[T]he only really interesting question is why the president did not fire this vain and useless person on the very first day of the war.... [W]ho cares whether his "slam dunk" vulgarity was misquoted or not? We have better evidence than that. Here is what Tenet told the relevant Senate committee in February 2002:Iraq … has also had contacts with al-Qaida. Their ties may be limited by divergent ideologies, but the two sides' mutual antipathy toward the United States and the Saudi royal family suggests that tactical cooperation between them is possible, even though Saddam is well aware that such activity would carry serious consequences..... As for his bawling and sobbing claim that faced with crisis in Iraq, "the administration's message was: Don't blame us. George Tenet and the CIA got us into this mess," I can say, as one who has attended about a thousand postmortems on Iraq in Washington, that I have never, ever, not once heard a single partisan of the administration say anything of the kind....
Monday, April 30, 2007
"A Loser's History: George Tenet's Sniveling Self-Justifying New Book Is a Disgrace."
Harsh words, from Christopher Hitchens:
Right now, the tiny oak leaves look like flowers.
They're pink and less than a half inch long.
Look closer, and they seem like sugar-coated candy:
Who can picture them all brown and leathery? I can. There are still so many of last year's oak leaves strewn about the yard.
Look closer, and they seem like sugar-coated candy:
Who can picture them all brown and leathery? I can. There are still so many of last year's oak leaves strewn about the yard.
The pill that increases women's sex drive and decreases their appetite. It's a sex + diet pill!
Yeah, they're trying to invent it.
The Edinburgh team, led by Professor Robert Millar, have been looking at the properties Type 2 Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone.Tongue-flicking and eyebrow-raising, eh? I look forward to the day when the world is full of skinny women who seem to be imitating Groucho Marx and William F. Buckley simultaneously. Sexy!
When it was given to monkeys, they displayed mating behaviour such as tongue-flicking and eyebrow-raising to the males, while female shrews displayed their feelings via "rump presentation and tail wagging".
But the animals also ate around a third less food than they normally would.
Fake looking nature.
To me, these flowers look like they were quickly painted by someone who wasn't even trying to make them look realistic. Yet there they are.
Something I love about Chief Justice Roberts.
Based on my experience writing the previous post: He makes his opinions incredibly easy to edit down to a short form.
The new Supreme Court cases, especially the new negative Commerce Clause case.
SCOTUSblog gives us a first glimpse:
ADDED: The case about the high-speed chase includes the video.
MORE: Justice Scalia discusses the video in Scott v. Harris:
Anyway, I watched the video, and I understand why you'd want to reject the plaintiff's characterization of the facts. But this is a case about when to grant summary judgment, avoiding trial. Justice Stevens dissented:
The Supreme Court, in a major victory for Microsoft Corp.... Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T...The last one, a negative (dormant) Commerce Clause case, is especially interesting to me. Here it is, with four separate opinions, written by, oddly enough, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Roberts announces the decision:
In a second ruling on patent law, the Court decided unanimously that the Federal Circuit Court had been wrong in taking a narrow view of when an invention is "obvious" and thus cannot be patented.... KSR International v. Teleflex....
... [P]olice do not act unconstitutionally when they try to stop a suspect fleeing at high speed by ramming the suspect's car from the rear, forcing it to crash..... Scott v. Harris....
[I]f a taxpayer could have sued to challenge an erroneous federal tax levy, but fails to do so on time, may not later sue for a refund... EC Terms of Trust v. U.S....
... [L]ocal government does not violate the Constitution when it [requires] all solid waste generated in the community to be processed at a publicly owned facility, so long as the ordinance treats private businesses the same whether they are local or out-of-state.... United Haulers Association v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management...
We hold that the Counties’ flow control ordinances, which treat in-state private business interests exactly the same as out-of-state ones, do not “discriminate against interstate commerce” for purposes of the dormant Commerce Clause.Because he finds no discrimination, he goes on to the balancing test (the "Pike test"):
Under the Pike test, we will uphold a nondiscriminatory statute like this one “unless the burden imposed on [interstate] commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.”...Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer join the opinion in full. Scalia joins up to the point where Roberts applies the balancing test:
We find it unnecessary to decide whether the ordinances impose any incidental burden on interstate commerce because any arguable burden does not exceed the public benefits of the ordinances.
The ordinances give the Counties a convenient and effective way to finance their integrated package of waste-disposal services....
At the same time, the ordinances are more than financing tools. They increase recycling in at least two ways, conferring significant health and environmental benefits upon the citizens of the Counties....
The Counties’ ordinances are exercises of the police power in an effort to address waste disposal, a typical and traditional concern of local government.
I have been willing to enforce on stare decisis grounds a “negative” self-executing Commerce Clause in two situations: “(1) against a state law that facially discriminates against interstate commerce, and (2) against a state law that is indistinguishable from a type of law previously held unconstitutional by the Court.”... As today’s opinion makes clear, the flow-control law at issue in this case meets neither condition. It benefits a public entity performing a traditional local-government function and treats all private entities precisely the same way....Thomas concurs. He would get rid of negative Commerce Clause enforcement altogether:
I am unable to join Part II–D of the principal opinion, in which the plurality performs so-called “Pike balancing.” Generally speaking, the balancing of various values is left to Congress—which is precisely what the Commerce Clause (the real Commerce Clause) envisions.
The negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the Constitution and has proved unworkable in practice.... As the debate between the majority and dissent shows, application of the negative Commerce Clause turns solely on policy considerations, not on the Constitution. Because this Court has no policy role in regulating interstate commerce, I would discard the Court’s negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence.Alito dissents, joined by Stephens and Kennedy. He perceives discrimination:
[T]hese laws discriminate against interstate commerce (generally favoring local interests over nonlocal interests), but are defended on the ground that they serve legitimate goals unrelated to protectionism (e.g., health, safety, and protection of the environment). And while I do not question that the laws at issue in this case serve legitimate goals, the laws offend the dormant Commerce Clause because those goals could be attained effectively through nondiscriminatory means....The key, based on past precedent, is that the processing plant was not privately owned, as Roberts emphasizes:
“Flow control” ordinances require trash haulers to deliver solid waste to a particular waste processing facility. In C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown, this Court struck down under the Commerce Clause a flow control ordinance that forced haulers to deliver waste to a particular private processing facility. In this case, we face flow control ordinances quite similar to the one invalidated in Carbone. The only salient difference is that the laws at issue here require haulers to bring waste to facilities owned and operated by a state-created public benefit corporation. We find this difference constitutionally significant. Disposing of trash has been a traditional government activity for years, and laws that favor the government in such areas—but treat every private business, whether in-state or out-of-state, exactly the same—do not discriminate against interstate commerce for purposes of the Commerce Clause.I would have been very surprised if the case had come out the other way. It's true Roberts doesn't have a majority, but that is only because Scalia and Thomas are even less willing to strike things down on a negative Commerce Clause theory. It's interesting to see Alito break away from Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, especially since he perked up at the invocation of "traditional government activity":
[T]his Court has previously recognized that any standard “that turns on a judicial appraisal of whether a particular governmental function is ‘integral’ or ‘traditional’ ” is “ ‘unsound in principle and unworkable in practice.’ ” Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985) . Indeed, the Court has twice experimented with such standards—first in the context of intergovernmental tax immunity, see South Carolina v. United States (1905) , and more recently in the context of state regulatory immunity under the Commerce Clause, see National League of Cities v. Usery (1976) —only to abandon them later as analytically unsound. See Garcia, supra, at 547 (overruling National League of Cities); New York v. United States (1946) (overruling South Carolina v. United States). Thus, to the extent today’s holding rests on a distinction between “traditional” governmental functions and their nontraditional counterparts, it cannot be reconciled with prior precedent.This unnecessary invocation of Garcia is not what you'd expect from a Justice dedicated to federalism.
ADDED: The case about the high-speed chase includes the video.
MORE: Justice Scalia discusses the video in Scott v. Harris:
[R]eading the lower court’s opinion, one gets the impression that respondent, rather than fleeing from police, was attempting to pass his driving test:"Visible fiction"? Is that a typo for "risible fiction"?“[T]aking the facts from the non-movant’s viewpoint, [respondent] remained in control of his vehicle, slowed for turns and intersections, and typically used his indicators for turns. He did not run any motorists off the road. Nor was he a threat to pedestrians in the shopping center parking lot, which was free from pedestrian and vehicular traffic as the center was closed. Significantly, by the time the parties were back on the highway and Scott rammed [respondent], the motorway had been cleared of motorists and pedestrians allegedly because of police blockades of the nearby intersections.” Id., at 815–816 (citations omitted).The videotape tells quite a different story. There we see respondent’s vehicle racing down narrow, two-lane roads in the dead of night at speeds that are shockingly fast. We see it swerve around more than a dozen other cars, cross the double-yellow line, and force cars traveling in both directions to their respective shoulders to avoid being hit. We see it run multiple red lights and travel for considerable periods of time in the occasional center left-turn-only lane, chased by numerous police cars forced to engage in the same hazardous maneuvers just to keep up. Far from being the cautious and controlled driver the lower court depicts, what we see on the video more closely resembles a Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury....
Respondent’s version of events is so utterly discredited by the record that no reasonable jury could have believed him. The Court of Appeals should not have relied on such visible fiction; it should have viewed the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.
Anyway, I watched the video, and I understand why you'd want to reject the plaintiff's characterization of the facts. But this is a case about when to grant summary judgment, avoiding trial. Justice Stevens dissented:
[T]he Court has usurped the jury’s factfinding function and, in doing so, implicitly labeled the four other judges to review the case unreasonable.....But even Justices Ginsburg and Breyer agreed with the outcome.
If two groups of judges can disagree so vehemently about the nature of the pursuit and the circumstances surrounding that pursuit, it seems eminently likely that a reasonable juror could disagree with this Court’s characterization of events....
