Monday, December 03, 2007
Pinko rag
It's a shame that the normally excellent Financial Times feels the need to give op-ed space to Karl Rove to bash Hillary Clinton, and the lack of editing is evident in such usages as "Hillarycare" -- a standard loony American right talking point that will be lost on many of the FT's international readers.
Losing with grace
REUTERS/Francesco Spotorno; caption
If Hugo Chavez had won his constitutional referendum by the same margin as which he lost it, the US would have accused him of rigging the result. So it's an extra special weasel moment for this statement from the State Department --
U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns ...told reporters in Singapore. "In a country that wants to be a democracy, the people spoke, and the people spoke for democracy and against unlimited power."
Didn't they just show that it already is a democracy?
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Note to Googlers
The new standard for Washington political journalism is that once a rumour is "out there", it's true if it's not denied or if it's denied it feeds the rumour. Then anyone interested in following up the Times (UK) airing of rumours about Condoleezza Rice and therefore curious about Condi's guests at the Kennedy Center Honors this evening --
The Honorable (Secretary) Condoleezza Rice, Ex Officio Trustee, The Kennedy Center, Secretary of State, Department of State
Ms. Lativa Ray-Alston (Guest)
Mr. Will Alston (Guest)
needs to know that Ms Ray-Alston's name is mis-spelled on the guest list. Her name is Lativia, which quickly leads to the information that she is Condi's cousin. Nothing to see here folks.
The Honorable (Secretary) Condoleezza Rice, Ex Officio Trustee, The Kennedy Center, Secretary of State, Department of State
Ms. Lativa Ray-Alston (Guest)
Mr. Will Alston (Guest)
needs to know that Ms Ray-Alston's name is mis-spelled on the guest list. Her name is Lativia, which quickly leads to the information that she is Condi's cousin. Nothing to see here folks.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
It's genetic all right
Above, Jacob Weisberg, Slate "editor" who allowed Will Saletan's IQ shite to appear in the crimson-hued rag, James Watson, who at least has the excuse of age for having awakened the IQ-race crowd from their slumber, and Charles Murray, who had made the previous run at the issue with The Bell Curve.
One wonders whether their flirtation with the idea of IQ as being determined by the race gene has any link to one aspect of their own appearance being clearly genetic -- that classic male pattern baldness.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Becoming the story
Dumped into the Friday afternoon cycle is this cryptic post on National Review Online from editor Kathryn Jean Lopez concerning material that appeared on their military blog, preposterously named "The Tank". The issue is that one of the bloggers on The Tank, W. Thomas Smith, was forced to acknowledge that his accounts of witnessing various Hezbollah activities were incomplete: giving the impression of being eye-witness accounts, but in fact cobbled together from eye-witness accounts, extrapolations, assumptions, and other unspecified sources' accounts of what they had seen.
This is the kind of "reporting" that has launched a thousand right-wing "outrages" when its subject matter is insufficiently good news from Iraq (e.g. Bilal Hussein). But even stranger than the quasi-apology is Smith's defence of his methods and actions in "reporting" on Hezbollah --
Speaking of wild, my detractors have claimed that my “public cowboying” — writing openly about carrying weapons, photographing Hezbollah facilities and stealing flags from Hezbollah strongholds — has endangered all reporters in Lebanon. They argue that Hezbollah fighters might assume, based on my reports, that any Western reporter could be armed and hostile to their interests.
Frankly, I'm not concerned with what Hezbollah assumes. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, funded, trained, and equipped by the Islamic (Iranian) Revolutionary Guard Corps. My responsibility is not to concern myself with how Hezbollah perceives me, nor do I feel any compulsion to court them. They are the enemy as far as I’m concerned. My responsibility is to deliver the facts to my readers, which I have always done and will always do.
Now, am I a “cowboy?” Perhaps I am bit of a cowboy. I did, after all, snag a Hezbollah flag while I was there. Was that Thomas the journalist snagging the flag? Hardly. That was Thomas the Marine. And that's part of who I am, which I suppose makes me part cowboy. But that’s something my detractors will just to have to live with, because that’s not going to change.
So he's in Lebanon, under the auspices of the National Review, and announcing not only he's there to report on Hezbollah as "the enemy" but seeking to directly provoke them. Smith lives in a state where if you shoot someone on your property who was stealing stuff, no one would bat an eyelid. So what will National Review's complaint be if Smith gets hurt in one of his future pranks against Hezbollah? What explanation will they offer to another reporter who gets hurt on the assumption of Hezbollah that he's another Smith character? And what is their liability if Smith, who apparently totes a gun in his trips around Beirut, hurts someone else? Someone has a blogger ethics problem.
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan noticed, although he's more focused on the New Republic payback angle (exhaustively documented by Glenn Greenwald) than the ongoing ethics problem. As Sullivan points out, Smith never links to his original disputed posts. They are here and here.
FINAL UPDATE: Via a later Sullivan post, someone on the ground who's had a problem with Smith's methods from the start.
ONE MORE THING: K-Lo finally follows up, on The Tank and not at The Corner, with what essentially amounts to "We apologize to those facts that took offense". It now seems that K-Lo only owned up in the first place because the people who were disputing Smith's reporting for 6 weeks could get nowhere with National Review directly and so took the story to Tom Edsall.
This is the kind of "reporting" that has launched a thousand right-wing "outrages" when its subject matter is insufficiently good news from Iraq (e.g. Bilal Hussein). But even stranger than the quasi-apology is Smith's defence of his methods and actions in "reporting" on Hezbollah --
Speaking of wild, my detractors have claimed that my “public cowboying” — writing openly about carrying weapons, photographing Hezbollah facilities and stealing flags from Hezbollah strongholds — has endangered all reporters in Lebanon. They argue that Hezbollah fighters might assume, based on my reports, that any Western reporter could be armed and hostile to their interests.
