there are a lot of them, and we need at least a few of their votes to ever win national elections again) unless we are honest about the role he played in getting us to this place.
Here's Yoo's psychotic contribution to the political discourse.
I say psychotic not just for the obvious reasons, but because Yoo is no stranger to the WSJ Op-Ed page, and looking back on a 1998 appearance on the page is disconcerting, to say the least. In his earlier Op-Ed, Yoo is criticizing President Clinton's invocation of Executive Privilege. Clearly, it's nothing new to approve of the President you like and disprove of the one you don't, but it's alarming to see the exact same reasoning used for totally opposite conclusions.
Anyway, Glenn Greenwald picks this apart very nicely.
But this all brings up an important point that no one seems interested in discussing, and that is how Clinton's conduct in office laid so much of the groundwork for the unfortunate Constitutional crisis in which we are currently embroiled. Glenn Greenwald's post makes mention of the distinction between person and office in a democratic government. Follow that trail: Clinton's likeable politics, persona, whathaveyou, does not recuse him of at the very least criticism over his own actions in office, and the degree to which they expanded presidential power and routine abuse of the justice system. These issues seem to be Democrats' new mantle against Bush (justifiably so), but we won't get very far with people who disliked Clinton (there are a lot of them, and we need at least a few of their votes to ever win national elections again) unless we are honest about the role he played in getting us to this place.
23 July 2007
the madness of king george
From that illustrious list of the Most E-mailed on nytimes.com comes Adam Cohen's excellent editorial, "Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War."
Here's some James Madison wisdom from the same:
“In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle.”
Here's some James Madison wisdom from the same:
“In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle.”
13 July 2007
go big or go home, literally
I stumbled upon this book review on salon.com this morning.
The book is called The Trap; the author is Daniel Brook.
In the tradition of Strapped (Tamara Draut) and Generation Debt (Anya Kamenetz), The Trap is another exploration of the economic realities of being a 20-something in the US today. Draut's book discussed the ballooning costs of living and the stagnation of wages, especially for entry-level toilers like yours truly. Kamenetz's book, as its title suggests, analyzed some of the implications of the crushing educational debt being shouldered by recent grads (also, incidentally, just like yours truly!).
According to Astra Taylor's review, Brook takes the analysis a step further, into political territory. His idea is that the system - the one described by Draut and Kamenetz - conspires to create a stark dichotomy in career and lifestyle choice for young Americans. We must choose between being saints or sellouts. There is nothing in between; we work for a pittance in something altruistic, or we decide we want houses, families, and middle class life and are forced to sell out and go corporate. It's a sad and alarming reality with incredible political and cultural consequences (the death of the middle class in the new century?), and its development can be traced back from the radicalism and egalitarianism of the Sixties to the conservative backlash that dismantled the progressive tax code, the healthcare system, and free or cheap education, among other things.
Anyway, I'm going to read this book, but it'll probably put me over the edge. Because this reality sucks.
The book is called The Trap; the author is Daniel Brook.
In the tradition of Strapped (Tamara Draut) and Generation Debt (Anya Kamenetz), The Trap is another exploration of the economic realities of being a 20-something in the US today. Draut's book discussed the ballooning costs of living and the stagnation of wages, especially for entry-level toilers like yours truly. Kamenetz's book, as its title suggests, analyzed some of the implications of the crushing educational debt being shouldered by recent grads (also, incidentally, just like yours truly!).
According to Astra Taylor's review, Brook takes the analysis a step further, into political territory. His idea is that the system - the one described by Draut and Kamenetz - conspires to create a stark dichotomy in career and lifestyle choice for young Americans. We must choose between being saints or sellouts. There is nothing in between; we work for a pittance in something altruistic, or we decide we want houses, families, and middle class life and are forced to sell out and go corporate. It's a sad and alarming reality with incredible political and cultural consequences (the death of the middle class in the new century?), and its development can be traced back from the radicalism and egalitarianism of the Sixties to the conservative backlash that dismantled the progressive tax code, the healthcare system, and free or cheap education, among other things.
