Smart conservative, oh yes
David Brooks, New York Times columnist (subs. req'd), doesn't know enough about British politics to know that when you use the put-down
Harriet Miers, the John Major of American jurisprudence,
you can't then go on and use John Major's most ridiculed phrase as the capstone for the column:
When I cut myself loose from the push and shove of today's weary political titans, and go back to basics, I find myself strangely invigorated.
Brooks has previously advocated pints of Guinness all round as a way of improving American public policy debates but his unwitting adoption of Majorism is sadly a step down from that.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Friday, October 07, 2005
The invasion that dare not speak its name
Weirdly un-Churchillian rhetoric from Dubya today in a brief media Q&A session with the Hungarian PM:
Q I would like to raise the question to President Bush, as well, if, as far as you know, you've got an invitation from the Hungarian government for next year for the 50th anniversary of the 1956 revolution? So would you accept this invitation?
PRIME MINISTER GYURCSNY: (As translated.) We certainly spoke about the invitation ... I extended an invitation to the President for next year to Hungary, and I'm completely certain that he will come. (Laughter.)
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, he did extend the invitation, and I appreciate the invitation, because 1956 means a lot to a lot of Americans. A lot of Americans came from Hungary to live here after the '56 incidents. They can trace their history to our country because of those -- of what took place in Hungary. Plus, a lot of Americans followed the incidents in 1956, and appreciated and respected the courage of folks who were willing to stand up for freedom and liberty.
See, 1956 says to us, there are key moments in history when ordinary citizens are willing to defend the right for all to be free. And so it's an important event. I told the Prime Minister, I'm not my own scheduler. I will pass the word on how important this event is, and I will look very carefully at the invitation.
Given that the Soviet invasion of Hungary would fit so well with his one-time theme of Yalta as betrayal, why the reluctance to tell it like it is now? New messages from Pootie-Poot's soul?
Weirdly un-Churchillian rhetoric from Dubya today in a brief media Q&A session with the Hungarian PM:
Q I would like to raise the question to President Bush, as well, if, as far as you know, you've got an invitation from the Hungarian government for next year for the 50th anniversary of the 1956 revolution? So would you accept this invitation?
PRIME MINISTER GYURCSNY: (As translated.) We certainly spoke about the invitation ... I extended an invitation to the President for next year to Hungary, and I'm completely certain that he will come. (Laughter.)
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, he did extend the invitation, and I appreciate the invitation, because 1956 means a lot to a lot of Americans. A lot of Americans came from Hungary to live here after the '56 incidents. They can trace their history to our country because of those -- of what took place in Hungary. Plus, a lot of Americans followed the incidents in 1956, and appreciated and respected the courage of folks who were willing to stand up for freedom and liberty.
See, 1956 says to us, there are key moments in history when ordinary citizens are willing to defend the right for all to be free. And so it's an important event. I told the Prime Minister, I'm not my own scheduler. I will pass the word on how important this event is, and I will look very carefully at the invitation.
Given that the Soviet invasion of Hungary would fit so well with his one-time theme of Yalta as betrayal, why the reluctance to tell it like it is now? New messages from Pootie-Poot's soul?
The Fresh Prince of DC
A few more things about George W. Bush's latest big speech on the GWOT yesterday. First, there are several signs of frantic media management by the White House in the run-up to the speech to minimize the distractions from its message. First, a local TV station in New York City, WNBC, was encouraged to sit for two days on its knowledge of the information behind the terror alert in the city -- a tad awkward for a big speech on the successes in the GWOT to be occurring during a terror alert.
Second, Bush's statement of al Qaeda's goals, while drawing on well-known material, seems specifically but selectively related to the content of a letter from its global #2, al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi. This letter seems to have been bouncing around in media circles for a while:
The warning, from Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was spelled out in a 6,000-word letter, dated early in July, that was obtained by American forces conducting counterterrorism operations in Iraq, the [senior US] official said in a briefing.
The official said Mr. Zawahiri also warned that Mr. Zarqawi's forces should concentrate their attacks on Americans rather than on Iraqi civilians, and should refrain from the kind of gruesome beheadings and other executions that have been posted on Qaeda Web sites. Those executions have been condemned in parts of the Muslim world as violating tenets of the faith.
The official said the letter was made public on Thursday after the government learned that CBS News and NBC News were preparing broadcasts based on partial descriptions of its contents.
Clearly a problem -- the President about to give another account of how al Qaeda are a bunch of ruthless murderers who target civilians and want brutality on American TV screens, but there's a letter floating around making clear that Al Qaeda (.pk) is unhappy with its franchisee in Iraq. Solution: scoop the imminent media embarrassment with an off-the-record briefing that makes the papers on the Friday of a holiday weekend.
Speaking of holidays, at the conclusion of their words of praise for Dubya's speech, Powerline offers this example of media bias:
I [Hindrocket] haven't seen a report on how many people watched Bush's speech; in fact, I'm only assuming that it was broadcast by someone. My guess is that very few either saw it or will read it in its entirety. Instead, the overwhelming majority depend on what they read about Bush's speech in the newspapers or hear on television news reports. Those articles and reports, with hardly any exceptions, will be carefully framed to minimize the speech's impact.
People used to talk about the Presidency as a "bully pulpit," but I think one lesson of the Bush years is that the President's ability to communicate effectively with the American people, outside of the context of an election campaign, is limited. The real "bully pulpit" belongs to the mainstream press, which is just about unanimously devoted to undermining the President's effort to communicate with, and thereby lead, the American people.
DUDE! The speech was delivered at 10am eastern time on a weekday morning. Note the assumption that working people should have downed tools to get the unfiltered message of The Exalted One, or failing that, that the masses should have arrived home in the evening to endless reruns of the speech. What country is this exactly?
A few more things about George W. Bush's latest big speech on the GWOT yesterday. First, there are several signs of frantic media management by the White House in the run-up to the speech to minimize the distractions from its message. First, a local TV station in New York City, WNBC, was encouraged to sit for two days on its knowledge of the information behind the terror alert in the city -- a tad awkward for a big speech on the successes in the GWOT to be occurring during a terror alert.
Second, Bush's statement of al Qaeda's goals, while drawing on well-known material, seems specifically but selectively related to the content of a letter from its global #2, al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi. This letter seems to have been bouncing around in media circles for a while:
The warning, from Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was spelled out in a 6,000-word letter, dated early in July, that was obtained by American forces conducting counterterrorism operations in Iraq, the [senior US] official said in a briefing.
The official said Mr. Zawahiri also warned that Mr. Zarqawi's forces should concentrate their attacks on Americans rather than on Iraqi civilians, and should refrain from the kind of gruesome beheadings and other executions that have been posted on Qaeda Web sites. Those executions have been condemned in parts of the Muslim world as violating tenets of the faith.
The official said the letter was made public on Thursday after the government learned that CBS News and NBC News were preparing broadcasts based on partial descriptions of its contents.
Clearly a problem -- the President about to give another account of how al Qaeda are a bunch of ruthless murderers who target civilians and want brutality on American TV screens, but there's a letter floating around making clear that Al Qaeda (.pk) is unhappy with its franchisee in Iraq. Solution: scoop the imminent media embarrassment with an off-the-record briefing that makes the papers on the Friday of a holiday weekend.
Speaking of holidays, at the conclusion of their words of praise for Dubya's speech, Powerline offers this example of media bias:
I [Hindrocket] haven't seen a report on how many people watched Bush's speech; in fact, I'm only assuming that it was broadcast by someone. My guess is that very few either saw it or will read it in its entirety. Instead, the overwhelming majority depend on what they read about Bush's speech in the newspapers or hear on television news reports. Those articles and reports, with hardly any exceptions, will be carefully framed to minimize the speech's impact.
People used to talk about the Presidency as a "bully pulpit," but I think one lesson of the Bush years is that the President's ability to communicate effectively with the American people, outside of the context of an election campaign, is limited. The real "bully pulpit" belongs to the mainstream press, which is just about unanimously devoted to undermining the President's effort to communicate with, and thereby lead, the American people.
DUDE! The speech was delivered at 10am eastern time on a weekday morning. Note the assumption that working people should have downed tools to get the unfiltered message of The Exalted One, or failing that, that the masses should have arrived home in the evening to endless reruns of the speech. What country is this exactly?
The offshore Irish
From a seemingly obscure US indictment of three individuals for bribery during the privatisation of an oil company in Azerbaijan, we learn that one of the indictees:
Viktor Kozeny ... 42, an Irish citizen of Czech background, was president and chairman of Oily Rock Group Limited and Minaret Group Limited when he and the two other men [ Frederic Bourke Jr. and David Pinkerton ] — both American citizens — tried to buy off senior Azerbaijan officials.
There is a more expansive (subs. req'd) account in the Wall Street Journal, noting that Kozeny lives in the Bahamas and Pinkerton works for the somewhat jinxed American Insurance Group (AIG), which is just emerging from accounting scandals. There is no apparent connection between Kozeny's Irish citizenship, the dodgy insurance deals that AIG conducted in Dublin, or the fact that a big shareholding in AIG reverts to an Irish charity under certain contingencies, but all illustrate the country's attractiveness to, shall we say, entrepreneurial transactions.
Now while Ireland is all multicultural now, one has to wonder exactly how Kozeny got Irish citizenship; remember this is the kind of the thing that the government used to be fussy about, at least when it came to the art benefactors, the Beits. And since we were just posting about extradition issues a few days ago, there's one here too:
Kozeny .. has been taken into custody in the Bahamas and prosecutors are "actively" seeking his extradition ... Benjamin Brafman, a lawyer for Kozeny, said in a statement that Kozeny is not a U.S. citizen and, as a result, can't be charged with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He said they are evaluating whether to fight extradition to the U.S.
In the background is the question of whether Kozeny is seeking Irish consular assistance in the Bahamas to get out of jail there and/or to avoid extradition to the US. And whether the Americans might be annoyed about that. We'll update as necessary.
UPDATE 8 OCT: The Irish Times (subs. req'd) has more information. Kozeny got the citizenship under the "passports for sale" scheme (the official one, not Charlie Haughey's piggy bank version) in 1995. The government is trying to revoke it. Related story on the Sunday Times. Also, the Bourke indictee has a day job at Dooney & Bourke, that he probably should have stuck to.
From a seemingly obscure US indictment of three individuals for bribery during the privatisation of an oil company in Azerbaijan, we learn that one of the indictees:
Viktor Kozeny ... 42, an Irish citizen of Czech background, was president and chairman of Oily Rock Group Limited and Minaret Group Limited when he and the two other men [ Frederic Bourke Jr. and David Pinkerton ] — both American citizens — tried to buy off senior Azerbaijan officials.