The Court today sets forth a per se rule that presumes its own version of the facts: “A police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.” Not only does that rule fly in the face of the flexible and case-by-case “reasonableness” approach applied in Garner and Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386 (1989) , but it is also arguably inapplicable to the case at hand, given that it is not clear that this chase threatened the life of any “innocent bystande[r].” In my view, the risks inherent in justifying unwarranted police conduct on the basis of unfounded assumptions are unacceptable, particularly when less drastic measures—in this case, the use of stop sticks9 or a simple warning issued from a loudspeaker—could have avoided such a tragic result. In my judgment, jurors in Georgia should be allowed to evaluate the reasonableness of the decision to ram respondent’s speeding vehicle in a manner that created an obvious risk of death and has in fact made him a quadriplegic at the age of 19.
"There were all these kids dancing and sweating and actually standing in line and paying money to be physically active."
When gym class becomes a disco video game, our kids won't have to be fat anymore.
Tag clouds from the Democratic debate.
These seem meaningful, especially if you're into woozy, intuitive impressionism. (Nice, clear PDF here.) Make what you will of the particular words that a particular candidate repeats -- like Obama and "women" and Clinton and "president" -- but what I noticed is the propensity to repeat words. I think that using a more varied vocabulary -- producing a tag cloud with more tiny words -- is a sign of subtlety of mind and intelligence. Who wins by this measure? Why, Dennis Kucinich. Of course, I know plenty of really smart people who end up in a position that is too far left for the Presidency, but still, the guy deserves some credit. Now, it may simply be a candidate who knows he can't win has more freedom to range from a pre-set formulation of his message.
Or it may just be that tag clouds are absurd. Hmmm, well let me make a tag cloud of the current front page of my blog as if that means something about me:
Or it may just be that tag clouds are absurd. Hmmm, well let me make a tag cloud of the current front page of my blog as if that means something about me:
america american around asked attack blog calls campaign candidate clinton court democrats feel firedoglake goes going hillary important iraq judge law life lot man maybe money mrs obama oh people person political post president question really richardson second seems someone something sort taking talking things think wants war world years
created at TagCrowd.com
"Crow was ... insistent, poking Rove in the chest and pinching his arm."
Fred Barnes has Karl Rove's perspective on that encounter with Laurie David and Sheryl Crow (which we talked about last week here). He recounts the details of the conversation and goes on:
Crow was ... insistent, poking Rove in the chest and pinching his arm. She said Rove worked for her. Rove said he worked for the American people. Crow said she and David were the American people. And at that point, Rove turned and sat back down at his table, where he was a guest of the New York Times.Barnes -- appropriately -- thinks it's ridiculous that Sheryl Crow and Laurie David claim privilege access as the embodiment of "the American people." But by the end of his article, he's blithely presenting them as the embodiment of Democrats. I'm sure plenty of Democrats are irritated by the way Crow and David displayed themselves at the White House Correspondents' Dinner and preened about it afterwards and, more broadly, by the way they're trying to make themselves the face of the Global Warming issue.
The point of recounting this stunt by two of Hollywood's most prominent limousine liberals--who have accused Rove of rudeness--is to put him in the proper political context. He is the chief target of Democrats, liberals, and the left, and they burn with a desire to see him discredited, fired, and jailed....
Even in Watergate, no single aide in the Nixon White House was pursued as relentlessly as Rove has been. Yet these investigations have uncovered one dry hole after another. And unless beating Democrats by ordinary political means becomes a crime, Rove will remain at large and at work. The best Democrats can hope for is to insult and assault him at a Washington dinner.
"Bromide Obama, filled with grand but usually evasive eloquence.... Then, in a blink, ... small and concrete... like a community organizer..."
I didn't link to this nicely written column by David Brooks a few days ago because it was behind the TimesSelect wall, but here it is reprinted in a little Connecticut paper. Brooks says you have to ask Barack Obama every question twice, "the first time to allow him to talk about how he would talk about the subject, and the second time so you can pin him down to the practical issues at hand."
If you ask him about the Middle East peace process, he will wax rhapsodic about the need to get energetically engaged. He'll talk about the shared interests all have in democracy and prosperity. But then when you ask him concretely if the U.S. should sit down and talk with Hamas, he says no. “There's no point in sitting down so long as Hamas says Israel doesn't have the right to exist.”...But don't all candidates do this? Maybe the real difference is that a lot of people love the "Bromide Obama" routine... at least for now. It's not the evasiveness that's special. It's the eloquence. The supposed eloquence. I don't consider evasive speech eloquent myself. But clearly, Obama in his windy, inspirational mode has impressed people. At least for now.
In other words, he has a tendency to go big and offer himself up as Bromide Obama, filled with grand but usually evasive eloquence about bringing people together and showing respect. Then, in a blink, he can go small and concrete, and sound more like a community organizer than George F. Kennan.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
"Floordrobe."
You know:
The other day, I was reading a blog, and I ran across the word "doink." A long time ago -- and I mean in the 1970s -- I made it a personal rule to look up words I don't know in the dictionary. The only reason I adopted this rule was that I was sick of not knowing a word, not bothering to look it up, and then seeing it again. I found that very annoying. If I still didn't bother looking it up, I'd invariably see it again. It was eerie the way a word I had no memory of seeing before would turn up a second time within a day or so. If such eerie things were going to happen, I at least wanted to be prepared. Best to look up the word now.
Admittedly, there are words that you can look up, even look up repeatedly, and still not know the next time you run into it. Like, the other day, in a social situation, somebody used the word "recondite" in conversation. I know what you're thinking: Althouse, you are getting yourself into the wrong social situations.
But, so, anyway, I looked up "doink" in the Urban Dictionary. It seems to be one of those all-purpose slang words that mean what all slang words seem to mean: a stupid person/sexual intercourse/a sound effect. I didn't feel particularly enlightened, but it did set me to looking up how many slang words ended in "oink." It turns out there's one for almost every letter of the alphabet.
The most popular one seems to be "yoink": "An exclamation that, when uttered in conjunction with taking an object, immediately transfers ownership from the original owner to the person using the word regardless of previous property rights."
There's an "oink" word that I remember from childhood, but it is not shown in the Urban Dictionary as having the meaning we used for it, so I'm not going to tell you which one it was or what it meant to us. Things from childhood are so embarrassing.
When I look up a word in the dictionary, I think of my grandfather, my mother's father, Howard Beatty. Here's the picture I have of him, framed, hanging just above the stand where I keep my big, unabridged dictionary.
He was an editor at the Ann Arbor News. And that's what he's doing in this picture: editing the Ann Arbor News. It must be some time in the 1930s or 40s. One thing about Grandpa Beatty was: He liked to read the dictionary.
He also had a superpower: the ability to open up any book and find a typo. There's no slang word for that, as far as I know.
But maybe that's why you ought to want to read dictionaries -- including the Urban Dictionary. It's one thing to look up words you run across. But there are some words you're not hearing or seeing, that are just waiting to be activated by somebody like you. Some lexophile.
A form of storage for clothing which requires no hangers, drawers, doors or effort. Simply drop on the floor and you have a floordrobe.Don't you love the Urban Dictionary?
We have a very stylish colonial-style his and hers walk-on floordrobe at home.
The other day, I was reading a blog, and I ran across the word "doink." A long time ago -- and I mean in the 1970s -- I made it a personal rule to look up words I don't know in the dictionary. The only reason I adopted this rule was that I was sick of not knowing a word, not bothering to look it up, and then seeing it again. I found that very annoying. If I still didn't bother looking it up, I'd invariably see it again. It was eerie the way a word I had no memory of seeing before would turn up a second time within a day or so. If such eerie things were going to happen, I at least wanted to be prepared. Best to look up the word now.
Admittedly, there are words that you can look up, even look up repeatedly, and still not know the next time you run into it. Like, the other day, in a social situation, somebody used the word "recondite" in conversation. I know what you're thinking: Althouse, you are getting yourself into the wrong social situations.
But, so, anyway, I looked up "doink" in the Urban Dictionary. It seems to be one of those all-purpose slang words that mean what all slang words seem to mean: a stupid person/sexual intercourse/a sound effect. I didn't feel particularly enlightened, but it did set me to looking up how many slang words ended in "oink." It turns out there's one for almost every letter of the alphabet.
The most popular one seems to be "yoink": "An exclamation that, when uttered in conjunction with taking an object, immediately transfers ownership from the original owner to the person using the word regardless of previous property rights."
There's an "oink" word that I remember from childhood, but it is not shown in the Urban Dictionary as having the meaning we used for it, so I'm not going to tell you which one it was or what it meant to us. Things from childhood are so embarrassing.
When I look up a word in the dictionary, I think of my grandfather, my mother's father, Howard Beatty. Here's the picture I have of him, framed, hanging just above the stand where I keep my big, unabridged dictionary.
He was an editor at the Ann Arbor News. And that's what he's doing in this picture: editing the Ann Arbor News. It must be some time in the 1930s or 40s. One thing about Grandpa Beatty was: He liked to read the dictionary.
He also had a superpower: the ability to open up any book and find a typo. There's no slang word for that, as far as I know.
But maybe that's why you ought to want to read dictionaries -- including the Urban Dictionary. It's one thing to look up words you run across. But there are some words you're not hearing or seeing, that are just waiting to be activated by somebody like you. Some lexophile.
Jon Stewart on journalism, "The Daily Show," and blogs.
Bill Moyers tells Jon Stewart that for all his protestations that "The Daily Show" is not journalism, it's "acting like" journalism and a lot of young people consume it as journalism. Stewart responds:
I started writing this post three hours ago. Why couldn't I finish it? I had my usual instinct that there was good material here and set it up in my usual way, but then, reading it over, trying to think of a way to add a few lines of my own, I just couldn't get anywhere.
Stewart has a funny way of seeming direct and then circling around and trying out different angles as if he might get somewhere. Note how the first sentence is a straightforward denial. Then he tries two different metaphors -- cartooning and digesting -- and I think he indicates that he realizes that the second one creates the image that the show is shit when he says "like so many other digestive processes that go on." Then he starts to try to deal with another problematic implication, that young people are idiots. He gropes toward a way to say that that they somehow know how to understand what part of the digestively processed material can be understood as news. They're sophisticated! Like those blog readers, who do... whatever the hell it is they do... use the blogs as "a prism" to see what they actually believe or something.