Anyway, I'm going to read this book, but it'll probably put me over the edge. Because this reality sucks.
12 July 2007
a lead that tells it like it is
Bush and Cheney's tortured secrecy
By David Cole, for Salon.com
Here's the lead:
"The Bush administration, already arguably the most aggressive advocate of unchecked executive power in the history of the American presidency, has done it again."
Yeah, it's not new news. But isn't it refreshing to see a reporter actually write that sentence?
The thing the Bush administration is doing "again" is claiming executive privilege, this time as a rebuttal to Congressional subpeonas requesting the release of documents and the testimony of two White House counselors as they investigate the U.S. Attorney dismissal scandal.
It's pretty easy to launch into the laundry list of executive power grabbing, Constitution stretching and smashing, and general insane secrecy and legal breaches perpetrated by the regime. Cole does a bit of that, if you are feeling masochistic and want to read about it.
Here's what all this makes me think about though: if we were NOT currently embroiled in the midst of a disastrous and unpopular war (that is, if we were already out, or if it were going really well), would Bush's ratings still be abysmal? I have a very disturbing feeling that they wouldn't be, even though this anti-Constitutional behavior is potentially a much greater crisis than the sectarian sinkhole on the other side of the world.
Iraq is undoubtedly a hugely important issue - it's been a foreign policy blunder that will totally destabilize a vital region (to world peace, religious freedom, human rights, our security, and everyone's access to energy) for a long time. But the erosion of our own Constitutional system is potentially even more far-reaching, if not for the whole world, then at least for those of us marooned in the US.
I really hope we start thinking about our priorities in hatred here: what has been Bush's bigger sin? Or at least, why are we satisfied with an '08 field who criticize the hell out of the war, but remain mum on the reckless and illegal ballooning of executive power (save Ron Paul)?
By David Cole, for Salon.com
Here's the lead:
"The Bush administration, already arguably the most aggressive advocate of unchecked executive power in the history of the American presidency, has done it again."
Yeah, it's not new news. But isn't it refreshing to see a reporter actually write that sentence?
The thing the Bush administration is doing "again" is claiming executive privilege, this time as a rebuttal to Congressional subpeonas requesting the release of documents and the testimony of two White House counselors as they investigate the U.S. Attorney dismissal scandal.
It's pretty easy to launch into the laundry list of executive power grabbing, Constitution stretching and smashing, and general insane secrecy and legal breaches perpetrated by the regime. Cole does a bit of that, if you are feeling masochistic and want to read about it.
Here's what all this makes me think about though: if we were NOT currently embroiled in the midst of a disastrous and unpopular war (that is, if we were already out, or if it were going really well), would Bush's ratings still be abysmal? I have a very disturbing feeling that they wouldn't be, even though this anti-Constitutional behavior is potentially a much greater crisis than the sectarian sinkhole on the other side of the world.
Iraq is undoubtedly a hugely important issue - it's been a foreign policy blunder that will totally destabilize a vital region (to world peace, religious freedom, human rights, our security, and everyone's access to energy) for a long time. But the erosion of our own Constitutional system is potentially even more far-reaching, if not for the whole world, then at least for those of us marooned in the US.
I really hope we start thinking about our priorities in hatred here: what has been Bush's bigger sin? Or at least, why are we satisfied with an '08 field who criticize the hell out of the war, but remain mum on the reckless and illegal ballooning of executive power (save Ron Paul)?
22 June 2007
a meeting of the minds
On his blog for the Atlantic Online today ("The Daily Dish"), conservative libertarian Andrew Sullivan gives a shout out to Glenn Greenwald's new book, A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs Evil Mentality Destroyed the American Presidency. (The book is available here and will be officially released on 26 June.)
Greenwald is certainly a leftist, and Sullivan, though I'm sure neoconservatives have labelled him as a liberal, is a prolific and well-respected conservative writer. And yet, very tellingly, they find common ground on this issue.