There is a more expansive (subs. req'd) account in the Wall Street Journal, noting that Kozeny lives in the Bahamas and Pinkerton works for the somewhat jinxed American Insurance Group (AIG), which is just emerging from accounting scandals. There is no apparent connection between Kozeny's Irish citizenship, the dodgy insurance deals that AIG conducted in Dublin, or the fact that a big shareholding in AIG reverts to an Irish charity under certain contingencies, but all illustrate the country's attractiveness to, shall we say, entrepreneurial transactions.
Now while Ireland is all multicultural now, one has to wonder exactly how Kozeny got Irish citizenship; remember this is the kind of the thing that the government used to be fussy about, at least when it came to the art benefactors, the Beits. And since we were just posting about extradition issues a few days ago, there's one here too:
Kozeny .. has been taken into custody in the Bahamas and prosecutors are "actively" seeking his extradition ... Benjamin Brafman, a lawyer for Kozeny, said in a statement that Kozeny is not a U.S. citizen and, as a result, can't be charged with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He said they are evaluating whether to fight extradition to the U.S.
In the background is the question of whether Kozeny is seeking Irish consular assistance in the Bahamas to get out of jail there and/or to avoid extradition to the US. And whether the Americans might be annoyed about that. We'll update as necessary.
UPDATE 8 OCT: The Irish Times (subs. req'd) has more information. Kozeny got the citizenship under the "passports for sale" scheme (the official one, not Charlie Haughey's piggy bank version) in 1995. The government is trying to revoke it. Related story on the Sunday Times. Also, the Bourke indictee has a day job at Dooney & Bourke, that he probably should have stuck to.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Come Back Bill O'Reilly to Ballyjamesduff
Not much to do with this one but a direct quote, from Fox News goon Bill O'Reilly, via Atrios:
My people came from County Cavan in Ireland. All right? And the British Crown marched in there with their henchman, Oliver Cromwell, and they seized all of my ancestors' lands, everything. And they threw them into slavery, pretty much indentured servitude on the land. And then the land collapsed, all right? And everybody was starving in Ireland. They had to leave the country, just as Africans had to leave -- African-Americans had to leave Africa and come over on a boat and try to make in the New World with nothing. Nothing.
The big problems with this one are too easy, so let's try some of the smaller ones ... Cromwell a "Crown henchman"? Tell that to Charles I.
We have previously posted about this strain of Irish-American conservatism; notably on the transition from left-leaning populism , and Republican spinner Ed Gillespie (now the Supreme Court nominee sherpa) using the Famine to sell tax-cuts.
UPDATE: Illustrated O'Reilly by Mike Power.
Not much to do with this one but a direct quote, from Fox News goon Bill O'Reilly, via Atrios:
My people came from County Cavan in Ireland. All right? And the British Crown marched in there with their henchman, Oliver Cromwell, and they seized all of my ancestors' lands, everything. And they threw them into slavery, pretty much indentured servitude on the land. And then the land collapsed, all right? And everybody was starving in Ireland. They had to leave the country, just as Africans had to leave -- African-Americans had to leave Africa and come over on a boat and try to make in the New World with nothing. Nothing.
The big problems with this one are too easy, so let's try some of the smaller ones ... Cromwell a "Crown henchman"? Tell that to Charles I.
We have previously posted about this strain of Irish-American conservatism; notably on the transition from left-leaning populism , and Republican spinner Ed Gillespie (now the Supreme Court nominee sherpa) using the Famine to sell tax-cuts.
UPDATE: Illustrated O'Reilly by Mike Power.
Through the looking glass
As with George Bush's speech today, it seems that conservatives have developed a habit of providing descriptions of others that can in fact be read of criticisms of themselves. Hence, Peggy Noonan today happens to be talking about Supreme Court Justices, but can she really write this passage and not be thinking of someone else? --
it seems somehow hardwired in human nature that when people are lucky they come to think they deserve it: It's not luck, it's virtue. And since it's virtue my decisions are by their nature virtuous.
By the way, as for that George Bush speech -- he's been leaving the taunting about Ronald Reagan's cut-and-run from Beirut to Dick Cheney lately, but he took it up a notch today, in the Ronald Reagan building:
Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter-century: They hit us, and expect us to run. They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983, and Mogadishu in 1993 -- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.
Was Peggy's line about the lucky thinking that they are virtuous a pre-emptive strike against an imminent attack on her beloved Ronnie?
As with George Bush's speech today, it seems that conservatives have developed a habit of providing descriptions of others that can in fact be read of criticisms of themselves. Hence, Peggy Noonan today happens to be talking about Supreme Court Justices, but can she really write this passage and not be thinking of someone else? --
it seems somehow hardwired in human nature that when people are lucky they come to think they deserve it: It's not luck, it's virtue. And since it's virtue my decisions are by their nature virtuous.
By the way, as for that George Bush speech -- he's been leaving the taunting about Ronald Reagan's cut-and-run from Beirut to Dick Cheney lately, but he took it up a notch today, in the Ronald Reagan building:
Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter-century: They hit us, and expect us to run. They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983, and Mogadishu in 1993 -- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.
Was Peggy's line about the lucky thinking that they are virtuous a pre-emptive strike against an imminent attack on her beloved Ronnie?
Quotation marks gone wild
Wall Street Journal editorial today (subs. req'd) on US Senate reluctance to confirm the highly problematic nomination of Timothy Flanigan as Deputy Attorney General:
'Guilt' ... "ethics" ... "experience"
[For background on Flanigan's links to corporate scandals and torture, see Josh Marshall]
Wall Street Journal editorial today (subs. req'd) on US Senate reluctance to confirm the highly problematic nomination of Timothy Flanigan as Deputy Attorney General:
'Guilt' ... "ethics" ... "experience"
[For background on Flanigan's links to corporate scandals and torture, see Josh Marshall]
Truth in advertising
Just a week after Karen Hughes went to the Middle East to spin for Dubya's GWOT comes this embarrassing story in Thursday's Wall Street Journal (subs. req'd):
What descends "from the heavens" and "unleashes hell?" Boeing and Textron intended the answer to be their revolutionary tilt-rotor aircraft, the V-22 Osprey, which is designed to drop troops into battle zones. Instead, it was an ad for the aircraft that struck like a bolt from the blue. Appearing in last week's National Journal, the ad kicked up a cultural dust storm by depicting an assault on a mosque under an apocalyptic headline that used the heaven-and-hell theme.
The two companies quickly pulled the ad once the complaints came in, but the fact that defence companies saw it as useful to have a military action ad in a magazine read heavily by lobbyists and political hacks is a perfect illustration of how the military industrial complex is alive and well.
One other thing. In explaining how the "mistake" occurred, it emerges that:
What appeared in the National Journal was meant to be an early version of an ad designed to show the Osprey's ability to whisk troops to the heart of a battle, Textron's Bell unit says. The photograph of the street scene, featuring a building with Mohammed's Mosque inscribed in Arabic, was taken at a movie set in Texas.
Hmmm. What well-known Texan might find it useful to have a movie set of a Middle Eastern war that can be made to look somewhat convincingly like the real thing?
UPDATE: Related material from Free Stater.
Just a week after Karen Hughes went to the Middle East to spin for Dubya's GWOT comes this embarrassing story in Thursday's Wall Street Journal (subs. req'd):
What descends "from the heavens" and "unleashes hell?" Boeing and Textron intended the answer to be their revolutionary tilt-rotor aircraft, the V-22 Osprey, which is designed to drop troops into battle zones. Instead, it was an ad for the aircraft that struck like a bolt from the blue. Appearing in last week's National Journal, the ad kicked up a cultural dust storm by depicting an assault on a mosque under an apocalyptic headline that used the heaven-and-hell theme.
The two companies quickly pulled the ad once the complaints came in, but the fact that defence companies saw it as useful to have a military action ad in a magazine read heavily by lobbyists and political hacks is a perfect illustration of how the military industrial complex is alive and well.
One other thing. In explaining how the "mistake" occurred, it emerges that:
What appeared in the National Journal was meant to be an early version of an ad designed to show the Osprey's ability to whisk troops to the heart of a battle, Textron's Bell unit says. The photograph of the street scene, featuring a building with Mohammed's Mosque inscribed in Arabic, was taken at a movie set in Texas.
Hmmm. What well-known Texan might find it useful to have a movie set of a Middle Eastern war that can be made to look somewhat convincingly like the real thing?
UPDATE: Related material from Free Stater.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Pink is the new Orange
From the Irish Times online (subs. req'd; almost identical free link) profile of murdered loyalist Jim Gray:
His appearance set him aside from the typical loyalist hardman. Even [Johnny] Adair, whose own fashion statements often provoked ridicule, took offence at some of Gray's outfits. "Jim would arrive at [Ulster Defence Association] meetings in his pink jumpers and Johnny would go mad," one source said. "He'd be ranting, 'That's some image for our organisation'."
If one is looking for black comedy, Adair's concern about the image of his terrorist organisation meets the requirement. As we noted previously, Adair had a preference for political fashion statements, via his Zionist dog.
From the Irish Times online (subs. req'd; almost identical free link) profile of murdered loyalist Jim Gray:
His appearance set him aside from the typical loyalist hardman. Even [Johnny] Adair, whose own fashion statements often provoked ridicule, took offence at some of Gray's outfits. "Jim would arrive at [Ulster Defence Association] meetings in his pink jumpers and Johnny would go mad," one source said. "He'd be ranting, 'That's some image for our organisation'."
If one is looking for black comedy, Adair's concern about the image of his terrorist organisation meets the requirement. As we noted previously, Adair had a preference for political fashion statements, via his Zionist dog.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Dubya's Sloppy Seconds
Surely it can't be a good idea for an aspiring leader of the Tories to be using baked-over George W. Bush rhetoric, one that even his allies now wince at? Yet ...
Mr Cameron said he wanted a Conservative party "that has the courage to renew and change" - and he vowed to fight for "modern, compassionate Conservatism".
That's from the BBC report. The Times Online report makes it clear that others in the conference hall were not impressed:
[Cameron quote] "Let the message go out from this conference: a modern, compassionate Conservatism is right for our times. If we go for it, if we seize it, if we fight for it with every ounce of passion, vigour and energy from now until the next election, nothing and no-one can stop us."
It was a message that many in the conference hall seemed keen to hear, applauding him after each ringing phrase. Not everyone was so impressed, however, and there was groaning from some parts of the hall.
However, the groaners were not ejected.
Surely it can't be a good idea for an aspiring leader of the Tories to be using baked-over George W. Bush rhetoric, one that even his allies now wince at? Yet ...