But I like Jon Stewart. I've been watching his show again. I'm just saying he has a strange way of speaking that shows up in the transcript form. It's pretty charming and entertaining on the show, where he presents himself as sort of confused and troubled by everything. He's the interviewer there, searching for answers, so it all makes sense. But if he's being interviewed and he's the one providing the answers, it's weird and evasive.
(Via Memeorandum.)
I can assure them they're not getting any journalism from us. We are, if anything — I do believe we function as a sort of editorial cartoon. That we are a digestive process, like so many other digestive processes that go on. The thing about you know, there's a lot of young people get this and you know, young people get that from me. People are very sophisticated consumers of information, and they're pulling all different things....
It's the same argument people say about the blogs. The blogs are responsible. No, they're not. The blogs are like anything else. You judge each one based on its own veracity and intelligence and all of that. And if you like, you could cherry pick only the things that you agree with from various things. Or, if you want, you can try and get a broader perspective, or you can find people who are absolutely out of their minds, or find people that are doing incredibly complex and interesting and urgent journalism. And the same goes for our show. It's a prism into people's own ideologies, when they watch our program. This is just our take.
I started writing this post three hours ago. Why couldn't I finish it? I had my usual instinct that there was good material here and set it up in my usual way, but then, reading it over, trying to think of a way to add a few lines of my own, I just couldn't get anywhere.
Stewart has a funny way of seeming direct and then circling around and trying out different angles as if he might get somewhere. Note how the first sentence is a straightforward denial. Then he tries two different metaphors -- cartooning and digesting -- and I think he indicates that he realizes that the second one creates the image that the show is shit when he says "like so many other digestive processes that go on." Then he starts to try to deal with another problematic implication, that young people are idiots. He gropes toward a way to say that that they somehow know how to understand what part of the digestively processed material can be understood as news. They're sophisticated! Like those blog readers, who do... whatever the hell it is they do... use the blogs as "a prism" to see what they actually believe or something.
But I like Jon Stewart. I've been watching his show again. I'm just saying he has a strange way of speaking that shows up in the transcript form. It's pretty charming and entertaining on the show, where he presents himself as sort of confused and troubled by everything. He's the interviewer there, searching for answers, so it all makes sense. But if he's being interviewed and he's the one providing the answers, it's weird and evasive.
(Via Memeorandum.)
More money is flooding into the presidential campaigns just as money is mattering less and less.
This is from Matt Bai (who has a book coming out called "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics"):
But will the shift really be to ideas? What sorts of ideas will help you win under the new conditions? Blogs and YouTube chew over all sorts of cute little nuggets -- odd quotations, gaffes, images. It's likely to be just as shallow as old-style advertising, but wild and strange and completely uncontrollable.
The obscene costs of modern campaigning have been driven almost entirely by broadcast advertising, which consumes more than half of your average campaign budget. But even the people who make ads for a living now admit that they are losing their mystical hold over the electorate. This isn’t so much a political phenomenon as a societal one. As a New York ad executive recently told The New York Times, “The dirty secret is, people have been avoiding commercials, bad commercials in particular, for a very long time.”...Great.
In this new world, the most effective political ad makers may be amateurs like Phil de Vellis, the Internet consultant who recently took it upon himself to make a powerful pro-Obama ad, based on a famous Apple spot from 1984, that portrayed Hillary Clinton as Big Brother....
[T]he emerging high-tech marketplace may yet bring us closer to what decades of federal campaign regulations have failed to achieve: a day when candidates can afford to spend less time obsessing over the constant need for cash and more time concerned with the currency of their ideas.
But will the shift really be to ideas? What sorts of ideas will help you win under the new conditions? Blogs and YouTube chew over all sorts of cute little nuggets -- odd quotations, gaffes, images. It's likely to be just as shallow as old-style advertising, but wild and strange and completely uncontrollable.
What accounts for the keen interest in this story of the M.I.T. dean fired 28 years after faking her credentials?
I always check the most emailed list on the NYT website. It's a source of humor and dismay for me. Day after day, I see the proof that what people really want to read about in the newspaper is pets, food, travel, relationships. All week, people have been fascinated with the subject of how a dog wags its tail. A few weeks ago, a recipe for brownies topped the list for a long time, and now, the big subject is french fries (high-class, expensive french fries). Maybe it has something to do with the sort of person who responds to an article by emailing it to people or the sort of article that provokes the a person to think I've got to tell my friends.
So I'm wondering what accounts for the intense popularity of this story about an M.I.T. dean of admissions -- Marilee Jones -- who got fired 28 years after faking her credentials. She said she had three degrees when, in fact, she had none.
ADDED: Why was she discovered after all these years? How do we know she didn't choose to let the story out to get attention and set up her next book project? After 28 years on the job, she may be ready to take her retirement package and start a new life. With public shaming over something that presumably many people suffer from secret shame about, she's got the perfect entree to the Oprah show and all the other confessional, self-help media.
So I'm wondering what accounts for the intense popularity of this story about an M.I.T. dean of admissions -- Marilee Jones -- who got fired 28 years after faking her credentials. She said she had three degrees when, in fact, she had none.
"I misrepresented my academic degrees when I first applied to M.I.T. 28 years ago and did not have the courage to correct my résumé when I applied for my current job or at any time since."Ironically, she's written a book that's all about advising students not to stress out about college admissions. It says:
“Holding integrity is sometimes very hard to do because the temptation may be to cheat or cut corners... But just remember that ‘what goes around comes around,’ meaning that life has a funny way of giving back what you put out.”So how is this story like brownies and doggiewoggies? The personal element? Maybe there are a lot of folks out there with faked credentials or friends who look upon their success and suspect they've faked their credentials.
ADDED: Why was she discovered after all these years? How do we know she didn't choose to let the story out to get attention and set up her next book project? After 28 years on the job, she may be ready to take her retirement package and start a new life. With public shaming over something that presumably many people suffer from secret shame about, she's got the perfect entree to the Oprah show and all the other confessional, self-help media.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Alec Baldwin has no idea how to get out of a jam.
Alessandra Stanley watched Alec Baldwin on "The View." He was trying to patch things up after that terrible publicity over his enraged phone message to his 11-year-old daughter:
Alec Baldwin said on “The View” yesterday that he wanted to quit that NBC sitcom to write a book about “parental alienation.”...Oh, how painful. I wonder what ridiculous father's rights characters have taken him in, are writing the book for him, and think he'll be a good figurehead for their cause. And what's more "alienating" to the child than having a father blustering about how bad her mother is? The best way for Alec Baldwin to make us -- and, I'm guessing, the child -- love him is to do the thing he does so well: act. Put that wild passion into playing characters. Or is that too sad? No one loves him for the man he actually is. The book's not going to help though.
Mr. Baldwin told Barbara Walters and Rosie O’Donnell that he wanted to devote his life to exposing the injustices perpetrated on divorced dads, and that he hoped to publish a book this fall on divorce litigation. Mr. Baldwin’s long-winded, self-obsessed soliloquy on his usurped rights as a father and the fiendish acts of his ex-wife, Kim Basinger, was so impassioned that Ms. Walters had to remind him that his first concern should be his relationship with Ireland. (When he mentioned his daughter, it was to make a point about her mother’s perfidy.)
He was looking to persuade but was mostly painful to watch — a little like Captain Queeg melting down on the witness stand in “The Caine Mutiny.”
"Moderate Ann Althouse waited for the transcript and called it a win for Bill Richardson."
Slate's blog rounder upper Michael Weiss, perhaps a little to eager to disrespect Bill Richardson, reads this post of mine as signifying that I only read the transcript of the Democratic debate. It's funny to think if you only didn't have to see (and hear) him, you might like him. But, of course, as you can see, my post plainly begins saying I watched two thirds of it before turning to the transcript . In fact, after reading the final third on transcript, I watched it too. I do admit, however, that Richardson is not eye-pleasing. He's most impressive on the radio.
Weiss begins his round up with this:
And I'm impressed by what some of what Rubinowitz has in a sharp summary of Richardson:
Anyway, Rubinowitz is right about the way the question about the NRA hurt Richardson and how bad the Whizzer White answer was. It's bad if people know enough to remember how conservative White was on rights issues, but it's also bad if they don't. I think most people -- well, maybe not most people who'd watch a debate this early in the game -- would just think Richardson was absurdly out of it to name someone from so far back.
Maybe Richardson has the idea of trying to be like President Kennedy (who appointed White). Richardson did not go to law school, so it's not as if his sentiments about Supreme Court justices grow out of reading court opinions. "Whizzer White" probably popped into his head because he likes President Kennedy and because he knows -- the name "Whizzer" helps you remember -- that White was a great football player. Isn't Richardson the manliest of the Democratic candidates, with his guns and his sports? Unfortunately, he doesn't look athletic and, in any case, Democrats seem to be immune to such red state attractions. At least not until after they've chosen their candidate.
Weiss begins his round up with this:
Barry Rubinowitz at The Nattering Nabob discovered newfound respect for Mr. Kucinch after seeing the Mrs.: "Most Surprising Moment: Seeing Dennis Kucinich's wife, Elizabeth. He got a tall, hot, redhead with a British accent. Not sure how he did it, but damn, he got the respect of a lot of men across America. If he can get that babe, maybe he can end the war and solve the health care problem."I've got to give Rubinowitz credit for not making the usual witticism, which he deftly made us feel that he was going to do by starting with "he got the respect of a lot of men across America." You know you thought he'd say: If he can get that babe, the rest of us guys have hope. So it was funny to say "maybe he can end the war and solve the health care problem." But ordinary men can't compare their babe-magnetism to that of a man with power and celebrity (even at the Kucinich level), and war and the health care problem have no propensity to yield to the seductiveness of power and celebrity.
And I'm impressed by what some of what Rubinowitz has in a sharp summary of Richardson:
Bill Richardson – It isn’t good in a Democratic primary to be referred to as the NRA’s favorite candidate. His favorite Supreme Court Justice – Whizzer White...Whizzer White??? A man who was opposed to Roe v. Wade? Horrible speaker, bad impression – may have seriously damaged his VP chances. He has no Presidential chance at all.I don't think he's a horrible speaker. As I've said, I was impressed when I heard him on the radio. But I think Rubinowitz -- and many Americans -- may be repelled by the way he looks. While we are wallowing in self-love over our acceptance of the black candidate Obama, we ought to think about whether we are feeling an aversion to a man whose facial features are Mexican.