Here are some excerpts from Sullivan's post:
And yet this tale of Manicheanism gone awry, of a utopian vision ending in a dystopia, of the terrible dangers of any moral crusade that sanctifies "any method necessary" (in Giuliani's language) in its well-intentioned pursuit of evil is not a new story...
The genius of the American constitution, however, is that it provides the framework for such immoral moralism to be checked and moderated. Alas, we have also seen these past few years how dependent such a system is on the integrity and courage of the people in it.
It depends on an elite willing to stand up against their own power, and it depends on a people alert to the erosion of their freedom. Today, both guardrails against tyranny appear weakened, and the pushback against a radically authoritarian executive has been weak...[W]e have a people seemingly content to watch freedom being stripped from them - because, right now, it's mainly people with brown skin and funny names being railroaded by the executive branch. Al-Marri and Padilla can be distanced...
There is still a chance to repair the damage - but given how much we have lost since 9/11, the constitutional consequences of another major attack are likely to be terminal to the American experiment in liberty. If a Giuliani or a Cheney is in power on such a day, we can kiss goodbye to the constitution. If I sound overly alarmed by what has happened to American liberty, it's because I honestly didn't expect to see habeas corpus, the most basic freedom we have, so casually thrown away and torture so casually enshrined in the American system. I never believed an American president would not only claim but exercise the power to detain any person in America and jail and torture them with impunity - indefinitely. But these are the facts.
(Interesting thing I just learned, too - Andrew Sullivan was born and raised in the UK, and though he has been living in the US since 1984, he is unable to become an American citizen on the grounds that he is HIV positive. Nice policy.)
Greenwald is certainly a leftist, and Sullivan, though I'm sure neoconservatives have labelled him as a liberal, is a prolific and well-respected conservative writer. And yet, very tellingly, they find common ground on this issue.
Here are some excerpts from Sullivan's post:
And yet this tale of Manicheanism gone awry, of a utopian vision ending in a dystopia, of the terrible dangers of any moral crusade that sanctifies "any method necessary" (in Giuliani's language) in its well-intentioned pursuit of evil is not a new story...
The genius of the American constitution, however, is that it provides the framework for such immoral moralism to be checked and moderated. Alas, we have also seen these past few years how dependent such a system is on the integrity and courage of the people in it.
It depends on an elite willing to stand up against their own power, and it depends on a people alert to the erosion of their freedom. Today, both guardrails against tyranny appear weakened, and the pushback against a radically authoritarian executive has been weak...[W]e have a people seemingly content to watch freedom being stripped from them - because, right now, it's mainly people with brown skin and funny names being railroaded by the executive branch. Al-Marri and Padilla can be distanced...
There is still a chance to repair the damage - but given how much we have lost since 9/11, the constitutional consequences of another major attack are likely to be terminal to the American experiment in liberty. If a Giuliani or a Cheney is in power on such a day, we can kiss goodbye to the constitution. If I sound overly alarmed by what has happened to American liberty, it's because I honestly didn't expect to see habeas corpus, the most basic freedom we have, so casually thrown away and torture so casually enshrined in the American system. I never believed an American president would not only claim but exercise the power to detain any person in America and jail and torture them with impunity - indefinitely. But these are the facts.
(Interesting thing I just learned, too - Andrew Sullivan was born and raised in the UK, and though he has been living in the US since 1984, he is unable to become an American citizen on the grounds that he is HIV positive. Nice policy.)
21 June 2007
continental clusterfuck
Europe's Leaders Hold Tense Summit - NYT
Highlights include:
(i.)
The EU is considering a voting system that takes into account each country's population.
But [Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw] Kaczynski has said Poland wants compensation for the deaths it suffered during World War II, when Nazi Germany invaded. He argues that his country would be a much larger country now if not for the war.
Mi scusi? This is absurd, but first and foremost, completely unethical. Point One. Point Two.
(ii.)
Polish media reported Wednesday that Warsaw had renewed its demand that the new treaty include a reference to Europe's Christian heritage -- something [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel is keen not to include.