Mr Cameron said he wanted a Conservative party "that has the courage to renew and change" - and he vowed to fight for "modern, compassionate Conservatism".
That's from the BBC report. The Times Online report makes it clear that others in the conference hall were not impressed:
[Cameron quote] "Let the message go out from this conference: a modern, compassionate Conservatism is right for our times. If we go for it, if we seize it, if we fight for it with every ounce of passion, vigour and energy from now until the next election, nothing and no-one can stop us."
It was a message that many in the conference hall seemed keen to hear, applauding him after each ringing phrase. Not everyone was so impressed, however, and there was groaning from some parts of the hall.
However, the groaners were not ejected.
Stockholm Syndrome
Tuesday's Wall Street Journal (subs. req'd) editorialises about the Aussies who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for showing that hitherto mysterious stomach ailments were caused by bacteria:
... when Australian physician Barry Marshall suggested, at a Brussels conference in 1983, that peptic ulcers might have a bacterial cause, his findings were dismissed by colleagues as "the most preposterous thing ever heard," according to his entry in the Current Biography Yearbook ... For their findings, yesterday Drs. Marshall and Warren shared this year's Nobel Prize in Medicine and its $1.3 million prize. It's an inspired choice -- and a useful reminder that just because there's a scientific "consensus," that doesn't mean it's true.
Geddit? Global warming, tax cuts leading to lower revenue, the feasibility of missile defence systems, and of course intelligent design -- just because scientists are in general agreement on these things doesn't mean that Dubya is mistaken when he believes otherwise. Now this of course is a licence for crackpottery, especially on the intelligent design part, upon which Dave at Backword has collected highly relevant thoughts, including:
'Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped' ...
We know for instance that chemistry is reducible to the behaviour of atoms and molecules, and that atoms and molecules are subject to the four fundamental forces. But chemistry goes on. There are interesting new materials every year. Universities have not run out of problems worthy of PhD theses. They likely never will. This doesn’t mean that high-energy physics is wrong, or that there are mysterious forces unaccounted for ...
But perhaps the Wall Street Journal would like to put up its own prize for theories battling the scientific consensus?
Tuesday's Wall Street Journal (subs. req'd) editorialises about the Aussies who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for showing that hitherto mysterious stomach ailments were caused by bacteria:
... when Australian physician Barry Marshall suggested, at a Brussels conference in 1983, that peptic ulcers might have a bacterial cause, his findings were dismissed by colleagues as "the most preposterous thing ever heard," according to his entry in the Current Biography Yearbook ... For their findings, yesterday Drs. Marshall and Warren shared this year's Nobel Prize in Medicine and its $1.3 million prize. It's an inspired choice -- and a useful reminder that just because there's a scientific "consensus," that doesn't mean it's true.
Geddit? Global warming, tax cuts leading to lower revenue, the feasibility of missile defence systems, and of course intelligent design -- just because scientists are in general agreement on these things doesn't mean that Dubya is mistaken when he believes otherwise. Now this of course is a licence for crackpottery, especially on the intelligent design part, upon which Dave at Backword has collected highly relevant thoughts, including:
'Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped' ...
We know for instance that chemistry is reducible to the behaviour of atoms and molecules, and that atoms and molecules are subject to the four fundamental forces. But chemistry goes on. There are interesting new materials every year. Universities have not run out of problems worthy of PhD theses. They likely never will. This doesn’t mean that high-energy physics is wrong, or that there are mysterious forces unaccounted for ...
But perhaps the Wall Street Journal would like to put up its own prize for theories battling the scientific consensus?
Monday, October 03, 2005
Lookalikes
Dubya's Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers -- the product of a bizarre transporter malfunction involving Cherie Blair and Bernadette Chirac?
Dubya's Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers -- the product of a bizarre transporter malfunction involving Cherie Blair and Bernadette Chirac?
The Big Fellows
With indictments raining down like confetti on the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy, surely it seems that things could not get any worse. After all, they still have their bedrock belief that sitting in the White House is the reincarnation of Winston Churchill, George W. Bush. And that's an especially helpful comparison right now, because after all, the British people didn't actually think much of Winston as a domestic policy performer -- dumping him unceremoniously in 1945 after the Global War on Fascism had been won, much as in the way there'll always be the GWOT for the slightly wavering amongst Dubya's true believers.
However, if there's one thing that could break this pillar, it would be an undermining at its source -- the idea that being compared to Churchill is a good thing. Step forward then, Mary Kenny -- the thinking man's Sinead O'Connor -- to bring that one crashing down:
[Sunday Times of London] WINSTON CHURCHILL and Michael Collins are portrayed as enjoying an intense "homosocial" friendship in a new play by Mary Kenny.
At which point right-wingers everywhere exclaim ... "homo-whatnow?" Mary explains:
Allegiance dramatises the events of a night when the British and Irish leaders drank together at Churchill’s London home during the Anglo-Irish treaty negotiations of October 1921. Details of the session were first revealed in The Last Lion, a biography of Churchill by William Manchester.
"My play was triggered by something Manchester wrote about how, despite the political differences, they got drunk together one night," said Kenny. "They were carousing and reciting poetry to each other."
Historians have established that Churchill was not homosexual. "They seemed to love other in a homosocial as opposed to homosexual way," said Kenny.
"I think it was more pronounced on Churchill’s side. He perceived Collins as a young warrior and seemed to be very attracted to that. The homosocial bond is my intuitive interpretation. It’s something that’s coming up in sociology today, this idea of the band of brothers’ bond that men develop."
While Mary emphasises the fraternal-paternal aspects of the relationship, she's already put in enough keywords to get the alarm bells ringing; we see this as being especially tough for the manly men at Powerline, whose anxiety about gays under the bed extends even to comically sub-texted posts such as this one -- we're not gay, really; look -- pictures of Pamela Anderson!
Anyway, this play is consistent with Mary's recent emphasis on a nostalgic nationalism, that there was something worthy and even, God forbid, Tory, about the previous generations of the armed struggle. And there's a serious historical point as well, namely that Churchill's respect for Collins dissuaded him from sending the troops back in during the Civil War:
"In the House of Commons on May 29, Churchill was defending the treaty and amid much heckling he said, over and over again, ‘I trust General Collins. Ireland will come through this’," said Kenny.
Which highlights another Collins arc that is problematic for the GWOT. The terrorist Collins became General Collins, gaining the trust of Churchill. All in all then, this Winston character is really quite a bad role model, negotiating with terrorists and being a drinker and smoker too. Whereas the White House model is that real men don't have curves.
With indictments raining down like confetti on the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy, surely it seems that things could not get any worse. After all, they still have their bedrock belief that sitting in the White House is the reincarnation of Winston Churchill, George W. Bush. And that's an especially helpful comparison right now, because after all, the British people didn't actually think much of Winston as a domestic policy performer -- dumping him unceremoniously in 1945 after the Global War on Fascism had been won, much as in the way there'll always be the GWOT for the slightly wavering amongst Dubya's true believers.
However, if there's one thing that could break this pillar, it would be an undermining at its source -- the idea that being compared to Churchill is a good thing. Step forward then, Mary Kenny -- the thinking man's Sinead O'Connor -- to bring that one crashing down:
[Sunday Times of London] WINSTON CHURCHILL and Michael Collins are portrayed as enjoying an intense "homosocial" friendship in a new play by Mary Kenny.
At which point right-wingers everywhere exclaim ... "homo-whatnow?" Mary explains:
Allegiance dramatises the events of a night when the British and Irish leaders drank together at Churchill’s London home during the Anglo-Irish treaty negotiations of October 1921. Details of the session were first revealed in The Last Lion, a biography of Churchill by William Manchester.
"My play was triggered by something Manchester wrote about how, despite the political differences, they got drunk together one night," said Kenny. "They were carousing and reciting poetry to each other."
Historians have established that Churchill was not homosexual. "They seemed to love other in a homosocial as opposed to homosexual way," said Kenny.
"I think it was more pronounced on Churchill’s side. He perceived Collins as a young warrior and seemed to be very attracted to that. The homosocial bond is my intuitive interpretation. It’s something that’s coming up in sociology today, this idea of the band of brothers’ bond that men develop."
While Mary emphasises the fraternal-paternal aspects of the relationship, she's already put in enough keywords to get the alarm bells ringing; we see this as being especially tough for the manly men at Powerline, whose anxiety about gays under the bed extends even to comically sub-texted posts such as this one -- we're not gay, really; look -- pictures of Pamela Anderson!
Anyway, this play is consistent with Mary's recent emphasis on a nostalgic nationalism, that there was something worthy and even, God forbid, Tory, about the previous generations of the armed struggle. And there's a serious historical point as well, namely that Churchill's respect for Collins dissuaded him from sending the troops back in during the Civil War:
"In the House of Commons on May 29, Churchill was defending the treaty and amid much heckling he said, over and over again, ‘I trust General Collins. Ireland will come through this’," said Kenny.
Which highlights another Collins arc that is problematic for the GWOT. The terrorist Collins became General Collins, gaining the trust of Churchill. All in all then, this Winston character is really quite a bad role model, negotiating with terrorists and being a drinker and smoker too. Whereas the White House model is that real men don't have curves.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Extradition follies
We didn't think we'd gotten into blogging to do sympathetic posts about well-off suits who probably did some financially dodgy stuff, but then the Global War on Terror changed everything. Saturday's Wall Street Journal (subs req'd) reports on an UK-US extradition case:
Britain's home secretary ordered the extradition of former Morgan Crucible Co. Chief Executive Officer Ian P. Norris to the U.S. to stand trial on charges of price fixing and obstruction of justice.
Lawyers for Mr. Norris, 62 years old, said they will appeal the ruling to Britain's High Court. If the decision stands, it would represent the first time the U.S. has extradited a foreigner for an antitrust offense, lawyers say.
... In 2003, the United Kingdom and the U.S. signed an extradition treaty that was hailed as a way to extradite terrorists expeditiously because it didn't require as much legal evidence to be presented as previously was necessary. The U.S. has yet to ratify the treaty, but key elements of the pact were incorporated into the U.K.'s Extradition Act of 2003.
Mr. Norris's defenders have asserted, among other things, that the charges against him relate to alleged activities that occurred before price fixing was a crime in the U.K.
In a statement, the Home Office said: "Although the statutory offense of price fixing did not become law until 2002, our understanding is that the alleged conduct equates to the offense of conspiracy to defraud, for which extradition to the U.S. is possible under the Extradition Act 2003."
The Home Office statement is truly bizarre. "Our understanding is that ..." -- which kind of sounds like what someone would say not having read any of the actual documents in the case. Did Al Gonzales just give you a quick run-down over the phone, Mr Clarke?