Frankly, I'm not concerned with what Hezbollah assumes. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, funded, trained, and equipped by the Islamic (Iranian) Revolutionary Guard Corps. My responsibility is not to concern myself with how Hezbollah perceives me, nor do I feel any compulsion to court them. They are the enemy as far as I’m concerned. My responsibility is to deliver the facts to my readers, which I have always done and will always do.
Now, am I a “cowboy?” Perhaps I am bit of a cowboy. I did, after all, snag a Hezbollah flag while I was there. Was that Thomas the journalist snagging the flag? Hardly. That was Thomas the Marine. And that's part of who I am, which I suppose makes me part cowboy. But that’s something my detractors will just to have to live with, because that’s not going to change.
So he's in Lebanon, under the auspices of the National Review, and announcing not only he's there to report on Hezbollah as "the enemy" but seeking to directly provoke them. Smith lives in a state where if you shoot someone on your property who was stealing stuff, no one would bat an eyelid. So what will National Review's complaint be if Smith gets hurt in one of his future pranks against Hezbollah? What explanation will they offer to another reporter who gets hurt on the assumption of Hezbollah that he's another Smith character? And what is their liability if Smith, who apparently totes a gun in his trips around Beirut, hurts someone else? Someone has a blogger ethics problem.
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan noticed, although he's more focused on the New Republic payback angle (exhaustively documented by Glenn Greenwald) than the ongoing ethics problem. As Sullivan points out, Smith never links to his original disputed posts. They are here and here.
FINAL UPDATE: Via a later Sullivan post, someone on the ground who's had a problem with Smith's methods from the start.
ONE MORE THING: K-Lo finally follows up, on The Tank and not at The Corner, with what essentially amounts to "We apologize to those facts that took offense". It now seems that K-Lo only owned up in the first place because the people who were disputing Smith's reporting for 6 weeks could get nowhere with National Review directly and so took the story to Tom Edsall.
Gordon loses Khartoum
This business about the teddy. A few weeks ago there was the Zoe's Ark affair next door in Chad. A French NGO developing a freelance adoption business in which children who are allegedly orphans from Darfur but may in fact have been from poor families in eastern Chad are shipped to France -- the NGO is probably breaking multiple laws in Chad and France and now they sit in jail awaiting trial. Regular protests outside the jail demanding justice and in principle one could see the point of the protestors since the activities of Zoe's Ark touch so many sore points in African history -- Europeans coming in and doing what they think is best, even if it includes moving people thousands of miles from their homes.
But there was something slightly fishy about the protests. They looked organized. There was always a well-dressed protestor available to speak fluent French to the assembled hacks. Meanwhile when the TV crews would head to one of the villages where the children came from, the attitude of the families who had been misled into providing children for the scheme was much more shrug of the shoulder and measured. And like most people in Chad, they didn't speak much French.
So now in Khartoum another protest. And protestors available with fluent English for the assembled hacks. If they can get that worked up about a teddy, maybe the Zoe's Ark thing is not such a big deal. Something that the French might keep in mind if they contemplated springing the NGO people out of jail and bringing them home. Especially since they are the ones that keep the government of Chad in power anyway.
Anyway, the point of this rambling post is a hypothesis: that the protests over whatever the latest outrage is aren't benighted villagers. It's the local elite.
But there was something slightly fishy about the protests. They looked organized. There was always a well-dressed protestor available to speak fluent French to the assembled hacks. Meanwhile when the TV crews would head to one of the villages where the children came from, the attitude of the families who had been misled into providing children for the scheme was much more shrug of the shoulder and measured. And like most people in Chad, they didn't speak much French.
So now in Khartoum another protest. And protestors available with fluent English for the assembled hacks. If they can get that worked up about a teddy, maybe the Zoe's Ark thing is not such a big deal. Something that the French might keep in mind if they contemplated springing the NGO people out of jail and bringing them home. Especially since they are the ones that keep the government of Chad in power anyway.
Anyway, the point of this rambling post is a hypothesis: that the protests over whatever the latest outrage is aren't benighted villagers. It's the local elite.
Why Gordon Brown is in trouble
American pollsters. From the Financial Times --
Mr Brown’s problems can be traced to the moment on the morning of October 5 when Stan Greenberg, Labour’s US polling consultant, flipped open his laptop and gave the prime minister his verdict on the likely outcome of an autumn poll. “He said the PM would win but that his majority could be as high as 40 or as low as 20,” says one of Mr Brown’s aides.
It has never been explained what comparative advantage American pollsters posess in understanding the quite different electoral dynamics of UK politics. Using them to determine the timing of election is especially bizarre, since this is a decision point that is irrelevant in the US, with its fixed terms.
Mr Brown’s problems can be traced to the moment on the morning of October 5 when Stan Greenberg, Labour’s US polling consultant, flipped open his laptop and gave the prime minister his verdict on the likely outcome of an autumn poll. “He said the PM would win but that his majority could be as high as 40 or as low as 20,” says one of Mr Brown’s aides.
It has never been explained what comparative advantage American pollsters posess in understanding the quite different electoral dynamics of UK politics. Using them to determine the timing of election is especially bizarre, since this is a decision point that is irrelevant in the US, with its fixed terms.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
War on Arteries
From the White House Christmas party menu --
Crispy Chicken-Fried Steak Fingers with Creamed Pan Drippings
Someone also needs to alert Bill O'Reilly, assuming he's attending, that if the fried food doesn't give him a heart attack, the description of the event as a "holiday reception" certainly will. Why does the White House hate Jesus?
Crispy Chicken-Fried Steak Fingers with Creamed Pan Drippings
Someone also needs to alert Bill O'Reilly, assuming he's attending, that if the fried food doesn't give him a heart attack, the description of the event as a "holiday reception" certainly will. Why does the White House hate Jesus?