Anyway, Rubinowitz is right about the way the question about the NRA hurt Richardson and how bad the Whizzer White answer was. It's bad if people know enough to remember how conservative White was on rights issues, but it's also bad if they don't. I think most people -- well, maybe not most people who'd watch a debate this early in the game -- would just think Richardson was absurdly out of it to name someone from so far back.
Maybe Richardson has the idea of trying to be like President Kennedy (who appointed White). Richardson did not go to law school, so it's not as if his sentiments about Supreme Court justices grow out of reading court opinions. "Whizzer White" probably popped into his head because he likes President Kennedy and because he knows -- the name "Whizzer" helps you remember -- that White was a great football player. Isn't Richardson the manliest of the Democratic candidates, with his guns and his sports? Unfortunately, he doesn't look athletic and, in any case, Democrats seem to be immune to such red state attractions. At least not until after they've chosen their candidate.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Why does Judge Kozinski hate blogs? (And does he, really?)
Everyone's blogging about Judge Kozinski saying -- joking? -- that he hates blogs:
You know, many years ago, about 20 years ago, I was at a conference with Judge Kozinski, and one night at dinner, he told me his formula for becoming a federal judge. Like he was clueing me in so I could get there too. I told him I thought it was better to be a law professor, and my reason was personal freedom. You have to be so sober and decorous all the time if you're a judge. So, see, Alex. I was right! Look at meeeee.... I'm blooooggggginggggg and you're not!
ERIC GOLDMAN: So but what about blogs? . . .My first thought was: he's kidding. "I hate them, hateful things" -- that sounds so diva-ish. I'm reading the text and hearing -- oh, I don't know -- the voice of Camille Paglia? Or, I think of "The Pillow Book" of Sei Shonagon which has that great chapter "Hateful Things." Did you know that "The Pillow Book" is said to be "what blogs were like 1000 years ago"? Some of her hateful things actually sound like she was complaining about blogs 1000 years in advance:
JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI: I hate them, hateful things.
ERIC GOLDMAN: Why do you hate blogs? . . . .
JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI: I just think it's so self-indulgent, you know. "Oh, I'm so proud of what I'm saying, I think the world instantly wants to know what I'm thinking today." People wake up thinking, . . . . "I wonder what great thoughts have come into his mind this morning that I can feel myself edified by. I can't really have breakfast — really enjoy my day — until I hear the great thoughts of Howard Bashman!" I don't think so. I go for months without ever knowing what Howard has to say. So I don't know. I find it sort of self-indulgent. And I find it grandiloquent. And I find it annoying, particularly if I'm in an audience and people are sitting there typing in their computers.
A man who has nothing in particular to recommend him discusses all sorts of subjects at random as though he knew everything.But the second thing I, your scurrying mouse, thought was: Kozinski is jealous because he wants to blog. Over at Above the Law, they're talking in the comments, and I see that someone agrees with me: "Methinks he's jealous that his judgeiness means he can't blog." Someone else says: "Koz could blog if he wanted to, Posner does." But that misses the point. For a judge to blog, he has to blog in the stolid, somber, serious Becker-Posner Blog style. That's not the "hateful" thing described in Kozinski's quote. All that fun stuff, that "self-indulgent" stuff, that's what he wants to do.
To envy others and to complain about one's own lot; to speak badly about people; to be inquisitive about the most trivial matters and to resent and abuse people for not telling one, or, if one does manage to worm out some facts, to inform everyone n the most detailed fashion as if one had known all from the beginning -- oh, how hateful!...
One is in the middle of a story when someone butts in and tries to show that he is the only clever person in the room. Such a person is hateful, and so, indeed, is anyone, child or adult, who tries to push himself forward.
One is telling a story about old times when someone breaks in with a little detail that he happens to know, implying that one's own version is inaccurate -- disgusting behavior!
Very hateful is a mouse that scurries all over the place.
You know, many years ago, about 20 years ago, I was at a conference with Judge Kozinski, and one night at dinner, he told me his formula for becoming a federal judge. Like he was clueing me in so I could get there too. I told him I thought it was better to be a law professor, and my reason was personal freedom. You have to be so sober and decorous all the time if you're a judge. So, see, Alex. I was right! Look at meeeee.... I'm blooooggggginggggg and you're not!
Should bloggers do these conference calls with candidates?
I'm in the middle of writing a very important blog post, which is to say, a blog post that I'm inspired to write, and we're coming up on the time for one of these conference calls I sometimes get invited to do. I usually blow them off, but I said I'd do this one, on the second inquiry, because it's John McCain. How can you not tap into a conference call with John McCain? You can ask him a question. Okay. Well. But the funny thing is: I've been thinking about it and I don't have a question. I mean, not a question I could ask him personally. And you can't exactly horse around. They say you're cantankerous. Are you too cantankerous to be President? To some extent, is cantankerousness a good thing in a President?
As you know, I'm big on the separation between blog and campaign. The bloggers are flattered by the appearance of access, and it must be worth it to the candidate to get publicity and a greater likelihood of favorable coverage. I resist all that, but I have called in. I'll let you know how it works out. I'm on music hold right now. The song: "I Think I'm Going Out of My Head."
ADDED: Now, we're in "listen only" mode, which means we're a captive audience for McCain's statement. He says he's going to be talking with bloggers like this every two weeks.
... He's just talking about where he's been, naming towns, and he declines to go on about any issues, saying he knows bloggers like to ask questions and goes right to the questions, which I appreciate.
... The first question is about going after bin Ladin, which McCain, of course, intends to do.
... The second question is about the bill on funding the war in Iraq. He says he'd veto it, not just because of the time limit, but because of the pork. "What does $25 million for peanut storage have to do with the war in Iraq?"
... Lorie Byrd compliments him for his form of expression, specifically the way he said "Lighten up and get a life." McCain says he's going to keep being himself and keep his sense of humor. He mentions having bloggers on the campaign bus. He's not going to blame the media if things don't go well for him.
... Ah. I got my question in just now, which was to invite him to talk about what sort of person he would put on the Supreme Court, and specifically if he would strengthen a conservative majority or if he would work with liberals and others who care about preserving the balance that we've had on the Court for so long. He said he wanted, above all, a person with "a proven record of strict construction." This is "probably a conservative position, but," he said, "I'm proud of that position." He wants judges who won't "legislate." Then, he added that "this is new" and something we may not have heard: he'd like someone who had not just judicial experience but also "some other life experiences," such as time in the military, in a corporation, or in a small business. He would like to see "not just vast judicial knowledge, but also knowledge of the world."
... Someone asks about the Electoral College and what new states could be put in play. He emphasizes California and also mentions Pennsylvania and New York. "We gotta put more states in play."
... Someone asks about taxes and I can't hear it, but I can hear the answer, which includes a description of how taxes are collected in Estonia. You go onto a website that informs you what you owe, and you click "yes" or "no." They have nearly 100% compliance. I liked that detail.
... These notes don't cover everything that was asked. He took a lot, answered them all seriously, and sounded sharp and serious and not pompous. Several times he finished the answer with "see my point?" All together, he spoke to us for more than half an hour, nearly all of it on the questions.
So, was I coopted?
As you know, I'm big on the separation between blog and campaign. The bloggers are flattered by the appearance of access, and it must be worth it to the candidate to get publicity and a greater likelihood of favorable coverage. I resist all that, but I have called in. I'll let you know how it works out. I'm on music hold right now. The song: "I Think I'm Going Out of My Head."
ADDED: Now, we're in "listen only" mode, which means we're a captive audience for McCain's statement. He says he's going to be talking with bloggers like this every two weeks.
... He's just talking about where he's been, naming towns, and he declines to go on about any issues, saying he knows bloggers like to ask questions and goes right to the questions, which I appreciate.
... The first question is about going after bin Ladin, which McCain, of course, intends to do.
... The second question is about the bill on funding the war in Iraq. He says he'd veto it, not just because of the time limit, but because of the pork. "What does $25 million for peanut storage have to do with the war in Iraq?"
... Lorie Byrd compliments him for his form of expression, specifically the way he said "Lighten up and get a life." McCain says he's going to keep being himself and keep his sense of humor. He mentions having bloggers on the campaign bus. He's not going to blame the media if things don't go well for him.
... Ah. I got my question in just now, which was to invite him to talk about what sort of person he would put on the Supreme Court, and specifically if he would strengthen a conservative majority or if he would work with liberals and others who care about preserving the balance that we've had on the Court for so long. He said he wanted, above all, a person with "a proven record of strict construction." This is "probably a conservative position, but," he said, "I'm proud of that position." He wants judges who won't "legislate." Then, he added that "this is new" and something we may not have heard: he'd like someone who had not just judicial experience but also "some other life experiences," such as time in the military, in a corporation, or in a small business. He would like to see "not just vast judicial knowledge, but also knowledge of the world."
... Someone asks about the Electoral College and what new states could be put in play. He emphasizes California and also mentions Pennsylvania and New York. "We gotta put more states in play."
... Someone asks about taxes and I can't hear it, but I can hear the answer, which includes a description of how taxes are collected in Estonia. You go onto a website that informs you what you owe, and you click "yes" or "no." They have nearly 100% compliance. I liked that detail.
... These notes don't cover everything that was asked. He took a lot, answered them all seriously, and sounded sharp and serious and not pompous. Several times he finished the answer with "see my point?" All together, he spoke to us for more than half an hour, nearly all of it on the questions.
So, was I coopted?
"The happiness of this Country depend much upon the deliberations of the federal Convention which is now sitting."
"It, however, can only lay the foundation — the community at large must raise the edifice."
So wrote George Washington in 1787, from the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, in a letter, found just recently, that had been pasted into a young girl's scrapbook in 1826. Very nice. The words evoke the notion of a living Constitution.
So wrote George Washington in 1787, from the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, in a letter, found just recently, that had been pasted into a young girl's scrapbook in 1826. Very nice. The words evoke the notion of a living Constitution.