And as for the substance of the statement, it makes pretty clear that what the US did was redefine "price fixing" (non-extraditable) to be "conspiracy to defraud" (extraditable). In other words, the UK-US extradition treaty might as well allow for extradition from the UK to the US (but not vice versa) for "doing bad stuff," because the US will simply reclassify any allegation sufficiently to meet the provisions of the UK law. And the Home Office will go along with it. This is bad news for the NatWest Three.
The same week brings news that the government of Colombia seems to have higher standards:
[BBC] A Colombian right-wing paramilitary leader wanted on drug trafficking charges by the US will not be extradited, the government has said. It said Diego Fernando Murillo, known as Don Berna, could stay in Colombia provided he honoured the terms of a peace process with the government. The US said it would continue to seek Don Berna's extradition. He is alleged to have worked for the drug-trafficker Pablo Escobar before emerging as an AUC commander.
It seems then that Mr Norris's only mistake was not being criminal enough. If we were conservative bloggers, we'd stop there with a "heh" or "indeed," but we're not done. Because the sudden scruples of the Colombian government about extraditing one of their own to the US stand in marked contrast to their eagerness to have the Irish "Colombia Three" sent back to Bogota -- one of the arguments against being that the Colombian government is far too close to right-wing death squads, such as the aforementioned Don.
It does seem as if the Three will be able to hold out against any such request, not least because of Bertie Ahern's eagerness to stay on the right side of Sinn Fein. And since the Republic's burden for extradition seems higher than the UK's these days, our non-expert legal advice to Mr Norris and the Nat West Three would be to consider a move to the place that puts the Free in Free State. We've even got Harvey Nichols!
We didn't think we'd gotten into blogging to do sympathetic posts about well-off suits who probably did some financially dodgy stuff, but then the Global War on Terror changed everything. Saturday's Wall Street Journal (subs req'd) reports on an UK-US extradition case:
Britain's home secretary ordered the extradition of former Morgan Crucible Co. Chief Executive Officer Ian P. Norris to the U.S. to stand trial on charges of price fixing and obstruction of justice.
Lawyers for Mr. Norris, 62 years old, said they will appeal the ruling to Britain's High Court. If the decision stands, it would represent the first time the U.S. has extradited a foreigner for an antitrust offense, lawyers say.
... In 2003, the United Kingdom and the U.S. signed an extradition treaty that was hailed as a way to extradite terrorists expeditiously because it didn't require as much legal evidence to be presented as previously was necessary. The U.S. has yet to ratify the treaty, but key elements of the pact were incorporated into the U.K.'s Extradition Act of 2003.
Mr. Norris's defenders have asserted, among other things, that the charges against him relate to alleged activities that occurred before price fixing was a crime in the U.K.
In a statement, the Home Office said: "Although the statutory offense of price fixing did not become law until 2002, our understanding is that the alleged conduct equates to the offense of conspiracy to defraud, for which extradition to the U.S. is possible under the Extradition Act 2003."
The Home Office statement is truly bizarre. "Our understanding is that ..." -- which kind of sounds like what someone would say not having read any of the actual documents in the case. Did Al Gonzales just give you a quick run-down over the phone, Mr Clarke?
And as for the substance of the statement, it makes pretty clear that what the US did was redefine "price fixing" (non-extraditable) to be "conspiracy to defraud" (extraditable). In other words, the UK-US extradition treaty might as well allow for extradition from the UK to the US (but not vice versa) for "doing bad stuff," because the US will simply reclassify any allegation sufficiently to meet the provisions of the UK law. And the Home Office will go along with it. This is bad news for the NatWest Three.
The same week brings news that the government of Colombia seems to have higher standards:
[BBC] A Colombian right-wing paramilitary leader wanted on drug trafficking charges by the US will not be extradited, the government has said. It said Diego Fernando Murillo, known as Don Berna, could stay in Colombia provided he honoured the terms of a peace process with the government. The US said it would continue to seek Don Berna's extradition. He is alleged to have worked for the drug-trafficker Pablo Escobar before emerging as an AUC commander.
It seems then that Mr Norris's only mistake was not being criminal enough. If we were conservative bloggers, we'd stop there with a "heh" or "indeed," but we're not done. Because the sudden scruples of the Colombian government about extraditing one of their own to the US stand in marked contrast to their eagerness to have the Irish "Colombia Three" sent back to Bogota -- one of the arguments against being that the Colombian government is far too close to right-wing death squads, such as the aforementioned Don.
It does seem as if the Three will be able to hold out against any such request, not least because of Bertie Ahern's eagerness to stay on the right side of Sinn Fein. And since the Republic's burden for extradition seems higher than the UK's these days, our non-expert legal advice to Mr Norris and the Nat West Three would be to consider a move to the place that puts the Free in Free State. We've even got Harvey Nichols!
Friday, September 30, 2005
Fianna Fáil loses the Wall Street Journal
It's perhaps just a coincidence that as corruption and cronyism finally go out of style in American politics, the Wall Street Journal editorial page decisively dumps one of its foreign darlings -- the Republic of Ireland's natural party of government, Fianna Fáil, and its ideological tail that wags the populist dog, the Progressive (sic) Democrats (sic).
The WSJ uncorks this move in an editorial in the European edition today, and we immodestly claim credit for having been a year ahead of them, because they are specifically disillusioned with two of Bertie Ahern's strokes from his stint as EU Council of Ministers head last year, about which we have posted frequently -- the insertion of Azores Summit chump Jose Manuel Barroso as EU Commission President, and his own finance minister Charlie McCreevy as EU Commissioner for Internal Markets. And so here's what the Journal (subs. req'd) has to say:
José Manuel Barroso ... the other day unveiled his long-advertised fight against red tape. By trashing 68 proposed EU laws, the Portuguese politician is doing nothing less than trying to salvage his presidency. Mr. Barroso must start somewhere after his annus horribilis ...
Mr. Barroso's second handicap is his Commissioners. The "dream team" included prominent European politicians with strong free market credentials. Early on, President Barroso was tripped up by the European Parliament, which blocked the nomination of Rocco Buttiglione to the justice post because the Italian admitted to practicing Catholicism, a heresy in modern Europe.
Many of his heavy hitters have turned out to be great disappointments in office -- none more so than Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, who was an outstanding Irish finance minister. The Brussels air must not suit him. He has shunned any confrontations with the EU's entrenched interests. During last spring's showdown with France over the liberalization of services, the most important step toward making a single market reality, the Irishman was conspicuous by his silence. In one of its worst moments, the Commission caved. It could redeem itself by reviving this directive.
Mr. Barroso could soon find relief for his third headache. He was the first Commission President who got the job without the full support of France and Germany. Recall that Tony Blair and the "New Europeans" nixed their candidate, the mini-me Prime Minister of Belgium, Guy Verhofstadt, and got the pro-American Mr. Barroso in. Gerhard Schröder and Jacques Chirac have never forgiven the Portuguese prime minister. Mr. Chirac treats him almost like his valet. He calls him an "ultra-liberal" -- the highest insult in France
Not much of a verdict on Bertie's stitch-up, then. But the WSJ is not quite ready to count Barroso out:
As long as Mr. Barroso annoys the French, he must be doing something right.
With Bertie on a new populist push and perhaps still getting advice about the advantages of keeping the the influential Yanks onside, could there be a little francophobic stew being cooked in Drumcondra this weekend?
It's perhaps just a coincidence that as corruption and cronyism finally go out of style in American politics, the Wall Street Journal editorial page decisively dumps one of its foreign darlings -- the Republic of Ireland's natural party of government, Fianna Fáil, and its ideological tail that wags the populist dog, the Progressive (sic) Democrats (sic).
The WSJ uncorks this move in an editorial in the European edition today, and we immodestly claim credit for having been a year ahead of them, because they are specifically disillusioned with two of Bertie Ahern's strokes from his stint as EU Council of Ministers head last year, about which we have posted frequently -- the insertion of Azores Summit chump Jose Manuel Barroso as EU Commission President, and his own finance minister Charlie McCreevy as EU Commissioner for Internal Markets. And so here's what the Journal (subs. req'd) has to say:
José Manuel Barroso ... the other day unveiled his long-advertised fight against red tape. By trashing 68 proposed EU laws, the Portuguese politician is doing nothing less than trying to salvage his presidency. Mr. Barroso must start somewhere after his annus horribilis ...
Mr. Barroso's second handicap is his Commissioners. The "dream team" included prominent European politicians with strong free market credentials. Early on, President Barroso was tripped up by the European Parliament, which blocked the nomination of Rocco Buttiglione to the justice post because the Italian admitted to practicing Catholicism, a heresy in modern Europe.
Many of his heavy hitters have turned out to be great disappointments in office -- none more so than Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, who was an outstanding Irish finance minister. The Brussels air must not suit him. He has shunned any confrontations with the EU's entrenched interests. During last spring's showdown with France over the liberalization of services, the most important step toward making a single market reality, the Irishman was conspicuous by his silence. In one of its worst moments, the Commission caved. It could redeem itself by reviving this directive.
Mr. Barroso could soon find relief for his third headache. He was the first Commission President who got the job without the full support of France and Germany. Recall that Tony Blair and the "New Europeans" nixed their candidate, the mini-me Prime Minister of Belgium, Guy Verhofstadt, and got the pro-American Mr. Barroso in. Gerhard Schröder and Jacques Chirac have never forgiven the Portuguese prime minister. Mr. Chirac treats him almost like his valet. He calls him an "ultra-liberal" -- the highest insult in France
Not much of a verdict on Bertie's stitch-up, then. But the WSJ is not quite ready to count Barroso out:
As long as Mr. Barroso annoys the French, he must be doing something right.
With Bertie on a new populist push and perhaps still getting advice about the advantages of keeping the the influential Yanks onside, could there be a little francophobic stew being cooked in Drumcondra this weekend?
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Separation of (Mental) Powers
The new Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, today:
My nomination was announced some 10 weeks ago here in the White House, the home of the executive branch. This morning, further up Pennsylvania Avenue, it was approved in the Capitol, the home of the executive [sic] branch.
The new Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, today:
My nomination was announced some 10 weeks ago here in the White House, the home of the executive branch. This morning, further up Pennsylvania Avenue, it was approved in the Capitol, the home of the executive [sic] branch.
The Ferry forecast
If your travel plans in the next few weeks involve taking ferries between Ireland, Britain, and France, now might be a good time to reconsider them. Several companies on the key routes are embarking upon big rationalisation programs, resulting in a militant reaction from the affected workers. The basic outline is the same in all cases -- the long-time operators are under pressure from low-cost airlines, and flag-of-convenience rules mean that the operators, or their potential competitors, can avoid "home country" labour market regulations, so the temptation to fire en masse and recruit from scratch is extremely high.