Building behaving suspiciously
Some terminology from Multinational Force Iraq --
FORWARD OPERATING BASE KALSU, Iraq – A house-borne improvised explosive device was destroyed near Maderiyah on the afternoon of Nov. 25.
Soldiers from Battery B, 1st Battalion, 9th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division were conducting a foot patrol in the area when they found an abandoned house with copper wires extending out of a window.
The more usual VBIED (vehicle-borne) makes sense because after all the vehicle is carrying the bomb. But a house? Maybe the traditional term booby-trap doesn't sound scary enough.
FORWARD OPERATING BASE KALSU, Iraq – A house-borne improvised explosive device was destroyed near Maderiyah on the afternoon of Nov. 25.
Soldiers from Battery B, 1st Battalion, 9th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division were conducting a foot patrol in the area when they found an abandoned house with copper wires extending out of a window.
The more usual VBIED (vehicle-borne) makes sense because after all the vehicle is carrying the bomb. But a house? Maybe the traditional term booby-trap doesn't sound scary enough.
Remember the Beagle
An illustration of how the American right views everything through their culture war lens -- the National Review's John O'Sullivan citing the good points about new Australian Liberal Party leader Brendan Nelson --
He supports the teaching of intelligent design in schools if the parents want it
He supports the teaching of intelligent design in schools if the parents want it
Pining for the 90s
Slate's Mickey Kaus is wondering why it is that rumours about Hillary Clinton having a lesbian affair with a staffer are not circulating widely in the USA. Among the reasons one could offer is that the rumour is baseless, apparently based on the observation that one of Hillary's close-knit circle is, nudge nudge wink wink, a woman! Anyway, Kaus has constructed a perfect circle of undeniability so that the rumour is true no matter what Hillary says --
In the new Webby post-Lewinsky world [the rumour is] more likely to surface, which makes the subsequent denial all the more important. Contrary to popular belief, it's not impossible to issue a denial so convincing that even gossip-addicted bloggers drop a juicy rumor ... The trouble for Hillary is that when it comes to sex rumors she and her husband (unlike, say, John Edwards and his wife) have no credibility. They threw that away when the philandering charges they righteously denounced in 1992 and 1998 turned out to be basically true
Over a few sentences he has two links to the Times (UK) which itself only reported the existence of the rumour and didn't have a shred of evidence for it. But check out the logic: the rumour is out there, so if she doesn't deny it, it might be true, except that if she does deny it, no one will believe her.
But anyway, is the rumour really out there? What it lacks is the key ingredient of the Clinton scandal-peddling of the 1990s -- a direct link between a British hack willing to run with the story and right-wing outlets in the US sufficiently Clinton-obsessed to run regular stories beginning with the clause "London's Sunday Telegraph is reporting that ..." Because that was the 1990s trick: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at the Conrad Black-owned Telegraph would type up the latest shite, and then the American Spectator, Washington Times and Scaife-owned newspapers would get it into circulation in the US citing the Telegraph as their source.
But now that circle is gone. Evans-Pritchard is not on the US beat, it's a post-Black Telegraph, Clinton's impeachment burned more Republicans than Democrats (anyone remember Bob Livingston?), and even George Bush ran against the "politics of personal destruction". Add to that a sense that there's plenty of scope for return fire if we're airing speculative rumours (just go look at a few of the theories about the George W.-Condi-Laura nexus) and the Hillary gossip is likely to sit as a few neglected links at Slate.
UPDATE: Slate being owned by the Washington Post may explain why the Post is using the same tactic regarding "rumours" that Barack Obama is Muslim.
FINAL UPDATE: Maybe Kaus should link to this.
In the new Webby post-Lewinsky world [the rumour is] more likely to surface, which makes the subsequent denial all the more important. Contrary to popular belief, it's not impossible to issue a denial so convincing that even gossip-addicted bloggers drop a juicy rumor ... The trouble for Hillary is that when it comes to sex rumors she and her husband (unlike, say, John Edwards and his wife) have no credibility. They threw that away when the philandering charges they righteously denounced in 1992 and 1998 turned out to be basically true
Over a few sentences he has two links to the Times (UK) which itself only reported the existence of the rumour and didn't have a shred of evidence for it. But check out the logic: the rumour is out there, so if she doesn't deny it, it might be true, except that if she does deny it, no one will believe her.
But anyway, is the rumour really out there? What it lacks is the key ingredient of the Clinton scandal-peddling of the 1990s -- a direct link between a British hack willing to run with the story and right-wing outlets in the US sufficiently Clinton-obsessed to run regular stories beginning with the clause "London's Sunday Telegraph is reporting that ..." Because that was the 1990s trick: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at the Conrad Black-owned Telegraph would type up the latest shite, and then the American Spectator, Washington Times and Scaife-owned newspapers would get it into circulation in the US citing the Telegraph as their source.
But now that circle is gone. Evans-Pritchard is not on the US beat, it's a post-Black Telegraph, Clinton's impeachment burned more Republicans than Democrats (anyone remember Bob Livingston?), and even George Bush ran against the "politics of personal destruction". Add to that a sense that there's plenty of scope for return fire if we're airing speculative rumours (just go look at a few of the theories about the George W.-Condi-Laura nexus) and the Hillary gossip is likely to sit as a few neglected links at Slate.
UPDATE: Slate being owned by the Washington Post may explain why the Post is using the same tactic regarding "rumours" that Barack Obama is Muslim.
FINAL UPDATE: Maybe Kaus should link to this.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Let the scrubbing begin
The White House website is one of the few good things about the Bush administration. It has a very clean layout, easy to find things, and mostly accurate transcripts are posted extremely promptly.