Finishing the debate in transcript form, I give the win to Richardson.
I think I got about two thirds of the way through the debate last night. Here's what I managed to write. I was just about to watch the end of the debate this morning to finish up, but I found this handy transcript. I like a nice transcript. It's quicker to read than to watch, you don't have to type out the quotes, and evading the question is so obvious that what's irritating seen on TV becomes almost amusing.
Let me start reading where I left off last night and pick out what interests me.
Obama is asked "what are America's three most important allies around the world?" He throws in so much extra material that he gets around to naming two: the European Union and Japan. A follow-up question is asked: "I didn't hear you mention Israel, and I ask because there is a quote attributed to your name. You said recently, 'No one is suffering more than the Palestinian people.' Do you stand by that remark?" Answer:
But in his next sentence, he takes ownership of the remark:
Hillary Clinton is asked about Giuliani's statement that "the Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us," and "America will be safer with a Republican president." She responds with what looks like her favorite debate move: say the current President is a failure.
There's a "show of hands" question: "Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?" Kucinich doesn't raise his. I don't bother to read his explanation.
Let's read something important. Obama is asked "how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas" if there were another attack on two American cities and we knew "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that al Qaida did it:
Edwards is supremely fortunate to get a shot right now at the same question:
Now, Clinton gets her shot. Come on, Hillary, show you can do it! Your two biggest opponents have set this up perfectly.
No one else is given a turn at this, the key question of the night. But the next time Richardson is called on -- with the special Hispanic question "How do you feel about normalizing relations with Castro's Cuba?" -- he insists on going back to the "two cities" question. Good for him! And he must have been pissed to have been excluded from the A group.
But wait.
Taking a cue from Richardson, when Obama is asked a question about lightbulbs -- yeah, really, what kind of lightbulbs! -- he goes back to the terrorism question. Now, that he's heard the others answer, he knows he's screwed it up.
Kucinich is spurred to challenge Obama.
Obama's all: "I'm not planning to nuke anybody right now, Mike, I promise."
Well, now I do want to watch the video. It seems as though Obama comes to life at the end, that he does best when he's reacting to the other candidates, rather than answering the question cold. This is a good sign that he may be an engaging candidate. I'll say more when I've seen the video.
From the transcript, I like Richardson best. Hillary didn't do anything wrong. Obama worries me. Edwards did not impress me. The others... I don't have to have an opinion on them. But what a nut that Gravel is.
UPDATE: Mere Rhetoric notes a discrepancy in some transcripts and questions whether Obama said "Israel has been one of our most important allies" as I have it quoted or "Israel is one of our most important allies" as the quote appears elsewhere. Since I have the debate TiVo'd, I checked. My quote is correct. I am certain.
Let me start reading where I left off last night and pick out what interests me.
Obama is asked "what are America's three most important allies around the world?" He throws in so much extra material that he gets around to naming two: the European Union and Japan. A follow-up question is asked: "I didn't hear you mention Israel, and I ask because there is a quote attributed to your name. You said recently, 'No one is suffering more than the Palestinian people.' Do you stand by that remark?" Answer:
Well, keep in mind what the remark actually, if you had the whole thing, said.What the remark said. There's that remark, talking away, and I'm over here, so I guess you can say I'm standing by it. Standing by, watching with amazement, wondering what that darned remark will come out with next.
But in his next sentence, he takes ownership of the remark:
And what I said is nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel, to renounce violence, and to get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region.And:
Israel has been one of our most important allies around the world. It's the only established democracy in the Middle East. It's the linchpin of much of our efforts in the Middle East.Has been? So it "has been" an important ally, but it "is" a "linchpin" of our "efforts."
Hillary Clinton is asked about Giuliani's statement that "the Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us," and "America will be safer with a Republican president." She responds with what looks like her favorite debate move: say the current President is a failure.
We haven't secured our borders, our ports, our mass transit systems. You can go across this country and see so much that has not been done. The resources haven't gotten to the front lines where decisions are made in local government the way that they need to. And I think that this administration has consistently tried to hype the fear without delivering on the promise of making America safer. And its foreign policy around the world, as you've heard from all of my colleagues here, has also made the world less stable, which, of course, has a ripple effect with respect to what we're going to face in the future. So I hope that we can put that myth to rest. It is certainly something I will try to do during the campaign.There is absolutely nothing there about why she would do a better job as the next President, and we were just reminded of Giuliani. Who do you want to trust, Clinton or Giuliani? That's the question. She gives not one shred of a reason here to go with her. Is there some way she would secure our borders and ports better than he would? Picture her standing at a debate next to Giuliani a year and a half from now. That's what you ought to do if you're trying to pick the best Democratic candidate. Is she the one you Democrats want standing there?
There's a "show of hands" question: "Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?" Kucinich doesn't raise his. I don't bother to read his explanation.
Let's read something important. Obama is asked "how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas" if there were another attack on two American cities and we knew "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that al Qaida did it:
Well, the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans.The first thing he thinks of is Katrina. Bush failed there, don't you know. Think fast, Senator. It's another 9/11! What is the military response? Show us you can think like a Commander in Chief:
And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.So the military response is: think and talk.
The second thing is to make sure that we've got good intelligence, a., to find out that we don't have other threats and attacks potentially out there, and b., to find out, do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.
But what we can't do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast. Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community.
Because as already been stated, we're not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We've got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and they've got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake.
Edwards is supremely fortunate to get a shot right now at the same question:
Well, the first thing I would do is be certain I knew who was responsible, and I would act swiftly and strongly to hold them responsible for that.So, be strong. But mainly just try very hard to figure out how they did it and how we can defend against the next attack. His idea seems to be about winning the hearts of the next generation. How do you fight the terrorists? Why not make them love us so they won't want to be terrorists anymore? Surely, if they see the Democrats have brought their new tools into the White House, they'll feel the love.
The second thing I would do -- and, of course, some of these have been mentioned already -- is find out how did this happen without our intelligence operations finding out that it was in a planning stage; how did they get through what we all recognize is a fairly porous homeland security system that we have in this country that has not been built the way it needed to be built?
You know, did the weapons that created these two simultaneous strikes come through our ports? Were they in one of the containers that have not been checked? How did these weapons get here, and how do we stop it from happening again?
I believe -- and this goes to the question you asked earlier, just a few minutes ago -- global war on terror. I think there are dangerous people and dangerous leaders in the world that America must deal with and deal with strongly.
But we have more tools available to us than bombs.
And America needs to use the tools that are available to them, so that these people who are sitting on the fence, the terrorists are trying to recruit the next generation get pushed to our side, not to the other side. We've had no long-term strategy. We need one and I will provide one as president.
Now, Clinton gets her shot. Come on, Hillary, show you can do it! Your two biggest opponents have set this up perfectly.
Well, again, having been a senator during 9/11, I understand very well the extraordinary horror of that kind of an attack and the impact that it has, far beyond those that are directly affected.Boring. Non-responsive.
I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.Yes! Retaliate!
If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.Attack! Destroy! Thank God, one of them is willing to say it. Hillary wins.
Now, that doesn't mean we go looking for other fights. You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made, had I been president, because we still haven't found bin Laden. So let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them.
No one else is given a turn at this, the key question of the night. But the next time Richardson is called on -- with the special Hispanic question "How do you feel about normalizing relations with Castro's Cuba?" -- he insists on going back to the "two cities" question. Good for him! And he must have been pissed to have been excluded from the A group.
I would respond militarily, aggressively. I'll build international support for our goals. I'd improve our intelligence, but that would be a direct threat on the United States, and I would make it clear that that would be an important, decisive, military response, surgical strike, whatever it takes.That beats Hillary. Richardson is my favorite of the Democrats. And Obama and Edwards are unacceptable.
But wait.
Taking a cue from Richardson, when Obama is asked a question about lightbulbs -- yeah, really, what kind of lightbulbs! -- he goes back to the terrorism question. Now, that he's heard the others answer, he knows he's screwed it up.
But one thing that I do have to go back on, on this issue of terrorism: We have genuine enemies out there that have to be hunted down, networks have to be dismantled.Am I going to let him off the hook for this? "In some cases, lethal force"?
There is no contradiction between us intelligently using our military and, in some cases, lethal force to take out terrorists and, at the same time, building the sort of alliances and trust around the world that has been so lacking over the last six years.
And that, I think, is going to be one of the most important issues that the next president is going to have to do, is to repair the kinds of challenges that we face.
Kucinich is spurred to challenge Obama.
My good friend, Senator Obama, that's a very provocative statement. You previously said that all options are on the table with respect to Iran. And I think that it's important for people to reflect on the real meaning of that, that you're setting the stage for another war.Oh, no. Kucinich is pushing him back into the peace corner.
I think it's important that we move away from global warming and global warring. And the connection is oil. We're in Iraq for oil. We're looking at attacking Iran for oil.Oh, no.
And until we change our international policies, which quit using war as an instrument of policy ... and change our energy policies ... we will continue to repeat this sorry cycle.Obama responds (with Kuchinich interrupting him throughout):
I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran. But, have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region.... And I don't think that's disputed by any expert. They are the largest state sponsor of terrorism... Hezbollah and Hamas.... There is no contradiction between us taking seriously the need, as you do, to want to strengthen our alliances around the world -- but I think it is important for us to also recognize that if we have nuclear proliferators around the world that potentially can place a nuclear weapon into the hands of terrorists, that is a profound security threat for America and one that we have to take seriously.Gravel goes wild here and says, among other things: "Who the hell are we going to nuke? Tell me, Barack. Barack, who do you want to nuke?"
Obama's all: "I'm not planning to nuke anybody right now, Mike, I promise."
Well, now I do want to watch the video. It seems as though Obama comes to life at the end, that he does best when he's reacting to the other candidates, rather than answering the question cold. This is a good sign that he may be an engaging candidate. I'll say more when I've seen the video.
From the transcript, I like Richardson best. Hillary didn't do anything wrong. Obama worries me. Edwards did not impress me. The others... I don't have to have an opinion on them. But what a nut that Gravel is.