The most spectacular manifestation of worker displeasure so far has come with a strike on French carrier SNCM, which runs ferries between the mainland and Corsica and North Africa. A couple of days ago, union workers stormed a ferry, the Pascal Paoli, in the dock at Marseilles, and sailed it to Bastia in Corsica. The strikers are in principle now subject to prosecution for piracy, creating an additional complication for the government already trying to decide how to resolve the original dispute. It doesn't help that the strike has fused with Corsican separatism to become a broad vehicle of protest against the government in Paris.
Things in Ireland are in some ways more fraught. The most obvious sign of panic is a bizarre outburst from Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, who normally has little to say about corporate shenanigans, but the Irish Times (subs. req'd) notes his extensive quotes on the cost-cutting plan of Irish Ferries:
"The manner in which this matter has been conducted by the company in recent days is deplorable. I would not defend for one second the manner in which the company has acted. It has told a staff of over 500 the terms and if they do not get out, they will lose their benefits and God knows what will happen to them and that when they are out the door in a few days the jobs will be filled by non-nationals from God knows where and on conditions that nobody knows," he said.
"That is what it is at. It is sharp practice, is totally unacceptable in the Irish labour context and is used on the basis of the flag of convenience.
This from a government that didn't seem overly troubled with Turkish workers on abusive contracts on Irish infrastructure projects. And based on the French experience, Bertie's "God knows where" is probably just Poland -- a country admitted to the EU, with much fanfare, under Bertie Ahern's watch last year. But Bertie's spinners have clearly decided that it was time for a populist stance on something, and Irish Ferries drew the short straw. The unions have likewise decided to make a stand, and dropped a fairly broad hint of disruptive action if they don't get their way:
SIPTU [trade union], which was also invited to the Labour Court talks, has warned that if the workers are displaced there will be industrial action both in Ireland and abroad. They have warned that they will use all their firepower to uphold the rights of workers at the company.
One possibility: port blockades in Ireland, Britain, and France, manned by sympathetic seamen's unions facing the same redundancy as the Irish sailors. Predicted ultimate resolution: given Bertie's preferred path of least resistance to every problem, expect massive state-funded buyouts for redundant workers.
If your travel plans in the next few weeks involve taking ferries between Ireland, Britain, and France, now might be a good time to reconsider them. Several companies on the key routes are embarking upon big rationalisation programs, resulting in a militant reaction from the affected workers. The basic outline is the same in all cases -- the long-time operators are under pressure from low-cost airlines, and flag-of-convenience rules mean that the operators, or their potential competitors, can avoid "home country" labour market regulations, so the temptation to fire en masse and recruit from scratch is extremely high.
The most spectacular manifestation of worker displeasure so far has come with a strike on French carrier SNCM, which runs ferries between the mainland and Corsica and North Africa. A couple of days ago, union workers stormed a ferry, the Pascal Paoli, in the dock at Marseilles, and sailed it to Bastia in Corsica. The strikers are in principle now subject to prosecution for piracy, creating an additional complication for the government already trying to decide how to resolve the original dispute. It doesn't help that the strike has fused with Corsican separatism to become a broad vehicle of protest against the government in Paris.
Things in Ireland are in some ways more fraught. The most obvious sign of panic is a bizarre outburst from Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, who normally has little to say about corporate shenanigans, but the Irish Times (subs. req'd) notes his extensive quotes on the cost-cutting plan of Irish Ferries:
"The manner in which this matter has been conducted by the company in recent days is deplorable. I would not defend for one second the manner in which the company has acted. It has told a staff of over 500 the terms and if they do not get out, they will lose their benefits and God knows what will happen to them and that when they are out the door in a few days the jobs will be filled by non-nationals from God knows where and on conditions that nobody knows," he said.
"That is what it is at. It is sharp practice, is totally unacceptable in the Irish labour context and is used on the basis of the flag of convenience.
This from a government that didn't seem overly troubled with Turkish workers on abusive contracts on Irish infrastructure projects. And based on the French experience, Bertie's "God knows where" is probably just Poland -- a country admitted to the EU, with much fanfare, under Bertie Ahern's watch last year. But Bertie's spinners have clearly decided that it was time for a populist stance on something, and Irish Ferries drew the short straw. The unions have likewise decided to make a stand, and dropped a fairly broad hint of disruptive action if they don't get their way:
SIPTU [trade union], which was also invited to the Labour Court talks, has warned that if the workers are displaced there will be industrial action both in Ireland and abroad. They have warned that they will use all their firepower to uphold the rights of workers at the company.
One possibility: port blockades in Ireland, Britain, and France, manned by sympathetic seamen's unions facing the same redundancy as the Irish sailors. Predicted ultimate resolution: given Bertie's preferred path of least resistance to every problem, expect massive state-funded buyouts for redundant workers.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
How the Irish became good-looking
The Irish Echo has an interview with the giant-headed Chris Matthews of NBC in which he is keen to tell the world of his Irish heritage, much like his colleague, the giant-headed Tim Russert. We have posted about this crew in the past and in particular their habit of using their Irish background for street cred, notwithstanding their millionaire lifestyles -- which is not far hidden even in this piece:
The manic verbal delivery slowed down to normal speed off-air -- perhaps a testimony to the calming qualities of Nantucket, where he was weekending with his family
But the really weird comment is about yet another of the Oirish-Americans at NBC, Norah O'Donnell:
"Ohhhh, Norah O'Donnell!" Matthews erupted in a paroxysm of delight. "Inn't she somethin'? She's somethin' else. She's the pride of the island. She's 100 percent Irish. Both parents are immigrants, I think. The parents look nothing like her, I must say."
Besides trying not to think about the state of Matthews' phone after that ... er ... outburst -- how about that slam of Norah's parents? While the old Irish proverb says "what can you expect from a crow's egg, but another crow?" Chris seems to feel that the product of this particular egg is way too much of a looker to have come from the parent crows. But as this P O'Neill (as opposed to that one) once said in a disastrously misunderstood domestic context remark, "it's amazing what make-up can do."
On a slightly more serious note, the Echo article seems to take at face value Matthew's self-image as a liberal. With a few spare hours to read the huge Daily Howler hits for Matthews, one might think differently.
The Irish Echo has an interview with the giant-headed Chris Matthews of NBC in which he is keen to tell the world of his Irish heritage, much like his colleague, the giant-headed Tim Russert. We have posted about this crew in the past and in particular their habit of using their Irish background for street cred, notwithstanding their millionaire lifestyles -- which is not far hidden even in this piece:
The manic verbal delivery slowed down to normal speed off-air -- perhaps a testimony to the calming qualities of Nantucket, where he was weekending with his family
But the really weird comment is about yet another of the Oirish-Americans at NBC, Norah O'Donnell:
"Ohhhh, Norah O'Donnell!" Matthews erupted in a paroxysm of delight. "Inn't she somethin'? She's somethin' else. She's the pride of the island. She's 100 percent Irish. Both parents are immigrants, I think. The parents look nothing like her, I must say."
Besides trying not to think about the state of Matthews' phone after that ... er ... outburst -- how about that slam of Norah's parents? While the old Irish proverb says "what can you expect from a crow's egg, but another crow?" Chris seems to feel that the product of this particular egg is way too much of a looker to have come from the parent crows. But as this P O'Neill (as opposed to that one) once said in a disastrously misunderstood domestic context remark, "it's amazing what make-up can do."
On a slightly more serious note, the Echo article seems to take at face value Matthew's self-image as a liberal. With a few spare hours to read the huge Daily Howler hits for Matthews, one might think differently.
There's always a booze angle
US House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay was indicted today for laundering illegal corporate campaign contributions into the races for Texas legislature seats, so that he could gerrymander the state's congressional districts.
Amongst the laundered donations is $20,000 from Bacardi, and so in the spirit of keyboarding activism, we strongly encourage our vast readership to boycott Bacardi products. We have in the past criticised Diageo for their stewardship of the Guinness "brand" (as they would say), but their "brand portfolio" (as they would say) includes several fine rum products -- Bundaberg, Cacique, Captain Morgan, Myers's, and Pampero -- which we strongly recommend for all your rum consumption needs.
Of course in this day and age, what was once a single product is now itself a conglomerate, so Bacardi has a brand portfolio of its own. For instance, Bacardi now owns the French vodka producer Grey Goose, amongst whose competitors is Belvedere -- thus putting Missy Elliot on the right side of our new endorsement:
Don't I look like a Halle Berry poster
See the Belvedere playin' tricks on ya
as opposed to the honourary member of the Wayne Rooney posse, 50 Cent:
We gon' party like it's yo birthday
We gon' sip Bacardi like it's your birthday
Begin planning now to sip non-Bacardi products like it's your birthday when Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, and Karl Rove are all under indictment or in jail at the same time.
US House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay was indicted today for laundering illegal corporate campaign contributions into the races for Texas legislature seats, so that he could gerrymander the state's congressional districts.
Amongst the laundered donations is $20,000 from Bacardi, and so in the spirit of keyboarding activism, we strongly encourage our vast readership to boycott Bacardi products. We have in the past criticised Diageo for their stewardship of the Guinness "brand" (as they would say), but their "brand portfolio" (as they would say) includes several fine rum products -- Bundaberg, Cacique, Captain Morgan, Myers's, and Pampero -- which we strongly recommend for all your rum consumption needs.
Of course in this day and age, what was once a single product is now itself a conglomerate, so Bacardi has a brand portfolio of its own. For instance, Bacardi now owns the French vodka producer Grey Goose, amongst whose competitors is Belvedere -- thus putting Missy Elliot on the right side of our new endorsement:
Don't I look like a Halle Berry poster
See the Belvedere playin' tricks on ya
as opposed to the honourary member of the Wayne Rooney posse, 50 Cent:
We gon' party like it's yo birthday
We gon' sip Bacardi like it's your birthday
Begin planning now to sip non-Bacardi products like it's your birthday when Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, and Karl Rove are all under indictment or in jail at the same time.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
The Global War on News
Even by the usual standards of James Taranto, there's an especially stupid contribution on Opinion Journal's Best of the Web today. One of the many inside jokes that he pursues is mockery of the reality-based Reuters, and today it's the phrasing of their report on the killing of yet another non-top insurgent in Iraq:
"U.S. and Iraqi forces have shot dead the second-in-command of al Qaeda in Iraq, dealing what a U.S. commander called on Tuesday a serious blow to the militant group at the heart of Iraq's insurgency," Reuters "reports" from Baghdad ... Holy cow, Reuters has fallen for a hoax! Everyone knows that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism (or "militancy," as Reuters calls it)--zero, zip zilch. BUSH LIED!!!! when he said Iraq was connected to al Qaeda.