But now. The news page used to have a very nice box on the left called "News by Date" with all the material organized by month since January 2001. So one could focus an open-ended search very quickly once you knew what period you were looking for. For example, finding out exactly what Bush's demands to Saddam were right before the invasion was just a scroll through the March 2003 pages. However, the links to months prior to 2006 have been removed from the current website. All the underlying material is still there and of course the search engine still works. But what's gone is the ability to do a chronological survey of Bush's statements and positions without some extra work.
One crude fix is to type the url http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/year/month/
[year as 4 digit number, month as 2 digit number]. There is some chance the policy is not intentional as sometimes the original full menu of months does display, so there may be a html/Javascript innocent explanation for what is going on.
This is as good a time as any to make our recommendation that the first order of web business of the Clinton or Obama presidency should be to leave all the current website material untouched, because referring back to Bush's positions and precedents is going to be an important part of keeping the press corps reminded of what they accepted in the Bush years.
But now. The news page used to have a very nice box on the left called "News by Date" with all the material organized by month since January 2001. So one could focus an open-ended search very quickly once you knew what period you were looking for. For example, finding out exactly what Bush's demands to Saddam were right before the invasion was just a scroll through the March 2003 pages. However, the links to months prior to 2006 have been removed from the current website. All the underlying material is still there and of course the search engine still works. But what's gone is the ability to do a chronological survey of Bush's statements and positions without some extra work.
One crude fix is to type the url http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/year/month/
[year as 4 digit number, month as 2 digit number]. There is some chance the policy is not intentional as sometimes the original full menu of months does display, so there may be a html/Javascript innocent explanation for what is going on.
This is as good a time as any to make our recommendation that the first order of web business of the Clinton or Obama presidency should be to leave all the current website material untouched, because referring back to Bush's positions and precedents is going to be an important part of keeping the press corps reminded of what they accepted in the Bush years.
One more Tony Blair loose end
Apparently the NatWest Three are taking a plea bargain, as soon as today in Houston. They had little choice. Read this Houston Chronicle report for a recap of how they were screwed by the UK government: testimony given voluntarily to a government agency, and leading to no action, passed on to the US government and then used as the basis of a criminal indictment which was then pursued by extradition under anti-terrorism legislation, with a trial in Houston where the mere mention of Enron is prejudicial, and trial preparations that were dragging on and on with little prospect of cooperation from UK witnesses that the three would need. So at this point, little option but to take a plea, hope for a short sentence, and get home. With Gordon Brown's run of luck, some aspect of the deal with likely rebound badly on him.
UPDATE: It's confirmed. A guilty plea on one count of wire fraud (e.g. the fact that some of the e-mails or faxes crossed American wires) and 37 months jail time -- with possibility of smaller time if they can serve it in the UK and benefit from UK parole rules.
FINAL UPDATE: Tim Worstall explains why the procedures seem a bit dodgy even with actual terrorist suspects, and Martin Wolf (FT) goes even further than we would in describing the dilemma facing the three as judicial torture.
UPDATE: It's confirmed. A guilty plea on one count of wire fraud (e.g. the fact that some of the e-mails or faxes crossed American wires) and 37 months jail time -- with possibility of smaller time if they can serve it in the UK and benefit from UK parole rules.
FINAL UPDATE: Tim Worstall explains why the procedures seem a bit dodgy even with actual terrorist suspects, and Martin Wolf (FT) goes even further than we would in describing the dilemma facing the three as judicial torture.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Local suppliers
The French rioters have guns. But are they Islamo-guns? --
Patrice Ribeiro of the Synergie police union said rioters this time included "genuine urban guerrillas," saying the use of firearms — hunting shotguns so far — had added a dangerous dimension.
France has a huge hunting lobby and shotguns are easier to obtain than the stylized image of European gun laws that holds sway in the US would suggest. No point in looking for complicated global jihadi networks when simple explanations are available.
Patrice Ribeiro of the Synergie police union said rioters this time included "genuine urban guerrillas," saying the use of firearms — hunting shotguns so far — had added a dangerous dimension.
France has a huge hunting lobby and shotguns are easier to obtain than the stylized image of European gun laws that holds sway in the US would suggest. No point in looking for complicated global jihadi networks when simple explanations are available.
Hamlet without the Prince
OK so we're a bit short of material so let's go to the last refuge of the blogger -- soccer. It's been announced that the football associations of the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland have agreed to play a "Celtic Cup" in a league format beginning in 2009. We should be thankful it's not called the Braveheart Cup. It doesn't take long to spell out why it's an atrocious idea. It's only being considered because all four teams, and England, failed to qualify for the European Championship next year in Austria-Switzerland, and the idea was apparently finalised over a few too many bottles of nice South African wine in Durban (since all the associations were there for the world cup qualifying draw).
Yet England, notwithstanding the tentative support of Gordon Brown for the idea, have wisely backed out of making it an Islands Cup. If you've all fallen short of international standards by failing to qualify for a benchmark tournament, you don't raise quality by playing each other. And most of all, the Celtic rivalries are not natural ones. The key feature of the similar tournament in rugby is that even when one of the teams is terrible, there's always the chance of beating the Sassanaigh -- who won't be in this one. With a bit of luck, there'll be one tournament in 2009 and then one or more of the teams will have qualified for the World Cup in 2010 and won't want to play it again. Note also that more serious ideas, such as merging the football associations in the north and the republic, are not being considered.
Yet England, notwithstanding the tentative support of Gordon Brown for the idea, have wisely backed out of making it an Islands Cup. If you've all fallen short of international standards by failing to qualify for a benchmark tournament, you don't raise quality by playing each other. And most of all, the Celtic rivalries are not natural ones. The key feature of the similar tournament in rugby is that even when one of the teams is terrible, there's always the chance of beating the Sassanaigh -- who won't be in this one. With a bit of luck, there'll be one tournament in 2009 and then one or more of the teams will have qualified for the World Cup in 2010 and won't want to play it again. Note also that more serious ideas, such as merging the football associations in the north and the republic, are not being considered.