John Paul II notwithstanding, didn't half a century of Communism accomplish anything on this front?
(iii.)
Britain, meanwhile, opposes greater EU powers over policing and foreign policy and does not support making a new EU human rights charter legally binding, a move that London fears could hurt its control over domestic laws, like labor rights.
Brussels can't take a stand on human rights because someone in Blackpool might go on strike? I guess it would also fly in the face oftag-team Abu Ghraib parties the special Anglo-American relationship.
(iv.)
All 27 nations, however, agree the EU move quickly to adopt a new rulebook to streamline the complex decision-making system crafted years ago when it was a union of 15.
27. The end.
Highlights include:
(i.)
The EU is considering a voting system that takes into account each country's population.
But [Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw] Kaczynski has said Poland wants compensation for the deaths it suffered during World War II, when Nazi Germany invaded. He argues that his country would be a much larger country now if not for the war.
Mi scusi? This is absurd, but first and foremost, completely unethical. Point One. Point Two.
(ii.)
Polish media reported Wednesday that Warsaw had renewed its demand that the new treaty include a reference to Europe's Christian heritage -- something [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel is keen not to include.
John Paul II notwithstanding, didn't half a century of Communism accomplish anything on this front?
(iii.)
Britain, meanwhile, opposes greater EU powers over policing and foreign policy and does not support making a new EU human rights charter legally binding, a move that London fears could hurt its control over domestic laws, like labor rights.
Brussels can't take a stand on human rights because someone in Blackpool might go on strike? I guess it would also fly in the face of
(iv.)
All 27 nations, however, agree the EU move quickly to adopt a new rulebook to streamline the complex decision-making system crafted years ago when it was a union of 15.
27. The end.
19 June 2007
eu + uk ... AAF TLF?
Recently, there has been a spate of articles on BBC News online discussing Gordon Brown’s possible EU referendum, planned for when he takes office in a few months.
Here’s the most recent article.
In other words: Outlook Not Good for Mother Europa.
The rhetoric flying around Downing St and Parliament re: the EU does not bode well for the future (or present) of the Union. On the one hand, it’s calmed down a bit, with Brown no longer mentioning a referendum. On the other hand, Blair and Brown have made a formal statement that the UK refuses to compromise on the Charter of Fundamental Rights (they don’t support it), foreign policy, common law, and tax and benefits – which is tantamount to not supporting any central power in Brussels at all. Where does that leave Europe at the upcoming summit?
The UK is right to suspect the worst from European bureaucrats. It’s just a shame that the response is not to throw their weight around and actually foment change in the constitution creation process, but rather to flail about and decry the loss of national sovereignty and tax dollars. UKIP, the UK Independence Party (read: Tories selling an isolationist populist message) is a good example of the wrong kind of response to the bloated Brussels bureaucracy. Take Lord Pearson’s proposal for the European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill earlier this month. You’ve already signed up for this project – the place for this fight is at the summit, not at home. Take your grievances to the European Parliament and force some reform!
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s imploration to create a “single legal personality” for the EU is a positive and necessary step in the European experiment. Both France and Spain have gotten behind this rhetoric, and the only real opposition is coming from Poland and the UK.
Bottom line: the EU is a mess, operationally. The Constitution failed because it was 200 pages long – a symbol of the excessive and out of touch attitude at Brussels. Jumping from 15 members in April 2004 to 27 members today doesn’t help, either. But the fact of the matter remains: support for the EU is correlated to how realistic Europeans are willing to be. No single European country is powerful enough (politically, economically) to assert itself globally in the way necessary for it to maintain its high opinion of itself, or to assure sufficient future growth. Y’all need each other, so get over what’s been true for the last sixty years and do what you have to do to make it work.
Here’s the most recent article.
In other words: Outlook Not Good for Mother Europa.