Geddit? Bush said in 2002 and early 2003 that there was a link between al Qaeda and Saddam, and now in 2005 some dude linked to al Qaeda in Iraq is dead, so Bush was right. At least two problems.
1. al Qaeda in Iraq is a name adopted by Abu Musab al Zarqawi's insurgent group long after the fall of Saddam
2. The distinction between insurgents operating under that name and the global al Qaeda group is observed not just by news agencies but by that noted traitor, General Richard Myers (or "Uncle Richard" as he is to Dubya's nominee to head the Immigration and Naturalization Service):
"They're going to have to go to the bench and find somebody that is probably less knowledgeable and less qualified," Myers said. "It's like fighting the al-Qaida network. It will have some impact, but over time they will replace people."
Just to spell it out -- Myers compared the killing of #2 in Iraq to fighting al Qaeda, he didn't say it was fighting al Qaeda. But maybe he gets all his news from Reuters.
UPDATE 28 SEP: This new VRC talking point, based on a name change of Zarqawi's group from last year, is now whizzing around; Cliff May in National Review's The Corner:
NEWS FLASH: AL-QAEDA “SEEN AS MAIN THREAT” IN IRAQ
Even by the usual standards of James Taranto, there's an especially stupid contribution on Opinion Journal's Best of the Web today. One of the many inside jokes that he pursues is mockery of the reality-based Reuters, and today it's the phrasing of their report on the killing of yet another non-top insurgent in Iraq:
"U.S. and Iraqi forces have shot dead the second-in-command of al Qaeda in Iraq, dealing what a U.S. commander called on Tuesday a serious blow to the militant group at the heart of Iraq's insurgency," Reuters "reports" from Baghdad ... Holy cow, Reuters has fallen for a hoax! Everyone knows that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism (or "militancy," as Reuters calls it)--zero, zip zilch. BUSH LIED!!!! when he said Iraq was connected to al Qaeda.
Geddit? Bush said in 2002 and early 2003 that there was a link between al Qaeda and Saddam, and now in 2005 some dude linked to al Qaeda in Iraq is dead, so Bush was right. At least two problems.
1. al Qaeda in Iraq is a name adopted by Abu Musab al Zarqawi's insurgent group long after the fall of Saddam
2. The distinction between insurgents operating under that name and the global al Qaeda group is observed not just by news agencies but by that noted traitor, General Richard Myers (or "Uncle Richard" as he is to Dubya's nominee to head the Immigration and Naturalization Service):
"They're going to have to go to the bench and find somebody that is probably less knowledgeable and less qualified," Myers said. "It's like fighting the al-Qaida network. It will have some impact, but over time they will replace people."
Just to spell it out -- Myers compared the killing of #2 in Iraq to fighting al Qaeda, he didn't say it was fighting al Qaeda. But maybe he gets all his news from Reuters.
UPDATE 28 SEP: This new VRC talking point, based on a name change of Zarqawi's group from last year, is now whizzing around; Cliff May in National Review's The Corner:
NEWS FLASH: AL-QAEDA “SEEN AS MAIN THREAT” IN IRAQ
What year is this?
The lead teaser items from the Wall Street Journal Online Political Diary today:
Kerry campaign caught on film and it's not good; George Soros licks his wounds; Bill Clinton talks taxes;
And they want you to pay extra for this shite even when one has a WSJ subscription. The Right's War on the People Not in Power gets ever more pathetic.
The lead teaser items from the Wall Street Journal Online Political Diary today:
Kerry campaign caught on film and it's not good; George Soros licks his wounds; Bill Clinton talks taxes;
And they want you to pay extra for this shite even when one has a WSJ subscription. The Right's War on the People Not in Power gets ever more pathetic.
Monday, September 26, 2005
He told you so
Dubya, today, on poverty in America:
THE PRESIDENT: ... I think that what a lot of Americans saw [with Katrina] was a -- some poverty that they had never imagined before ... But this is an issue that this country must continue to address. Poverty is an issue that's an important issue. And poverty exists in New Orleans, Louisiana, and it exists in rural Texas, and it needs to be addressed in a significant way.
Dick Cheney, the point-man for ridiculing VP candidate John Edwards' Two Americas theme from the campaign last year:
Q Good morning, Mr. Vice President. It's an honor to speak with you. Your opponent talks about two Americas. And I was just kind of wondering what your vision of America was.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: My opponent talks about -- oh, you're talking about John Edwards?
Q Yes. (Laughter.)
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Okay. Well, I've always had a problem with this notion that you should try to build a political career or an election victory trying to peddle the notion of class warfare, or that there were two different Americas. I fundamentally don't believe it. (Applause.)
You can -- you go look at history, or at least the history I learned about the United States, and I think it's true, I think it's the way it's worked for a lot of us. Some of us are more fortunate than others, obviously. But the fact is that we all start, I believe, in the United States, at least to a greater extent than any other society on the face of the Earth with the opportunity to achieve whatever you're capable of achieving, that is; for the most part, a meritocracy ...
Note also that Bush has also adopted another stance previously ridiculed by Cheney, on energy conservation. Dubya might have more than one reason to finally level with the country about, if nothing else, Cheney's chronic heart problems.
Dubya, today, on poverty in America:
THE PRESIDENT: ... I think that what a lot of Americans saw [with Katrina] was a -- some poverty that they had never imagined before ... But this is an issue that this country must continue to address. Poverty is an issue that's an important issue. And poverty exists in New Orleans, Louisiana, and it exists in rural Texas, and it needs to be addressed in a significant way.
Dick Cheney, the point-man for ridiculing VP candidate John Edwards' Two Americas theme from the campaign last year:
Q Good morning, Mr. Vice President. It's an honor to speak with you. Your opponent talks about two Americas. And I was just kind of wondering what your vision of America was.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: My opponent talks about -- oh, you're talking about John Edwards?
Q Yes. (Laughter.)
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Okay. Well, I've always had a problem with this notion that you should try to build a political career or an election victory trying to peddle the notion of class warfare, or that there were two different Americas. I fundamentally don't believe it. (Applause.)
You can -- you go look at history, or at least the history I learned about the United States, and I think it's true, I think it's the way it's worked for a lot of us. Some of us are more fortunate than others, obviously. But the fact is that we all start, I believe, in the United States, at least to a greater extent than any other society on the face of the Earth with the opportunity to achieve whatever you're capable of achieving, that is; for the most part, a meritocracy ...
Note also that Bush has also adopted another stance previously ridiculed by Cheney, on energy conservation. Dubya might have more than one reason to finally level with the country about, if nothing else, Cheney's chronic heart problems.
IRA decommissioning
So far the only White House comment is a brilliantly subtle reference by Dubya to the IRA's favourite fund-raising activity:
The Treasury and IRS announced that dyed diesel fuel for off-road use would be allowed on on-road use without penalty.
Gentlemen of Louth -- start your engines!
UPDATE: Now a more explicit White House reaction, perhaps surprisingly adoptive of recent Sinn Fein terminology:
President Bush commends the efforts of General John de Chastelain and his fellow IICD commissioners, and applauds the efforts of Sinn Fein in bringing the republican community to this moment.
So far the only White House comment is a brilliantly subtle reference by Dubya to the IRA's favourite fund-raising activity:
The Treasury and IRS announced that dyed diesel fuel for off-road use would be allowed on on-road use without penalty.
Gentlemen of Louth -- start your engines!
UPDATE: Now a more explicit White House reaction, perhaps surprisingly adoptive of recent Sinn Fein terminology:
President Bush commends the efforts of General John de Chastelain and his fellow IICD commissioners, and applauds the efforts of Sinn Fein in bringing the republican community to this moment.
Don't cry for me Argentina
Pint-sized conservative pundit Mickey Kaus prepares the ground for the inevitable conclusion of Bush-nomics:
Hmm. If you lend a trillion dollars to someone, does that give you leverage over them or them leverage over you? I'd always thought it was the latter, especially when the debtor is a sovereign nation. What's China going to do, repossess the United States? ...
[More on the wisdom of Kaus from Roger Ailes]
Pint-sized conservative pundit Mickey Kaus prepares the ground for the inevitable conclusion of Bush-nomics:
Hmm. If you lend a trillion dollars to someone, does that give you leverage over them or them leverage over you? I'd always thought it was the latter, especially when the debtor is a sovereign nation. What's China going to do, repossess the United States? ...
[More on the wisdom of Kaus from Roger Ailes]
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Maybe they should appoint Adam Smith as manager
To be filed under The Deeper Meaning of Typos, from Powerline, Time Magazine's Blog of the Year:
Long-time readers know about the annual struggle of Everton, my favorite English soccer team, to avoid "regulation". (sic -- since fixed)
He meant this.
[Previous post about Powerline, TMBotY, referring to Everton]
To be filed under The Deeper Meaning of Typos, from Powerline, Time Magazine's Blog of the Year:
Long-time readers know about the annual struggle of Everton, my favorite English soccer team, to avoid "regulation". (sic -- since fixed)
He meant this.
[Previous post about Powerline, TMBotY, referring to Everton]
Friday, September 23, 2005
Bless me Dubya for I have sinned
Andrew Sullivan is unhappy with gay people who keep their identity secret and in so doing empower those who would seek to persecute them:
I am actually tired of hearing from all these gay priests who refuse to use their names and give blind quotes to the press. Memo to them: your silence is empowering Benedict and the forces of bigotry ... If you cannot speak truth to unprincipled power, why are you priests in the first place?
Andrew Sullivan is unhappy with gay people who are unhappy with gay people who keep their identity secret and in so doing empower those who would seek to persecute them:
GAY PATRIOT SILENCED: I don't buy everything that GayPatriot writes; and his rhetoric can be a little much at times. But it's a shame he has been intimidated by the gay far-left into ending his blogging. A shame but unsurprising. If the gay "outers" spent a fraction of the time they spend attacking other gay people actually making the case for equality to straight people, the world would be a better place.
What's the difference? In the first case, the Supreme Authority is the Pope. In the second, it's the Holy Texan Emperor. For complete background on the Gay Patriot case and the role of fealty to George Bush in driving it, see Sullywatch.
UPDATE 14 OCT: The duc de Sully returns to this issue, in the context of closeted gay senior Republicans:
As readers know, I don't believe in forcibly outing other gay men and women. But I do strongly believe that those gay men and women now in powerful positions in the Republican party have a pressing moral responsibility to be out to their bosses and colleagues and public. The head of the Log Cabin Republicans, Patrick Guerrerio, has just written a stirring call for these people to realize that they have a unique responsibility at this point in history ...