Monday, November 26, 2007
She was in charge of foreseeing 9/11
From a New York Times article about Condi Rice's bid for a legacy with the Annapolis conference; it should be noted that the article is by NYT journalist Elisabeth Bumiller who will soon have a book to flog about Rice and is probably annoyed that Glenn Kessler already his similarly-themed book out and being reviewed --
Ms. Rice, who had heralded the [Palestinian] election as a symbol of the new stirrings of democracy in the Middle East, was so blindsided by the victory that she was startled when she saw a crawl of words on her television screen while exercising on her elliptical trainer the morning after the election: “In wake of Hamas victory, Palestinian cabinet resigns.”
“I thought, ‘Well, that’s not right,’” Ms. Rice recalled. When the crawl continued, she got off the elliptical trainer and called the State Department.
“I said, ‘What happened in the Palestinian elections?’” Ms. Rice recalled. “And they said, ‘Oh, Hamas won.’ And I thought, ‘Oh my goodness, Hamas won?’”
Thus, the policy making process in the leader of the free world.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Media barons speak
The House of Lords Communications Committee has just released minutes of meetings that they held in the US with media proprietors, editors, pundits, and blogger(s) in September. The main nuggets from the minutes are reflected in this BBC story but it's worth dwelling on a couple of points.
First, in the same discussion where Rupert Murdoch states frankly that he sets the editorial line of The Sun and the News of the World but is constrained from doing so with The Times, he makes the same distinction between the New York Post (where he does set the line) and the Wall Street Journal -- which at that point he had just about acquired. He's clearly chomping at the bit to take control of the Journal, but lest there be any doubt over the coming election season as to where a NY Post editorial came from, now we know.
He was also fairly lacerating about Sky News, although his proposed solution of making it more like Fox News is alarming --
He believed that Sky News would be more popular if it were more like the Fox News Channel. Then it would be “a proper alternative to the BBC”. One of the reasons that it is not a proper alternative to the BBC is that no broadcaster or journalist in the UK knows any different. Mr Murdoch stated that Sky News could become more like Fox without a change to the impartiality rules in the UK. For example Sky had not yet made the presentational progress that Fox News had.
The thing is -- he has a point. Particularly when one is stuck in a furrin hotel room with Sky News as one of the few TV options, the sparseness of its rolling news format becomes apparent. The tenth go-round of the latest Maddy/Margate-type story is no more enlightening than the first. But of course what Murdoch wants is these same stories -- all the better to keep the masses distracted -- but blended in with a steady stream of bloviators working from one political/cultural "outrage" to the next, with outrage being defined as something not in line with the Murdoch political agenda.
Speaking of Fox News, the committee also spoke to Roger Ailes. It was mostly the usual shite but there is his account of the 2000 presidential election --
Just before the 2000 presidential election they ran a story that they knew would damage George W Bush’s campaign. The Bush campaign even asked them to hold the story. They were the only news organisation to get hold of the story (which related to Bush having been caught driving under the influence of alcohol 16 years previously). Therefore they decided it was news worthy and ran it. Following their coverage Bush dropped by five points and Ailes believed that Fox News was probably responsible for the run off in Florida.
In such a close election, any one thing can be picked out as decisive. And this particular claim of Ailes has been around the block before. One thing is for sure: if George Bush was so ungrateful to Fox News for bringing him within a few hundred votes of losing in 2000, he has a strange way of showing it.
First, in the same discussion where Rupert Murdoch states frankly that he sets the editorial line of The Sun and the News of the World but is constrained from doing so with The Times, he makes the same distinction between the New York Post (where he does set the line) and the Wall Street Journal -- which at that point he had just about acquired. He's clearly chomping at the bit to take control of the Journal, but lest there be any doubt over the coming election season as to where a NY Post editorial came from, now we know.
He was also fairly lacerating about Sky News, although his proposed solution of making it more like Fox News is alarming --
He believed that Sky News would be more popular if it were more like the Fox News Channel. Then it would be “a proper alternative to the BBC”. One of the reasons that it is not a proper alternative to the BBC is that no broadcaster or journalist in the UK knows any different. Mr Murdoch stated that Sky News could become more like Fox without a change to the impartiality rules in the UK. For example Sky had not yet made the presentational progress that Fox News had.
The thing is -- he has a point. Particularly when one is stuck in a furrin hotel room with Sky News as one of the few TV options, the sparseness of its rolling news format becomes apparent. The tenth go-round of the latest Maddy/Margate-type story is no more enlightening than the first. But of course what Murdoch wants is these same stories -- all the better to keep the masses distracted -- but blended in with a steady stream of bloviators working from one political/cultural "outrage" to the next, with outrage being defined as something not in line with the Murdoch political agenda.
Speaking of Fox News, the committee also spoke to Roger Ailes. It was mostly the usual shite but there is his account of the 2000 presidential election --
Just before the 2000 presidential election they ran a story that they knew would damage George W Bush’s campaign. The Bush campaign even asked them to hold the story. They were the only news organisation to get hold of the story (which related to Bush having been caught driving under the influence of alcohol 16 years previously). Therefore they decided it was news worthy and ran it. Following their coverage Bush dropped by five points and Ailes believed that Fox News was probably responsible for the run off in Florida.
In such a close election, any one thing can be picked out as decisive. And this particular claim of Ailes has been around the block before. One thing is for sure: if George Bush was so ungrateful to Fox News for bringing him within a few hundred votes of losing in 2000, he has a strange way of showing it.
Why does the New York Times hate Thanksgiving?