UPDATE: Mere Rhetoric notes a discrepancy in some transcripts and questions whether Obama said "Israel has been one of our most important allies" as I have it quoted or "Israel is one of our most important allies" as the quote appears elsewhere. Since I have the debate TiVo'd, I checked. My quote is correct. I am certain.
More antagonism toward guestblogging candidates.
Beltway Blogroll has a comprehensive post about Hillary Clinton's "guestblogging" at Firedoglake. It notes the Sleuth piece that frets about the connection between Firedoglake and blackface humor and goes on to talk about what I said was more important, the dual problem of a blog's sacrificing its independence by publishing campaign PR for the candidate and the candidate's presenting herself in an inappropriate context.
Beltway Blogroll quotes one of Firedoglake's own commenters taking issue with the decision to present Hillary as a guestblogger:
Beltway Blogroll quotes one of Firedoglake's own commenters taking issue with the decision to present Hillary as a guestblogger:
"Forgive me, but maybe someone can tell me exactly what was accomplished by having Hilary [sic] as a 'guest?' ... [S]he didn't say one thing that wasn't part of her campaign talking points and managed to duck answering any of the more pointed questions."One of the commenters at Firedoglake was Jeralyn Merritt, who fell below her usual astute standard to smarm:
Senator Clinton, Jane and Christy,Ugh! Beltway Blogroll is on my wavelength:
This was such a welcome surprise. I hope you do it again on other issues. It’s a great way for the candidates to make our acquaintance and strengthen our working relationship with them.
Jeralyn
The problem is that the pursuit of a "working relationship" with campaigns can undermine the very spirit of the blogosphere. As one Firedoglake reader noted: "Senator Clinton is very on message. I don't think of a blog as a place to focus on just one subject. I can understand a candidate insisting on this as a requirement for appearing, but, on the other hand, it just doesn't seem bloggish."...Firedoglake resisted taking this criticism seriously. TRex chose instead to write a vicious rant against me, calling me a "token," a "pet," a "talking dog," and a "vile, despicable" person. That is, ironically, he ended up underlining my point that Firedoglake is such an ugly, nasty place that a mainstream candidate should want to avoid it. Yeah, the traffic is tempting, but the traffic is there because of these very qualities. Porn sites get a lot of traffic too, you know.
[Other commenters wrote:]
"[T]hese kinds of cameo appearances are of very little use, other than enabling the candidate to hype her talking points."
"I think you guys made a mistake, believing that you could INCREASE your blog power, or readership, or whatever, by bringing Hillary in here, having her field a few sweetheart questions, and then having her waltz out with credit for making a 'tough blogsite' appearance."
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Audible Althouse #83.
It's a podcast. I'm waiting for the Democratic candidates to start their debate. Also: migraines and a dream about a bird that hovers and dies.
You don't need an iPod. You can stream it right through your computer here.
But all the headachey dreamers subscribe on iTunes:
You don't need an iPod. You can stream it right through your computer here.
But all the headachey dreamers subscribe on iTunes:
Laugh about it, shout about it, when you've got to choose, every way you look at this you lose.
Ooh, I've still got the song "Mrs. Robinson" running through my head. It was playing on the radio as I drove off to work today. But now it's evening and I'm -- as Paul Simon wrote -- "going to the candidate's debate." Not going, really. Watching on TV. I said I'd "simulblog," but, truth be known, this is just a TiVo-blog, and I may just fast forward through some of the candidates. And I'm starting on delay. I don't want to deceive you, my friends. Let's start now.
FIRST ADDITION. Mike Gravel? The hell? I was trying to count up who the 8 were. I'd forgotten Dodd. Gravel... that's news to me. I didn't even know he was still alive!
We're told they will be limited to 60 second answers. Cool!
The first question is to Hillary Clinton. She's asked about Harry Reid's statement that the Iraq war is lost. Does she agree? She avoids answering, instead choosing to talk about how the Congress has voted to end the war and how "proud" she is of that. She refers to Reid as "Leader Reid." She sounds hoarse. It's entirely scripted. The 60 seconds expires, the question unanswered.
SECOND ADDITION. Biden is given the same question and he, like her, reels out a scripted, nonresponsive answer. Now Obama, in an indication that he's more of a serious candidate than Biden, is given a new question. He's quoted as saying the war in Iraq is "dumb" and asked to square that with the sacrifices of the troops. He expresses pride that he's always opposed the war. He talks about the importance of equipment. I'm struck by how quickly he speaks. He sounds different from the way he has sounded in his solo appearances.
Edwards is asked about his apology for voting for the war and a statement he made about the need for an honest leader who will admit mistakes: was he talking about Hillary? He says "no." So much for honesty! Edwards is fast off the mark with a lie. A lie about honesty. We need someone who will restore our trust, he says.
THIRD ADDITION. We go back to Clinton, because she was attacked (though Edwards tried to act like it wasn't an attack). She says she takes "responsibility" for her vote and that she would not have voted as she did if she knew what she knows now. The real question, she says -- correctly! -- is "what do we do now?" But then she runs Bush down for "stubbornly" refusing to accede to the "will of the American people," which makes me wish I could ask her whether she thinks the role of the President is to adopt the military strategy that the polls show the people preferring (which would be completely incompetent).
Kucinich says we shouldn't fund the war.
FOURTH ADDITION. Richardson is asked if he would fund the troops if he were in Congress. He says "no." The war is a "disaster." He would "withdraw all of our troops" by the end of the year. But he'd apply "intensive diplomacy" that would have the three religious factions working out their problems. He'd have a "security conference" that would include Iran and Syria. And he'd have other countries take over the reconstruction and security. Okaaaay. He's for magic. Great.
Chris Dodd talks fast. Gravel would "find another way." He'd "make it a felony to stay there," he says, sounding nutty.
FIFTH ADDITION. Obama is asked what "a mission complete status in Iraq" would mean. He avoids the question and sounds stressed and clipped in a way that is, again, different from the way he has sounded in his more controlled, individual appearances. He taps into some prepared tape loops about the "strain" on the military and sounds a little desperate. He's scowling. He says we're "one vote away, we are one signature away, or 16 votes away from ending this war." He avoids the question and consumes all his time. He really seems too green and unprepared for this.
Clinton is given time for "rebuttal"! But nothing was aimed at her. She must feel great. Everyone wants to know what she thinks, and Obama is not looking good. She doesn't answer the question either though. She repeats the idea that the President is intrasigent. Ho-hum.
SIXTH ADDITION. Obama is asked about a seemingly corrupt deal.
Edwards is asked about the haircuts. It was a mistake to pay for them out of campaign funds. He does a good job of saying that he lives a "blessed" life now, but "it's not where I come from." He tells a folksy anecdote about having to leave a restaurant when he was a child because his father couldn't afford the prices he saw on the menu. He's asked about hedge funds and how they could be "helping America." I don't think he answers.
Hillary is given a shot at the hedge fund question. She praises the market economy and the regulation of it. She segues into talk about New York and its manifold interests.
Richardson is asked about his statement that he's taking a long time to think about what to do about Gonzales "because he's Hispanic." "He came from nothing. I know the guy. Did it affect that he was Hispanic in what I said? Yeah, it did." People want "candor," not "blow-dried perfection."
SEVENTH ADDITION. Gravel sounds wacky. He's wasting our time. Or worse. Everyone who dies in Iraq is "dying in vain." He's passionate and angry about that.
Clinton is asked about the unfavorable opinion people have of her. She says it's that she's stuck to what she believes. Among other things: universal health care. America is ready for that.
EIGHTH ADDITION: Sorry for the delay getting through this. Life beckons! Okay... now they're going to talk about abortion. Blah, blah, blah... complexity. They all support the right to privacy but also try to show respect to those who care about the right to life. A few candidates are asked who their favorite Supreme Court Justice is. The official answer seems to be: Ginsburg.
The Virginia Tech question: what should government do. This leads only to talk of gun control. They're asked if they've owned guns. Those who have are: Gravel, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, and -- hey! -- Kucinich.
NINTH ADDITION. A question about the Confederate flag in South Carolina. No answer of significance. A question about what mistakes they will admit to. I'm getting bored and burnt out. There's still another half hour to go. Maybe I'll come back to this tomorrow. But I've had all I can take for one night. (This is the problem with TiVo, of course. I stop it to write something, and before you know it, 90 minutes expands into 4 hours!)
FIRST ADDITION. Mike Gravel? The hell? I was trying to count up who the 8 were. I'd forgotten Dodd. Gravel... that's news to me. I didn't even know he was still alive!
We're told they will be limited to 60 second answers. Cool!
The first question is to Hillary Clinton. She's asked about Harry Reid's statement that the Iraq war is lost. Does she agree? She avoids answering, instead choosing to talk about how the Congress has voted to end the war and how "proud" she is of that. She refers to Reid as "Leader Reid." She sounds hoarse. It's entirely scripted. The 60 seconds expires, the question unanswered.
SECOND ADDITION. Biden is given the same question and he, like her, reels out a scripted, nonresponsive answer. Now Obama, in an indication that he's more of a serious candidate than Biden, is given a new question. He's quoted as saying the war in Iraq is "dumb" and asked to square that with the sacrifices of the troops. He expresses pride that he's always opposed the war. He talks about the importance of equipment. I'm struck by how quickly he speaks. He sounds different from the way he has sounded in his solo appearances.
Edwards is asked about his apology for voting for the war and a statement he made about the need for an honest leader who will admit mistakes: was he talking about Hillary? He says "no." So much for honesty! Edwards is fast off the mark with a lie. A lie about honesty. We need someone who will restore our trust, he says.
THIRD ADDITION. We go back to Clinton, because she was attacked (though Edwards tried to act like it wasn't an attack). She says she takes "responsibility" for her vote and that she would not have voted as she did if she knew what she knows now. The real question, she says -- correctly! -- is "what do we do now?" But then she runs Bush down for "stubbornly" refusing to accede to the "will of the American people," which makes me wish I could ask her whether she thinks the role of the President is to adopt the military strategy that the polls show the people preferring (which would be completely incompetent).
Kucinich says we shouldn't fund the war.