Sacrifice for something more important than your own comfort level. No one should be forced into a decision he or she feels uncomfortable with. But that doesn't mean and shouldn't mean that the Republican gay closet is morally defensible. It is increasingly a failure to do what is simply right at a time when so many in the GOP are intent on doing wrong.
Having just pitched it as a powerful moral issue, is his position really that far removed from the outers? And note his carefully stated requirement that senior gay Republicans should be out not just to their bosses, but also the public. Just who does he have in mind? Could be it that his own reading habits have become similar to those Sun readers who take it only for the sports pages?
Andrew Sullivan is unhappy with gay people who keep their identity secret and in so doing empower those who would seek to persecute them:
I am actually tired of hearing from all these gay priests who refuse to use their names and give blind quotes to the press. Memo to them: your silence is empowering Benedict and the forces of bigotry ... If you cannot speak truth to unprincipled power, why are you priests in the first place?
Andrew Sullivan is unhappy with gay people who are unhappy with gay people who keep their identity secret and in so doing empower those who would seek to persecute them:
GAY PATRIOT SILENCED: I don't buy everything that GayPatriot writes; and his rhetoric can be a little much at times. But it's a shame he has been intimidated by the gay far-left into ending his blogging. A shame but unsurprising. If the gay "outers" spent a fraction of the time they spend attacking other gay people actually making the case for equality to straight people, the world would be a better place.
What's the difference? In the first case, the Supreme Authority is the Pope. In the second, it's the Holy Texan Emperor. For complete background on the Gay Patriot case and the role of fealty to George Bush in driving it, see Sullywatch.
UPDATE 14 OCT: The duc de Sully returns to this issue, in the context of closeted gay senior Republicans:
As readers know, I don't believe in forcibly outing other gay men and women. But I do strongly believe that those gay men and women now in powerful positions in the Republican party have a pressing moral responsibility to be out to their bosses and colleagues and public. The head of the Log Cabin Republicans, Patrick Guerrerio, has just written a stirring call for these people to realize that they have a unique responsibility at this point in history ...
Sacrifice for something more important than your own comfort level. No one should be forced into a decision he or she feels uncomfortable with. But that doesn't mean and shouldn't mean that the Republican gay closet is morally defensible. It is increasingly a failure to do what is simply right at a time when so many in the GOP are intent on doing wrong.
Having just pitched it as a powerful moral issue, is his position really that far removed from the outers? And note his carefully stated requirement that senior gay Republicans should be out not just to their bosses, but also the public. Just who does he have in mind? Could be it that his own reading habits have become similar to those Sun readers who take it only for the sports pages?
One World Conservatives
A little while back, we began a post with the claim that Iain Duncan Smith, former leader of the Tories, was "intelligent." Having looked at today's Wall Street Journal, we're off to say ten Hail Marys and one Our Father ... because Smith makes the unwise decision to put his name to an opinion piece co-written with Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, an inept reactionary facing a very tight re-election race.
The purpose of the article is to market a supposed new movement of social justice conservatives, which seems to be just a recognition that Dubya's compassionate conservatism has collapsed under the weight of its own cynicism. From Smith's perspective, it should be called on-yer-bike conservatism, because that's all it is:
That means helping the poor discover the dignity of work, rather than making them wards of the state. It means locking up violent criminals, but offering nonviolent offenders lots of help to become responsible citizens. It endorses a policy of "zero tolerance" toward drug use and sexual trafficking, yet insists that those struggling with all manner of addictions can start their lives afresh.
In America, this vision emerged a decade ago with bold conservative initiatives aimed at empowering individuals and grassroots groups helping the nation's neediest ... Likewise, the Bush administration's plan to create a Gulf Opportunity Zone after Hurricane Katrina would offer tax relief and small-business loans to support a culture of entrepreneurship.
Note by the way the definition of "entrepreneurship" that now circulates on the Right -- someone who needs a government leg-up to get started.
Smith is clearly bringing one thing to the writing -- the requisite references to Edmund Burke:
Policy must also deliberately foster the growth of what Edmund Burke called "the little platoons" of civil society: families, neighborhood associations, private enterprises, charities and churches ... "The most important of all revolutions," Burke wrote, is "a revolution in sentiments, manners and moral opinions." Yet we believe that social-justice conservatism can produce societies that are more humane than anything liberalism could accomplish.
What Smith is not bringing is any memory of his contribution to the same WSJ pages a few months ago, where (see the sensible part of our linked post above) he was preaching the virtues of parliamentary restraint on the executive and avoidance of hot-headed TV-driven legislation -- the same weekend that Rick Santorum was at the vanugard of passing a law to deal specifically with the case of the already-dead Terri Schiavo.
And his impeccable sense of bad timing strikes again:
Compared to the U.S., most European economies are struggling with inflation, unemployment, low growth and a declining tax base; nearly all European societies are burdened with increased crime and family breakdown; and there is a draining away of hope and opportunity.
This, three weeks after the gaping social fissures of New Orleans, and on the day that America discovers that having a million people get into their SUVs and head north is not a good evacuation plan. One can only hope that there aren't any more embarrassments between now and "the first international conference of social-justice conservatives ... next week in Washington."
The purpose of the article is to market a supposed new movement of social justice conservatives, which seems to be just a recognition that Dubya's compassionate conservatism has collapsed under the weight of its own cynicism. From Smith's perspective, it should be called on-yer-bike conservatism, because that's all it is:
That means helping the poor discover the dignity of work, rather than making them wards of the state. It means locking up violent criminals, but offering nonviolent offenders lots of help to become responsible citizens. It endorses a policy of "zero tolerance" toward drug use and sexual trafficking, yet insists that those struggling with all manner of addictions can start their lives afresh.
In America, this vision emerged a decade ago with bold conservative initiatives aimed at empowering individuals and grassroots groups helping the nation's neediest ... Likewise, the Bush administration's plan to create a Gulf Opportunity Zone after Hurricane Katrina would offer tax relief and small-business loans to support a culture of entrepreneurship.
Note by the way the definition of "entrepreneurship" that now circulates on the Right -- someone who needs a government leg-up to get started.
Smith is clearly bringing one thing to the writing -- the requisite references to Edmund Burke:
Policy must also deliberately foster the growth of what Edmund Burke called "the little platoons" of civil society: families, neighborhood associations, private enterprises, charities and churches ... "The most important of all revolutions," Burke wrote, is "a revolution in sentiments, manners and moral opinions." Yet we believe that social-justice conservatism can produce societies that are more humane than anything liberalism could accomplish.
What Smith is not bringing is any memory of his contribution to the same WSJ pages a few months ago, where (see the sensible part of our linked post above) he was preaching the virtues of parliamentary restraint on the executive and avoidance of hot-headed TV-driven legislation -- the same weekend that Rick Santorum was at the vanugard of passing a law to deal specifically with the case of the already-dead Terri Schiavo.
And his impeccable sense of bad timing strikes again:
Compared to the U.S., most European economies are struggling with inflation, unemployment, low growth and a declining tax base; nearly all European societies are burdened with increased crime and family breakdown; and there is a draining away of hope and opportunity.
This, three weeks after the gaping social fissures of New Orleans, and on the day that America discovers that having a million people get into their SUVs and head north is not a good evacuation plan. One can only hope that there aren't any more embarrassments between now and "the first international conference of social-justice conservatives ... next week in Washington."
Back in the USSR
There's a not entirely insane Peggy Noonan column in Thursday's Wall Street Journal online, although with the baseline being her longstanding claim that God and the dolphins brought Cuban non-defector Elian Gonzalez to Florida, maybe our standards are too low for this contribution. It meanders over several different themes but at its core is Peggy's recent discovery, along with other conservatives, that George Bush is a Big Spender. Now such insight makes Peggy another nominee in the crowded field of candidates for the Claude Raines Gambling Awareness award, but she goes on at sufficient length to indicate that she's actually worried about it, and that it's not just a convenient bit of non-election year posturing.
Anyway, to what she says. First and foremost, she's upset at the trend towards implied criticism of her real hero, Ronald Reagan:
This week it was the e-mail of a high White House aide informing us that Ronald Reagan spent tons of money bailing out the banks in the savings-and-loan scandal. This was startling information to Reaganites who remembered it was a fellow named George H.W. Bush who did that. Last month it was the president who blandly seemed to suggest that Reagan cut and ran after the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon.
Now Bush and Cheney have been using that line about Reagan and the Marine barracks for years*, which certainly puts in a different light in the hysterical declarations of Powerline, Time Magazine's blog of the year, that:
In recent years, the Democrats have violated many of the tacit conventions of civility that have enabled our political system to work for more than two centuries.
Back to Peggy -- right after the above clip, there's a weird segue:
Before that, Mr. Mehlman was knocking previous generations of Republican leaders who just weren't as progressive as George W. Bush on race relations.
Wait a minute, who had previously said anything about Mr. Mehlman? The standard writing style would be mention Ken Mehlman and his position as chairman of the Republican National Committee, and then later refer to Mr Mehlman. So in her mind, Peggy had referred to him before -- perhaps in that e-mail from the unnamed White House aide that had slammed Reagan over the S&L crisis. This e-mail was widely cited, without sourcing, in the conservative blogs, but Peggy in effect names the source with that slip. Interesting to go back and see who gets their talking points from the Republican National Commitee.
Peggy opened her article with what we thought was her strongest point -- a description of the thought process of Republicans as they justify to themselves Dubya's spending spree:
In his Katrina policy the president is telling Democrats, "You can't possibly outspend me. Go ahead, try. By the time this is over Dennis Kucinich will be crying uncle, Bernie Sanders will be screaming about pork."
And once again, the ghost of the Gipper lurks, in the rationale that OK, we're going overboard, but in doing so we'll strain the other guys to the point of collapse. Because what is this but a replay of Reagan's defence build-up? Remember the original basis for this was a bunch of conservatives generating their own intelligence on Soviet weapons, declaring that it was much more extensive than the CIA thought, rationalising a huge response by the USA. Except that it eventually became clear that there were no such Soviet weapons, and a new rationale was needed for the previous action -- that the US would spend the USSR into oblivion.
[As a side note, one benefit of this experience was the White House would never again let itself be misled by politicised intelligence into taking radical military action that would later turn out to be unfounded]
Overall, the message is that the Reagan and Bush II legacies might not play quite so well together. Could it be that the Republicans new found interest in spending restraint allows for only one extra head on Mount Rushmore?
*UPDATE 4 OCT -- the Beirut line is alive and well despite Peggy's tirade; Dick Cheney in Camp Lejeune, NC, on 3 Oct:
In Beirut in 1983, terrorists killed 241 Americans -- and you're well aware of that attack because most of those men were Marines from Camp Lejeune, members of the First Battalion, Eighth Marine Regiment.