And thus America? Was there a dinner table in the land where someone did not say "Did you see that New York Times article about how to carve a turkey?" Here it is. Its supposed virtue is that it recognises the fact it's difficult to carve a roast turkey in situ on the plate. But, in a concession to the soft bigotry of low expectations, it therefore recommends breaking off the key bits of the turkey and "carving" them into large steak style "slices".
It's accurately described as a "butcher's method" because indeed that's why a butcher is behind the raw meat and not the delicatessen counter -- he's not a slicer. So you end up with what one fellow diner described as resembling halibut steaks -- minus the flavour. More fundamental is the failure to recognise that turkey doesn't actually have that much that flavour, and thicker slices of it just means more bulk that needs to be accessorised. The traditional thin slices works because the fork can be loaded up with cranberry, spuds, and whatever other sauces the chef has cooked up.
If we take this method to its logical conclusion, then what's the point of smoked salmon slices, since they're also difficult to do? Coming soon, one speculates, the sushi bagel with cream cheese.
It's accurately described as a "butcher's method" because indeed that's why a butcher is behind the raw meat and not the delicatessen counter -- he's not a slicer. So you end up with what one fellow diner described as resembling halibut steaks -- minus the flavour. More fundamental is the failure to recognise that turkey doesn't actually have that much that flavour, and thicker slices of it just means more bulk that needs to be accessorised. The traditional thin slices works because the fork can be loaded up with cranberry, spuds, and whatever other sauces the chef has cooked up.
If we take this method to its logical conclusion, then what's the point of smoked salmon slices, since they're also difficult to do? Coming soon, one speculates, the sushi bagel with cream cheese.
Friday, November 23, 2007
An inconvenient, omitted truth
National Review neocon (but we repeat ourselves) Michael Rubin does a daily roundup of news from Iran. Here are the two most recent. You'd wade through a lot of links and never know that the favourite neocon bogeyman, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, was strongly attacked by an establishment newspaper, almost certainly with the approval of the Supreme Ayatollah. Because acknowledging that would mean that the whole narrative of the Iranian government as a unitary entity bent on regional and global destruction would become difficult to maintain.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
The lastest Thanksgiving bird -- Turduckin'
The latest good news from Iraq --
A series of mortars later struck the U.S.-protected Green Zone, Iraqi police said. The attack coincided with the celebration of Thanksgiving but there were no immediate reports of casualties in the heavily fortified area, which houses the U.S. Embassy, thousands of American troops and contractors, and Iraqi government headquarters.
About 10 blasts were heard in central Baghdad just before 5 p.m., and a huge plume of black smoke rose into the sky as the sun was setting. The U.S. government public address system in the Green Zone also warned people to "duck and cover" and to stay away from windows.
[original bird here]
A series of mortars later struck the U.S.-protected Green Zone, Iraqi police said. The attack coincided with the celebration of Thanksgiving but there were no immediate reports of casualties in the heavily fortified area, which houses the U.S. Embassy, thousands of American troops and contractors, and Iraqi government headquarters.
About 10 blasts were heard in central Baghdad just before 5 p.m., and a huge plume of black smoke rose into the sky as the sun was setting. The U.S. government public address system in the Green Zone also warned people to "duck and cover" and to stay away from windows.
[original bird here]
Finally some good news about immigrants
In the context of England's exit from the European Championship --
The British Retail Consortium (BRC) estimates that World Cup 2006 boosted coffers by about £1.25bn through extra sales of food and drink, and products such as flat-screen televisions, replica shirts and flags.
The BRC predicts that the boost from Euro 2008 will only be half as much as the World Cup because the home nations are not involved.
"There is a diverse range of nationalities in Britain, so there will still be people supporting countries involved," said Richard Dodd from the BRC.
i.e. the country now has so many people who are from other countries that there'll still be lots of interest in the tournament even with the national team not involved.
The British Retail Consortium (BRC) estimates that World Cup 2006 boosted coffers by about £1.25bn through extra sales of food and drink, and products such as flat-screen televisions, replica shirts and flags.
The BRC predicts that the boost from Euro 2008 will only be half as much as the World Cup because the home nations are not involved.
"There is a diverse range of nationalities in Britain, so there will still be people supporting countries involved," said Richard Dodd from the BRC.
i.e. the country now has so many people who are from other countries that there'll still be lots of interest in the tournament even with the national team not involved.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Pretend you didn't know that
There are various ways that contempt-of-court bars on media reporting can seem silly, but in the case of the weirdly truncated accounts of the life of Peter Tobin being given regarding the reasons for the house dig in Margate, it requires people forgetting why the name seems familiar, because up until March of this year, he had been subject of a high profile case in Glasgow. All of a sudden, that history can't be mentioned anymore.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Hillary Clinton's Irish fundraiser
It's in Ballsbridge tonight, €1,600 a head admission, with featured guest Bill Clinton. One point of curiosity attaches to the admission arrangements for non US-citizens, who are not eligible to make campaign contributions. Apparently this is being done through bundling or pairing with a US citizen -- presumably the latter works by finding a US citizen who has not exceeded a contribution limit, which we believe is $2000. One wonders if the US citizen gets to pocket the difference between the €1,600 and whatever number of dollars it's actually worth when remitted.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Deflection
In addressing the 25th anniversary gala for the Federalist Society, George Bush complained about the Senate's ability to filibuster his nominees to lifetime judge positions --
Unfortunately, the Senate has failed to act on many of my other nominees. At times it has imposed a new and extra-constitutional standard, where nominees who have the support of the majority of the Senate can be blocked by a minority of obstructionists.
The choice of words is therefore the same as the White House terminology for condemning General Musharraf's imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan --
MS. PERINO: I'm going to let her [Benazir Bhutto] have her own definition. What we -- we can only support, as the United States, constitutional measures, measures that are within the constitution. These extra-constitutional measures that President Musharraf has undertaken, starting late Friday night, are deeply disappointing and not something that we can support.