FOURTH ADDITION. Richardson is asked if he would fund the troops if he were in Congress. He says "no." The war is a "disaster." He would "withdraw all of our troops" by the end of the year. But he'd apply "intensive diplomacy" that would have the three religious factions working out their problems. He'd have a "security conference" that would include Iran and Syria. And he'd have other countries take over the reconstruction and security. Okaaaay. He's for magic. Great.
Chris Dodd talks fast. Gravel would "find another way." He'd "make it a felony to stay there," he says, sounding nutty.
FIFTH ADDITION. Obama is asked what "a mission complete status in Iraq" would mean. He avoids the question and sounds stressed and clipped in a way that is, again, different from the way he has sounded in his more controlled, individual appearances. He taps into some prepared tape loops about the "strain" on the military and sounds a little desperate. He's scowling. He says we're "one vote away, we are one signature away, or 16 votes away from ending this war." He avoids the question and consumes all his time. He really seems too green and unprepared for this.
Clinton is given time for "rebuttal"! But nothing was aimed at her. She must feel great. Everyone wants to know what she thinks, and Obama is not looking good. She doesn't answer the question either though. She repeats the idea that the President is intrasigent. Ho-hum.
SIXTH ADDITION. Obama is asked about a seemingly corrupt deal.
Edwards is asked about the haircuts. It was a mistake to pay for them out of campaign funds. He does a good job of saying that he lives a "blessed" life now, but "it's not where I come from." He tells a folksy anecdote about having to leave a restaurant when he was a child because his father couldn't afford the prices he saw on the menu. He's asked about hedge funds and how they could be "helping America." I don't think he answers.
Hillary is given a shot at the hedge fund question. She praises the market economy and the regulation of it. She segues into talk about New York and its manifold interests.
Richardson is asked about his statement that he's taking a long time to think about what to do about Gonzales "because he's Hispanic." "He came from nothing. I know the guy. Did it affect that he was Hispanic in what I said? Yeah, it did." People want "candor," not "blow-dried perfection."
SEVENTH ADDITION. Gravel sounds wacky. He's wasting our time. Or worse. Everyone who dies in Iraq is "dying in vain." He's passionate and angry about that.
Clinton is asked about the unfavorable opinion people have of her. She says it's that she's stuck to what she believes. Among other things: universal health care. America is ready for that.
EIGHTH ADDITION: Sorry for the delay getting through this. Life beckons! Okay... now they're going to talk about abortion. Blah, blah, blah... complexity. They all support the right to privacy but also try to show respect to those who care about the right to life. A few candidates are asked who their favorite Supreme Court Justice is. The official answer seems to be: Ginsburg.
The Virginia Tech question: what should government do. This leads only to talk of gun control. They're asked if they've owned guns. Those who have are: Gravel, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, and -- hey! -- Kucinich.
NINTH ADDITION. A question about the Confederate flag in South Carolina. No answer of significance. A question about what mistakes they will admit to. I'm getting bored and burnt out. There's still another half hour to go. Maybe I'll come back to this tomorrow. But I've had all I can take for one night. (This is the problem with TiVo, of course. I stop it to write something, and before you know it, 90 minutes expands into 4 hours!)
"What can one say, when three pecks can be made into an issue in the land of the Kama Sutra?"
Richard Gere is in trouble in India.
UPDATE: Gere was on "The Daily Show" last night, and Jon Stewart asked him about it. He didn't seem too concerned.
UPDATE: Gere was on "The Daily Show" last night, and Jon Stewart asked him about it. He didn't seem too concerned.
"Carbon credits" can be quite fake.
A Financial Times investigation found. It was always pretty obvious -- wasn't it? -- that these things seem fraudulent, but we accepted it -- didn't we? -- because Al Gore presented it as true and put his credibility on the line. This has to undercut his vouching for the science in "An Inconvenient Truth." But that's okay, not because I don't want to take the science seriously, but because it's dangerous to have a politician who purports to embody truth and gets people to buy it.
Jonathan Adler says:
Jonathan Adler says:
The bottom line is that if Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio truly want to be sure they are reducing their carbon footprint, they are going to have to reduce their own energy consumption, rather than paying others to do it for them.I've never seen why it was enough for these characters to buy their way out of an environmentally damaging lifestyle. If they have money to spend on making the world greener, why don't they contribute it as an act of philanthropy and then also reduce their carbon footprint? Why would having the money to spend make the damage you do acceptable, especially if you're preaching to people who don't have the money that they, unlike you, will have to change the way they live? That never made sense.
Oral argument in the campaign finance case.
Here's Linda Greenhouse's write up on the Supreme Court argument in the Wisconsin Right to Life case, which is about the provision the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that prohibits issue ads right before the election if they mention the name of a candidate. The Court rejected a facial challenge in McConnell in 2003, but this is an as-applied challenge, and, moreover, McConnell was decided 5-4 with O'Connor in the majority. Alito has replaced O'Connor and may be expected to vote with Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy, who dissented in McConnell. The fourth dissenter was Rehnquist, and Roberts, who replaced Rehnquist may be expected to join Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy as well.
ADDED: And here's Dahlia Lithwick:
For the first half-hour of the argument, Justice Alito said nothing, leaning forward in his seat at the end of the bench with an intense expression. He finally intervened during the argument by Seth P. Waxman, who was defending the law on behalf of a group of its Congressional supporters including Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who is the other lead sponsor.
What would happen, Justice Alito asked Mr. Waxman, if a group had been running an advertisement about an issue, “and let’s say a particular candidate’s position on the issue is very well known to people who pay attention to public affairs.” Suppose the blackout period established by the law was approaching — 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election — “and an important vote is coming up in Congress on that very issue.” Could the group be prohibited from continuing to broadcast the ad?
That would depend on the context, Mr. Waxman replied.
Justice Alito did not appear satisfied. “What do you make of the fact that there are so many groups that say this is really impractical?” he asked. His reference was to the impressive array of ideological strange bedfellows that filed briefs in support of Wisconsin Right to Life’s challenge. These range from the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Rifle Association to the United States Chamber of Commerce to the AFL-CIO.
“I love it!” Mr. Waxman replied energetically, as if he had been waiting for just such a question. He said that although these many groups opposed the law, they were living with it and contenting themselves with running advertisements that advocated their positions on issues without mentioning candidates. The only two as-applied challenges, he noted, had both been brought by Wisconsin Right to Life’s lawyer, James Bopp Jr., who also has another case pending before the court.
Chief Justice Roberts was unimpressed by this line of argument. “I think it’s an important part of their exercise of First Amendment rights to petition their senators and congressmen and to urge others to, as in these ads, contact your senators, contact your congressmen,” he said, adding, “Just because the A.C.L.U. doesn’t do that doesn’t seem particularly pertinent to me.”
ADDED: And here's Dahlia Lithwick:
Clement spends his rebuttal time tussling with Scalia, who seems to love nothing more these days. But when we file out of the courtroom, it doesn't look like Clement's snagged his five votes for the proposition that an ad that quacks and has webbed feet is probably a duck, aka an attack ad in disguise. And, much to Breyer's dismay, if that means gutting the electioneering provision of McCain-Feingold, so be it. When it comes to curbing corruption versus curbing political speech, it looks like speech is the winner today. Which means that there will be an awful lot more vicious, snarling, not to mention expensive, ducks coming to your TV screens next election season.Then bring on the ducks. We will roast them right here to a fine crispy finish.
"Since some indeterminable hour between the final dousing of the pyre at The World Trade Center...."
"... and the breaking of what Sen. Barack Obama has aptly termed '9/11 fever,' it has been profoundly and disturbingly evident that we are at the center of one of history’s great ironies."
Does anyone serve up more horrendously muddled verbiage than Keith Olbermann? I mean if something is "profoundly and disturbingly evident" why is the hour "indeterminable"? Something is either clear or it's not. And must those dreadful metaphors also be mixed? A pyre and a fever are two different kinds of burning, so it's not clever to put them together, and the burning buildings of 9/11 are not an appropriate place to demonstrate cleverness, if in fact you were capable of it.
But, you say you've identified "one of history's great ironies"? (By the way, what are the great ironies of history? I've never seen that top 10 list.)
Oh, blah, I can't continue to reprint this blather. Let me summarize. He quotes Giuliani saying that America will be safer with a Republican President because the Democrats will take us into a defensive policy in the war on terror and that "we will have more losses and it will go on longer." Translating Rudy's pithy remarks, Olbermann manages to avoid verbosity. What Giuliani is really saying -- don't you know? -- is: "vote Democratic and die."
Olbermann's portentous zinger: "How ... dare ... you, sir?"
What I'd like to see is not all this ridiculous gasping about who is and who isn't a monster but a serious discussion about whether the presidential campaign is offering us a choice between an offensive and a defensive response to terrorism and, if it is, which we ought to prefer. But it seems we've all already formed emotional attachments to one side or the other. Or else we've tuned out politics for now. Whatever, I recommend tuning out Olbermann. What a gasbag.
ADDED: Kevin Drum has a better response to Giuliani's remarks and the lame comebacks from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:
Does anyone serve up more horrendously muddled verbiage than Keith Olbermann? I mean if something is "profoundly and disturbingly evident" why is the hour "indeterminable"? Something is either clear or it's not. And must those dreadful metaphors also be mixed? A pyre and a fever are two different kinds of burning, so it's not clever to put them together, and the burning buildings of 9/11 are not an appropriate place to demonstrate cleverness, if in fact you were capable of it.
But, you say you've identified "one of history's great ironies"? (By the way, what are the great ironies of history? I've never seen that top 10 list.)
Only in this America of the early 21st century could it be true that the man who was president during the worst attack on our nation and the man who was the mayor of the city in which that attack principally unfolded would not only be absolved of any and all blame for the unreadiness of their own governments, but, moreover, would thereafter be branded heroes of those attacks.Excuse me a minute. I just want to diagram that sentence. Or, class, the assignment is to rewrite that in English.
Oh, blah, I can't continue to reprint this blather. Let me summarize. He quotes Giuliani saying that America will be safer with a Republican President because the Democrats will take us into a defensive policy in the war on terror and that "we will have more losses and it will go on longer." Translating Rudy's pithy remarks, Olbermann manages to avoid verbosity. What Giuliani is really saying -- don't you know? -- is: "vote Democratic and die."