Following that attack, the United States forces were withdrawn from Beirut.
And again, on the 5th, in Washington: And they grew bolder in their belief that if they killed enough Americans, they could change American policy. In Beirut in 1983, terrorists killed 241 Americans. Following the attack, the United States forces were withdrawn from Beirut.
There's a not entirely insane Peggy Noonan column in Thursday's Wall Street Journal online, although with the baseline being her longstanding claim that God and the dolphins brought Cuban non-defector Elian Gonzalez to Florida, maybe our standards are too low for this contribution. It meanders over several different themes but at its core is Peggy's recent discovery, along with other conservatives, that George Bush is a Big Spender. Now such insight makes Peggy another nominee in the crowded field of candidates for the Claude Raines Gambling Awareness award, but she goes on at sufficient length to indicate that she's actually worried about it, and that it's not just a convenient bit of non-election year posturing.
Anyway, to what she says. First and foremost, she's upset at the trend towards implied criticism of her real hero, Ronald Reagan:
This week it was the e-mail of a high White House aide informing us that Ronald Reagan spent tons of money bailing out the banks in the savings-and-loan scandal. This was startling information to Reaganites who remembered it was a fellow named George H.W. Bush who did that. Last month it was the president who blandly seemed to suggest that Reagan cut and ran after the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon.
Now Bush and Cheney have been using that line about Reagan and the Marine barracks for years*, which certainly puts in a different light in the hysterical declarations of Powerline, Time Magazine's blog of the year, that:
In recent years, the Democrats have violated many of the tacit conventions of civility that have enabled our political system to work for more than two centuries.
Back to Peggy -- right after the above clip, there's a weird segue:
Before that, Mr. Mehlman was knocking previous generations of Republican leaders who just weren't as progressive as George W. Bush on race relations.
Wait a minute, who had previously said anything about Mr. Mehlman? The standard writing style would be mention Ken Mehlman and his position as chairman of the Republican National Committee, and then later refer to Mr Mehlman. So in her mind, Peggy had referred to him before -- perhaps in that e-mail from the unnamed White House aide that had slammed Reagan over the S&L crisis. This e-mail was widely cited, without sourcing, in the conservative blogs, but Peggy in effect names the source with that slip. Interesting to go back and see who gets their talking points from the Republican National Commitee.
Peggy opened her article with what we thought was her strongest point -- a description of the thought process of Republicans as they justify to themselves Dubya's spending spree:
In his Katrina policy the president is telling Democrats, "You can't possibly outspend me. Go ahead, try. By the time this is over Dennis Kucinich will be crying uncle, Bernie Sanders will be screaming about pork."
And once again, the ghost of the Gipper lurks, in the rationale that OK, we're going overboard, but in doing so we'll strain the other guys to the point of collapse. Because what is this but a replay of Reagan's defence build-up? Remember the original basis for this was a bunch of conservatives generating their own intelligence on Soviet weapons, declaring that it was much more extensive than the CIA thought, rationalising a huge response by the USA. Except that it eventually became clear that there were no such Soviet weapons, and a new rationale was needed for the previous action -- that the US would spend the USSR into oblivion.
[As a side note, one benefit of this experience was the White House would never again let itself be misled by politicised intelligence into taking radical military action that would later turn out to be unfounded]
Overall, the message is that the Reagan and Bush II legacies might not play quite so well together. Could it be that the Republicans new found interest in spending restraint allows for only one extra head on Mount Rushmore?
*UPDATE 4 OCT -- the Beirut line is alive and well despite Peggy's tirade; Dick Cheney in Camp Lejeune, NC, on 3 Oct:
In Beirut in 1983, terrorists killed 241 Americans -- and you're well aware of that attack because most of those men were Marines from Camp Lejeune, members of the First Battalion, Eighth Marine Regiment.
Following that attack, the United States forces were withdrawn from Beirut.
And again, on the 5th, in Washington: And they grew bolder in their belief that if they killed enough Americans, they could change American policy. In Beirut in 1983, terrorists killed 241 Americans. Following the attack, the United States forces were withdrawn from Beirut.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Read the whole thing, for God's sake
Unintentional insight today in the Washington Post online into how Howard "Mistah" Kurtz puts together his media notes column. Here's an excerpt discussing the strangely synchronized disenchantment of conservatives with George Bush:
Daniel Drezner , a disenchanted Bush supporter, cites some recent criticism of the prez by other conservatives and declares:
"Funny, these are the same guys who idolized him for the first five years of his presidency. What changed, all of a sudden? Certainly not Bush, he is still acting the same way he has his entire career.
"What's changed is that after five years of presidency, the elections are finally over. It is now safe to criticise Bush, because such criticism can't possibly matter any more - it can't affect his reelection chances.
... What we're seeing now isn't just too little, too late --- it's *intentionally* too little, too late. The criticism was intentionally postponed until it no longer mattered."
Here's the problem. Drezner never said that. It was said in an excellent contribution in the comment section to his post -- Drezner himself had taken the disenchantment at face value.
So how did Kurtz get it wrong? He cut and paste from the Washington Post's Blog of the Week Andrew Sullivan (.com) (not to be confused with Time Magazine's Blog of the Year, Powerline):
CONSERVATIVE BLOGS AND BUSH: A sea-change? Dan Drezner, who actually criticized this administration when it could have made a difference (yes, he even endorsed Kerry in frustration at the incompetence of it all), notices a change in right-wing blogs. Check out the comment section. Money quote there: [quote above appears]
Notice: Sully got it right -- but Kurtz just took a quick look at Sully's slot on the Washington Post op-ed homepage, and slotted it in. Now that's some quality journalism.
UPDATE: Dan notes Kurtz's error. Which remains uncorrected.
Unintentional insight today in the Washington Post online into how Howard "Mistah" Kurtz puts together his media notes column. Here's an excerpt discussing the strangely synchronized disenchantment of conservatives with George Bush:
Daniel Drezner , a disenchanted Bush supporter, cites some recent criticism of the prez by other conservatives and declares:
"Funny, these are the same guys who idolized him for the first five years of his presidency. What changed, all of a sudden? Certainly not Bush, he is still acting the same way he has his entire career.
"What's changed is that after five years of presidency, the elections are finally over. It is now safe to criticise Bush, because such criticism can't possibly matter any more - it can't affect his reelection chances.
... What we're seeing now isn't just too little, too late --- it's *intentionally* too little, too late. The criticism was intentionally postponed until it no longer mattered."
Here's the problem. Drezner never said that. It was said in an excellent contribution in the comment section to his post -- Drezner himself had taken the disenchantment at face value.
So how did Kurtz get it wrong? He cut and paste from the Washington Post's Blog of the Week Andrew Sullivan (.com) (not to be confused with Time Magazine's Blog of the Year, Powerline):
CONSERVATIVE BLOGS AND BUSH: A sea-change? Dan Drezner, who actually criticized this administration when it could have made a difference (yes, he even endorsed Kerry in frustration at the incompetence of it all), notices a change in right-wing blogs. Check out the comment section. Money quote there: [quote above appears]
Notice: Sully got it right -- but Kurtz just took a quick look at Sully's slot on the Washington Post op-ed homepage, and slotted it in. Now that's some quality journalism.
UPDATE: Dan notes Kurtz's error. Which remains uncorrected.
Dubya's Dodgers
Here's a new angle on Dubya's well-known habit of stuffing the plum diplomatic slots with cronies -- the crony who did a 15 month stint as Ambassador to the Republic of Ireland is in a dispute with the Internal Revenue Service over a huge tax shelter that he set up just before taking the Dublin job. Thursday's Irish Times (subs. maybe req'd) has the details:
President Bush's last Irish ambassador, Richard Egan, set up a $62 million illegal tax shelter as soon as he became ambassador, the [IRS] has said.
Following an investigation, the IRS claims that Mr Egan set up an "economic sham" whose principal use was to reduce his tax payments.
The IRS said that Mr Egan, the billionaire co-founder of Massachusetts' most valuable technology company, EMC Corp, used two companies to set up the scheme using a European-style options scheme as soon as he resigned as the head of EMC to become ambassador.
In typical noise machine fashion, Egan's stated rationale for the deal has nothing to do with the allegation of tax dodging. He says that it was done to provide management over the time that the sale of his shares in the tech company took place -- and it just so happened that the structure happened to contain huge tax benefits as well. Now on the timing question, he should have consulted US Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who sold a bunch of shares in the family company 2 weeks before the price crashed -- without needing a dodgy tax shelter to do it.
There is one issue left unclear from the Irish Times description of events -- whether the shelter sought to use Egan's non-resident status during his Ambassadorship. His brief 15 month stint, while justified in terms of his need to return to serve in Dubya's fund-raising machine back home, sounds suspiciously like a time interval that keeps one out of the country for the tax year. Not being accountants, we nevertheless suspect that that's a pretty good time to realise a capital gain. Could it be that Dubya sells Ambassadorships not just to his best fund-raisers, but to the ones who need them for tax planning purposes?
Here's a new angle on Dubya's well-known habit of stuffing the plum diplomatic slots with cronies -- the crony who did a 15 month stint as Ambassador to the Republic of Ireland is in a dispute with the Internal Revenue Service over a huge tax shelter that he set up just before taking the Dublin job. Thursday's Irish Times (subs. maybe req'd) has the details:
President Bush's last Irish ambassador, Richard Egan, set up a $62 million illegal tax shelter as soon as he became ambassador, the [IRS] has said.
Following an investigation, the IRS claims that Mr Egan set up an "economic sham" whose principal use was to reduce his tax payments.
The IRS said that Mr Egan, the billionaire co-founder of Massachusetts' most valuable technology company, EMC Corp, used two companies to set up the scheme using a European-style options scheme as soon as he resigned as the head of EMC to become ambassador.
In typical noise machine fashion, Egan's stated rationale for the deal has nothing to do with the allegation of tax dodging. He says that it was done to provide management over the time that the sale of his shares in the tech company took place -- and it just so happened that the structure happened to contain huge tax benefits as well. Now on the timing question, he should have consulted US Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who sold a bunch of shares in the family company 2 weeks before the price crashed -- without needing a dodgy tax shelter to do it.
There is one issue left unclear from the Irish Times description of events -- whether the shelter sought to use Egan's non-resident status during his Ambassadorship. His brief 15 month stint, while justified in terms of his need to return to serve in Dubya's fund-raising machine back home, sounds suspiciously like a time interval that keeps one out of the country for the tax year. Not being accountants, we nevertheless suspect that that's a pretty good time to realise a capital gain. Could it be that Dubya sells Ambassadorships not just to his best fund-raisers, but to the ones who need them for tax planning purposes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)