Thus in Bush's mind, there's no difference between suspending the constitution (Pakistan) and an independent branch of government defining its own rules of conduct in matters in which the US Constitution is silent. An additional twist is that Bush's complaints about activist judges in his partisan speech mirror exactly those of Musharraf in justifying his de facto coup.
Unfortunately, the Senate has failed to act on many of my other nominees. At times it has imposed a new and extra-constitutional standard, where nominees who have the support of the majority of the Senate can be blocked by a minority of obstructionists.
The choice of words is therefore the same as the White House terminology for condemning General Musharraf's imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan --
MS. PERINO: I'm going to let her [Benazir Bhutto] have her own definition. What we -- we can only support, as the United States, constitutional measures, measures that are within the constitution. These extra-constitutional measures that President Musharraf has undertaken, starting late Friday night, are deeply disappointing and not something that we can support.
Thus in Bush's mind, there's no difference between suspending the constitution (Pakistan) and an independent branch of government defining its own rules of conduct in matters in which the US Constitution is silent. An additional twist is that Bush's complaints about activist judges in his partisan speech mirror exactly those of Musharraf in justifying his de facto coup.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Accidental truth-telling
In the debate on National Review's The Corner about the latest boosterish study of trends in US income inequality --
[Kate O'Beirne]
Jonah - One of my favorite polling results helps to explain why class warriors meet with litttle success when they take aim at the "top 1%" to force them to pay their "fair share." A CNN/Time Magazine Fall 2000 poll asked respondents whether they were among the wealthiest 1% of Americans - "Yes," said 19 percent. God Bless us - we think we're way more successful than we are.
Thus people are opposed to taxation of the rich because they mistakenly believe that it will affect them -- a finding presented without a hint of irony. The deeper point is that the 1 percent have done an excellent job of convincing an additional 18 percent that they are all the same.
[Kate O'Beirne]
Jonah - One of my favorite polling results helps to explain why class warriors meet with litttle success when they take aim at the "top 1%" to force them to pay their "fair share." A CNN/Time Magazine Fall 2000 poll asked respondents whether they were among the wealthiest 1% of Americans - "Yes," said 19 percent. God Bless us - we think we're way more successful than we are.
Thus people are opposed to taxation of the rich because they mistakenly believe that it will affect them -- a finding presented without a hint of irony. The deeper point is that the 1 percent have done an excellent job of convincing an additional 18 percent that they are all the same.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Attention underpaid history professors
Or others in a similar situation. If you were at a graduate school in the USA between 1996 and 2005, and were over 25 in 1996 and have been filing US income tax returns every year, and made e.g. under $15,326 (in 2005 dollars) in one year in grad school and made $52,000 a year in 2005: you're being cited by the Wall Street Journal (subs req'd, alt. free link) as an example of upward income mobility in the USA, since you've jumped three quintiles in the income distribution.
The underlying source is a US Treasury Department study. The Journal also exults in evidence that there's a lot of volatility at the top end of the income distribution, with lots of people being super-rich in terms of income for one year only. That's a strange argument for them to make, since if being rich is just a matter of one lucky year, what's so wrong with taxing the rich more than everybody else?
The underlying source is a US Treasury Department study. The Journal also exults in evidence that there's a lot of volatility at the top end of the income distribution, with lots of people being super-rich in terms of income for one year only. That's a strange argument for them to make, since if being rich is just a matter of one lucky year, what's so wrong with taxing the rich more than everybody else?
Monday, November 12, 2007
Remarks of Lord Laird
Note: We reserve the right to pull or alter some material from the below. Here's a permanent link to the original unaltered material.1 The context is here.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity to discuss some actions that concern Northern Ireland. There can be no doubt that almost everything has changed in Northern Ireland over the past 15 years. Most of the change is for the betterment of the Province’s people and I applaud those who have contributed to bringing about the massive improvement. However, dark clouds still remain not too far from the centre of political life in Northern Ireland. Terrorism of all types has not gone away, even if it has been much reduced. Recent tragic events have brought home in true relief the problems that still remain.
One major difficulty is that the Army Council of the IRA is still intact and active. Many of the major units of that organisation are still in operation. Another difficulty is that the plot unveiled by a former Minister of Justice in the Republic, Mr Michael McDowell, is still ongoing. The plot—I referred to it two years ago in your Lordships’ House—is the takeover of the Irish Republic’s main establishment by placing in its ranks IRA supporters as sleepers or moles. Mr McDowell indicated that the republican movement has already placed people in the top positions of authority: the PM’s office, the police force, the army, major sections of the Government and the media.
Recently strange things have happened, such as the hard line taken by the Republic’s Government against Protestant schools and the ban by the Irish Rugby Football Union after almost 90 years on British symbols at appropriate Irish international rugby matches. All this runs contra to the new atmosphere we all want on the island. In the case of rugby I, along with many in Ulster, am sickened at the introduction of politics into sport. I plead with the IRFU officials to introduce a policy of total equality for all in their dealings with the supporters and players and, by so doing, to remove politics.
One of the most serious incidents has too many shades of the past for us all: the brutal murder of Paul Quinn. It resulted from a dispute between Paul and a son of Vincent Traynor, a local IRA chief. Paul Quinn and some other youths from the area were involved in activities that did not go down well with the senior republican leadership in South Armagh, especially as this new breed of republicans is defying the leadership. It is now quite clear that Vincent had oversold the case against Paul.