Olbermann's portentous zinger: "How ... dare ... you, sir?"
What I'd like to see is not all this ridiculous gasping about who is and who isn't a monster but a serious discussion about whether the presidential campaign is offering us a choice between an offensive and a defensive response to terrorism and, if it is, which we ought to prefer. But it seems we've all already formed emotional attachments to one side or the other. Or else we've tuned out politics for now. Whatever, I recommend tuning out Olbermann. What a gasbag.
ADDED: Kevin Drum has a better response to Giuliani's remarks and the lame comebacks from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:
Neither one of them took the chance to do what Rudy did: explain in a few short sentences why the country would be safer with a Democrat in the Oval Office. Is it really that hard? Giuliani's position is clear: more war, more domestic surveillance, more torture, and fewer civil liberties. And while it's true that the liberal position on making America secure is a little more complicated than the schoolyard version of foreign affairs beloved of Bush-era Republicans, it's not that complicated. So instead of complaining about how mean Giuliani is, why can't Obama and Clinton just tell us what they'd do?I say that's better, but I hear in Drum's prose a contempt for the voter. Aw, it shouldn't take much to tip "the average Joe and Jane" the other way. Republican's fight incompetently, so fighting only makes things worse. Get it, you dummies?
Whining just reinforces the message that Democrats are wimps. The real way to be "hard hitting" is to explain why Giuliani is wrong and what Democrats would do instead — and why the average Joe and Jane would be safer and better off without guys like Giuliani bumbling recklessly around the globe leaving a stronger al-Qaeda and a weaker America in their wake. Until they do, Rudy and the Republicans are going to win every round of this fight.
How incompetent is Harry Reid?
According to David Broder:
Hailed by his staff as "a strong leader who speaks his mind in direct fashion," Reid is assuredly not a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth. In 2005, he attacked Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, as "one of the biggest political hacks we have here in Washington."The Broder column is getting a lot of blog response. Some of it is generic babble, like this from Josh Marshall:
He called President Bush " a loser," then apologized. He said that Bill Frist, then Senate majority leader, had "no institutional integrity" because Frist planned to leave the Senate to fulfill a term-limits pledge. Then he apologized to Frist.
Most of these earlier gaffes were personal, bespeaking a kind of displaced aggressiveness on the part of the onetime amateur boxer. But Reid's verbal wanderings on the war in Iraq are consequential -- not just for his party and the Senate but for the more important question of what happens to U.S. policy in that violent country and to the men and women whose lives are at stake.
I really don't know whether I find it more painful or amusing to watch David Broder's quickening decline. But I'm going to go with amusing. Because clearly there's some deep streak of evil within me that gets a kick out of watching one man struggle so desperately for relevance and even coherence.Yeah, Broder's old and you're sick of him. If you can't attack the argument, attack the man.
The candidate is not "guestblogging." The blog is publishing a press release.
Please tell me no one is stupid enough to be impressed that Firedoglake has got Hillary Clinton to "guestblog" over there.
I'm irked when bloggers surrender their precious independence, but others are tsking that the candidate has besmirched herself with the ugliness associated the blog. WaPo's Sleuth takes Hillary to task for "guestblogging" on Firedoglake, where Jane Hamsher usually blogs, because of that time Hamsher blogged on Huffington Post and published a photoshopped image of Joe Lieberman in blackface. The Sleuth digs up the obviously not unbiased opinion of a former Lieberman spokesman (Dan Gerstein):
Bloggers -- and shock jocks -- need to be free to swing wildly. But candidates need to be careful. We know the Clinton campaign is working on taming and coopting the bloggers. I hate that. I mock that. But I wouldn't pin that blackface nonsense on Hillary.
Still, Firedoglake is a hardcore place, and Clinton doesn't belong there. To illustrate, let's look at a couple things published on Firedoglake the day after Clinton "posted."
There's this:
So I can see why Firedoglake is popular (with about 80,000 visits a day -- not 100,000 as WaPo says). It's sexy and wild and viciously political. That's fun for the people who agree with the politics and who enjoy brutal, sexual humor, but it should be poison for a mainstream candidate. Let the blog be the blog and the candidate be the candidate.
Separation of blog and campaign forever.
IN THE COMMENTS: Reader_iam says:
Go over there and read it. (I can tell you their links bring few people over here to actually see what he's talking about first hand.)
It's a rambling, incoherent mess that either fails to grasp or misrepresents what I've said. TRex seems think no one will notice that he doesn't get my point. What can I say? He mainly drifts into a lot of blabber about how much he hates Michelle Malkin and rightwingers and me. It's all one big mush in the commodious dinosaur head. He's a nasty guy taking wild shots at a woman, a professional woman close to Hillary's age. He's cursing at me, raving about "boobs" (i.e., breasts). Sigh. He's only making it clearer that Hillary Clinton should not want to appear to be guestblogging for Firedoglake.
I'm irked when bloggers surrender their precious independence, but others are tsking that the candidate has besmirched herself with the ugliness associated the blog. WaPo's Sleuth takes Hillary to task for "guestblogging" on Firedoglake, where Jane Hamsher usually blogs, because of that time Hamsher blogged on Huffington Post and published a photoshopped image of Joe Lieberman in blackface. The Sleuth digs up the obviously not unbiased opinion of a former Lieberman spokesman (Dan Gerstein):
Gerstein said he understands the Clinton camp wanting to reach out to lots of potential voters, especially women. But given that Clinton, "under the microscope to a much higher degree of scrutiny," Gerstein said, "I don't think this was necessarily a good idea for her."Oh, good lord. Imus again. That's a hilariously attenuated connection between Hillary and "nappy headed hos."
He suggested that Clinton's decision was particularly politically dangerous in light of the senator's vocal criticism of Don Imus after the shock jock's racially demeaning comments about the Rutgers women's basketball players.
Clinton could have chosen a blogger with "less baggage," Gerstein said. "Just as pure strategy, why would you want to take a risk and invite scorn and controversy and an accusation of hypocrisy when you don't have to?"
Bloggers -- and shock jocks -- need to be free to swing wildly. But candidates need to be careful. We know the Clinton campaign is working on taming and coopting the bloggers. I hate that. I mock that. But I wouldn't pin that blackface nonsense on Hillary.
Still, Firedoglake is a hardcore place, and Clinton doesn't belong there. To illustrate, let's look at a couple things published on Firedoglake the day after Clinton "posted."
There's this:
Oh, Michelle, you moron. Granted, dressing yourself up in what appears to be the anime version of a cheerleader costume may make all the fat, sweaty, unibrow-ed armchair warriors who read your blog squirt in their pants, but if you're going to jump around and cheer, you should at least make an effort to remove the stick from up your ass. It would make your jumps a far sight less stiff and spastic-looking....Then there's a post titled "What All Those Little Beat-Offs At Red State Really Hate When They Say They Hate Abortion" -- with a video of Pink singing "U & Ur Hand." We see the singer in a sports bra, jumping rope bouncily, posing sexily, and singing about rejecting a man. The punchline in the lyrics is that the only sex he'll have tonight is masturbation. (I don't get the connection to abortion. Wouldn't women be more likely to reject sex and consign men to masturbation if abortion were illegal?) Does Hillary want to be associated with this? I mean, I think it's funny to picture her rejecting Bill by singing "U & Ur Hand," but it's just not quite right for the campaign.
To your Rightard masters, you are essentially a talking dog, a novelty act, an amusing freak. You are their Token Asian. (Although, I'm sure they don't have any compunctions about calling you "Oriental" behind your back, like you're some kind of rug or something.) You are a minority woman who sees absolutely no conflict of interest in making a mint out of (to use your own charming phrase) "stoking racial demogoguery"....
If there is any justice at all in the world, God will see to it that you will spend your declining years eating dirty hospital linens for a living.
So I can see why Firedoglake is popular (with about 80,000 visits a day -- not 100,000 as WaPo says). It's sexy and wild and viciously political. That's fun for the people who agree with the politics and who enjoy brutal, sexual humor, but it should be poison for a mainstream candidate. Let the blog be the blog and the candidate be the candidate.
Separation of blog and campaign forever.
IN THE COMMENTS: Reader_iam says:
I must say, that Malkin video is truly stupid and badly done. Embarrassing, really--but Malkin's playing to the more puerile, simplistic part of her base. (The fact that she does this so often is one of the big reasons that I have little use for her.)UPDATE: Firedoglake -- via the guy who named himself after a big dinosaur, TRex -- attempts a response to this post.
TRex is doing the same thing, only he includes the sexist, racist nonsense. What really grates is the "sneaky" (I'd call it transparent, myself) way he goes about it:To your Rightard masters, you are essentially a talking dog, a novelty act, an amusing freak. You are their Token Asian. (Although, I'm sure they don't have any compunctions about calling you "Oriental" behind your back, like you're some kind of rug or something.)
In this way, he gets to say this shit hiding behind, in essence, the " I'M not thinking these things, I'M not saying these things, I'm saying THEY'RE thinking and saying these things" excuse.
What complete and utter bullshit. He's exactly the person saying and thinking those things. To describe this as "projection" is to imply a level of subtlety and unconsciousness that we shouldn't let the TRex's of the world hide behind.
Slightly shorter version: He's a pretentious jerk, precisely the sort of sexist, racist lefty that unjustly smears all liberalism and provides ammo to his mirror images on the right.
Go over there and read it. (I can tell you their links bring few people over here to actually see what he's talking about first hand.)
It's a rambling, incoherent mess that either fails to grasp or misrepresents what I've said. TRex seems think no one will notice that he doesn't get my point. What can I say? He mainly drifts into a lot of blabber about how much he hates Michelle Malkin and rightwingers and me. It's all one big mush in the commodious dinosaur head. He's a nasty guy taking wild shots at a woman, a professional woman close to Hillary's age. He's cursing at me, raving about "boobs" (i.e., breasts). Sigh. He's only making it clearer that Hillary Clinton should not want to appear to be guestblogging for Firedoglake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
:.