The rhetoric flying around Downing St and Parliament re: the EU does not bode well for the future (or present) of the Union. On the one hand, it’s calmed down a bit, with Brown no longer mentioning a referendum. On the other hand, Blair and Brown have made a formal statement that the UK refuses to compromise on the Charter of Fundamental Rights (they don’t support it), foreign policy, common law, and tax and benefits – which is tantamount to not supporting any central power in Brussels at all. Where does that leave Europe at the upcoming summit?
The UK is right to suspect the worst from European bureaucrats. It’s just a shame that the response is not to throw their weight around and actually foment change in the constitution creation process, but rather to flail about and decry the loss of national sovereignty and tax dollars. UKIP, the UK Independence Party (read: Tories selling an isolationist populist message) is a good example of the wrong kind of response to the bloated Brussels bureaucracy. Take Lord Pearson’s proposal for the European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill earlier this month. You’ve already signed up for this project – the place for this fight is at the summit, not at home. Take your grievances to the European Parliament and force some reform!
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s imploration to create a “single legal personality” for the EU is a positive and necessary step in the European experiment. Both France and Spain have gotten behind this rhetoric, and the only real opposition is coming from Poland and the UK.
Bottom line: the EU is a mess, operationally. The Constitution failed because it was 200 pages long – a symbol of the excessive and out of touch attitude at Brussels. Jumping from 15 members in April 2004 to 27 members today doesn’t help, either. But the fact of the matter remains: support for the EU is correlated to how realistic Europeans are willing to be. No single European country is powerful enough (politically, economically) to assert itself globally in the way necessary for it to maintain its high opinion of itself, or to assure sufficient future growth. Y’all need each other, so get over what’s been true for the last sixty years and do what you have to do to make it work.
18 June 2007
this is not my theme
I don't wish to come across as an entirely political web log, and I certainly don't intend to make the 2008 presidential election, or Hillary Clinton, major fixtures of discussion on here. I guess it's just been coming up a lot lately.
Below is a letter i posted on salon.com in response to Walter Shapiro's latest article, an interview with the Grande Dame of Chappaqua herself.
Here's a link to the interview.
And here's the text of my letter:
As if her first name is the real issue here...
While I am usually very impressed with Walter Shapiro's writing, and with Salon's political coverage in general, this interview really demonstrates what I see as Salon's biggest weakness in 08 coverage so far: reflexive support for Hillary Clinton.
I'm sick of reading about whether or not "Hillary" is dimunitive, about who is out-fundraising who, and similar such trivialities. We're choosing a Democratic presidential candidate to finally lead us into a new century, and these are the issues we see fit to discuss?
If Clinton wants to sell me on her candidacy, there are a lot of questions I want answered. Save the hawkish posturing, the finger in the wind moderate charade, and the bipartisan talking points for the general election. Barack Obama has not budged from my first choice position because he represents a moving-on in Democratic politics - a new generation. I fear the horrors of the last six years have diluted much of the displeasure many Americans felt at the close of the Clinton years (conservative backlashes don't just happen because of 9/11. If everyone loved Clintonian politics then as they seem to now, Gore would have won handily).
It should be the responsibility of openly left-leaning media outlets like Salon to force Hillary Clinton to address this issue. She gets away with not answering anyone's questions and the last thing we need is another president whose arrogance makes her feel that she is not accountable for her positions and her policy decisions.
She's brilliant and competent, it's true. But does the nation's number one permanent law school overachiever really have a vision for us, and will she ever really come clean about what it exactly entails? Next time you interview her, ASK HER!
-- jeffelavar
Below is a letter i posted on salon.com in response to Walter Shapiro's latest article, an interview with the Grande Dame of Chappaqua herself.
Here's a link to the interview.
And here's the text of my letter:
As if her first name is the real issue here...
While I am usually very impressed with Walter Shapiro's writing, and with Salon's political coverage in general, this interview really demonstrates what I see as Salon's biggest weakness in 08 coverage so far: reflexive support for Hillary Clinton.
I'm sick of reading about whether or not "Hillary" is dimunitive, about who is out-fundraising who, and similar such trivialities. We're choosing a Democratic presidential candidate to finally lead us into a new century, and these are the issues we see fit to discuss?
If Clinton wants to sell me on her candidacy, there are a lot of questions I want answered. Save the hawkish posturing, the finger in the wind moderate charade, and the bipartisan talking points for the general election. Barack Obama has not budged from my first choice position because he represents a moving-on in Democratic politics - a new generation. I fear the horrors of the last six years have diluted much of the displeasure many Americans felt at the close of the Clinton years (conservative backlashes don't just happen because of 9/11. If everyone loved Clintonian politics then as they seem to now, Gore would have won handily).
It should be the responsibility of openly left-leaning media outlets like Salon to force Hillary Clinton to address this issue. She gets away with not answering anyone's questions and the last thing we need is another president whose arrogance makes her feel that she is not accountable for her positions and her policy decisions.
She's brilliant and competent, it's true. But does the nation's number one permanent law school overachiever really have a vision for us, and will she ever really come clean about what it exactly entails? Next time you interview her, ASK HER!
-- jeffelavar
15 June 2007
"let the conversation begin." [hillary!]
Judith Warner's most recent NYT blog post, "Who's for Hillary. And Who Isn't," perfectly illustrates what is already wrong with press coverage of the '08 presidential election (and more specifically of the Democratic primary field, and most specifically of Hillary Clinton's candidacy).
First of all, Judy's ramblings in much of this post are pretty non-sensical. The basic premise with which she opens is that younger, less wealthy women tend to like Hillary more than their older, wealthier, and more highly educated counterparts. OK, simple. It is in her attempts to explain this polling data that she runs into problems:
"But I’ve repeatedly found that better-off women, who have decent health care, child care, education and, to a greater degree, job flexibility, tend to often be hostile to this sort of communitarian notion of shared responsibility ["It takes a village"]. (“Do you want the government raising your children?” is the frequent riposte.) They’re big believers in the American ethos of individual “choice” and “personal responsibility”; after all, being the winners in our society, it has worked out well for them. And they – rightly – perceive that they’re bound to be the losers, tax-wise, if their own gated community of family comfort is opened up to the larger village."
Alright, so none of this is, on its face, ludicrous. Many (if not a majority) of Americans believe in the "American ethos" (duh). But here's the problem: this is not the make-or-break on supporing Hillary - this sounds like a make-or-break on whether or not to support Democrats or progressive domestic policies in general. An affluent woman of a certain age with a master's degree who is very concerned about the growth of the tax burden on her income because of programs like HeadStart is not going to vote for Hillary. Or Obama. Or Edwards, god forbid. The women who are saying they trust Obama more than Hillary - find him more authentic - are probably not the people who find "the communitarian notion of shared responsibility" a turnoff, since Obama, and to a greater degree Edwards, displays stronger progressive rhetoric than Hillary, at least so far in the campaign. In other words, this is lazy reporting. Judy, you're not explaining anything except for why women who are already Republicans are not supporting Hillary. Thanks for the help.
The big problem Warner's post brings up has to do with coverage of the campaign. Her blog post is entirely typical of how things have gone so far - identifying something like a gap in support for Hillary between younger and older women, and then doing absolutely nothing to explain it. In other words, not asking any damn questions. It's not enough to say that people hate or simply don't wish to support Hillary because they are rich and feel alienated by "It Takes a Village." I'm desperately hoping that my fellow Democrats aren't stupid enough to hand her the nomination, and I certainly don't feel victimized by communitarian notions, generally speaking. So memo to Judy, the Washington Press Corps, and the rest of the lazy journalists of the world: stop equating anti-Hillary sentiment with anti-progressive sentiment. I respect her very much, but front-runner or not, that doesn't maker her the voice of the new Democrats, nor does it equate her with progressivism. She's the spokeswoman for ambition.
14 June 2007
it starts.
"We live in a growly snarky time, heavy irony clacking everywhere like people walking around in tap shoes..."
[Garrison Keillor]
[Garrison Keillor]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