Several weeks ago Traynor asked the republican leadership, including Peter and Patrick Quinn from Bog Road—no relations—who run most of the illegal fuel laundering plants in South Armagh for the IRA, to have Quinn executed. After consultation with PJ Carragher and his son Michael, the well known murderous sniper, Thomas “Slab” Murphy, the Provisionals’ commander in the area, Sean Gerard Hughes, known as “the Surgeon”, and James McArdle, permission for the execution was given. Almost 20 republicans were present at the murder as executioners, lookouts, drivers and so on. The eight or nine who conducted the execution were dressed in boiler suits and wore surgical gloves. All were IRA or former IRA members. It took almost half an hour for Paul to die. Every major bone in his body was broken. During the execution he cried for mercy.
Following the murder and the outcry from all parts, a meeting took place in Cullyhanna on Friday 2 November. Although “Slab” Murphy did not attend, a trusted lieutenant was there to speak on his behalf. To quell local discontent, and under pressure from the top, “Slab” offered to put a large amount of cash into the Cullyhanna area in the hope that buying people off with blood money would stop a rift between republicans in South Armagh. The involvement of the republican leadership in South Armagh in the planning, commission and now cover-up of this murder means that it is directly implicated. “Slab” also ordered that no one in the community was to speak to the Garda or PSNI. He was taking full responsibility for the incident because his close associates were involved.
Having felt that they had to blame someone, on 9 November, Friday night past, six armed IRA men went to the home of Vincent Traynor and forced their way in, but Vincent was not there. For the past week Vincent Traynor has been guarded by the police quick reaction force based at Crossmaglen and Newtownhamilton PSNI barracks. Responding to the visit, the QRF was at his house in a matter of minutes, but the IRA gang had gone. Vincent Traynor is now considered to be number one on the IRA hit list because he talked the leadership in South Armagh into the situation that saw the brutal and savage murder of Paul Quinn.
The blame for the murder and the subsequent situation has to lie with the IRA. The IRA veterans of South Armagh want to bring into line the young republicans of the area who are openly defying the leadership. Given those activities, “Slab” Murphy should have his bail in the Republic revoked, as he is now involved in the intimidation of witnesses. At his next court appearance, he should be held in custody while papers for his extradition to Northern Ireland are prepared.
Extreme republicans close to the IRA Army Council are trying to suggest that Paul Quinn’s family is being manipulated to create anti-Sinn Fein propaganda. This is not so. I have been contacted by a number of people and groups from the area who would not normally consider me as a friend asking that the police remove and prosecute those involved, and get them off the streets.
To clarify the situation, if any charges as a result of this murder are brought before the Irish courts, I have not influenced a potential jury by my remarks. It must be remembered that any court without a jury would be a special court. Both Governments need to deal with this type of criminal activity. To brush it under the carpet, as seems to many to be taking place, is just a short-term solution. The island of Ireland will never be at peace until illegal activities are tackled in full and equality is in total operation.
1 The remarks began at 7.02pm during the debate on the Queen's Speech.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity to discuss some actions that concern Northern Ireland. There can be no doubt that almost everything has changed in Northern Ireland over the past 15 years. Most of the change is for the betterment of the Province’s people and I applaud those who have contributed to bringing about the massive improvement. However, dark clouds still remain not too far from the centre of political life in Northern Ireland. Terrorism of all types has not gone away, even if it has been much reduced. Recent tragic events have brought home in true relief the problems that still remain.
One major difficulty is that the Army Council of the IRA is still intact and active. Many of the major units of that organisation are still in operation. Another difficulty is that the plot unveiled by a former Minister of Justice in the Republic, Mr Michael McDowell, is still ongoing. The plot—I referred to it two years ago in your Lordships’ House—is the takeover of the Irish Republic’s main establishment by placing in its ranks IRA supporters as sleepers or moles. Mr McDowell indicated that the republican movement has already placed people in the top positions of authority: the PM’s office, the police force, the army, major sections of the Government and the media.
Recently strange things have happened, such as the hard line taken by the Republic’s Government against Protestant schools and the ban by the Irish Rugby Football Union after almost 90 years on British symbols at appropriate Irish international rugby matches. All this runs contra to the new atmosphere we all want on the island. In the case of rugby I, along with many in Ulster, am sickened at the introduction of politics into sport. I plead with the IRFU officials to introduce a policy of total equality for all in their dealings with the supporters and players and, by so doing, to remove politics.
One of the most serious incidents has too many shades of the past for us all: the brutal murder of Paul Quinn. It resulted from a dispute between Paul and a son of Vincent Traynor, a local IRA chief. Paul Quinn and some other youths from the area were involved in activities that did not go down well with the senior republican leadership in South Armagh, especially as this new breed of republicans is defying the leadership. It is now quite clear that Vincent had oversold the case against Paul.
Several weeks ago Traynor asked the republican leadership, including Peter and Patrick Quinn from Bog Road—no relations—who run most of the illegal fuel laundering plants in South Armagh for the IRA, to have Quinn executed. After consultation with PJ Carragher and his son Michael, the well known murderous sniper, Thomas “Slab” Murphy, the Provisionals’ commander in the area, Sean Gerard Hughes, known as “the Surgeon”, and James McArdle, permission for the execution was given. Almost 20 republicans were present at the murder as executioners, lookouts, drivers and so on. The eight or nine who conducted the execution were dressed in boiler suits and wore surgical gloves. All were IRA or former IRA members. It took almost half an hour for Paul to die. Every major bone in his body was broken. During the execution he cried for mercy.
Following the murder and the outcry from all parts, a meeting took place in Cullyhanna on Friday 2 November. Although “Slab” Murphy did not attend, a trusted lieutenant was there to speak on his behalf. To quell local discontent, and under pressure from the top, “Slab” offered to put a large amount of cash into the Cullyhanna area in the hope that buying people off with blood money would stop a rift between republicans in South Armagh. The involvement of the republican leadership in South Armagh in the planning, commission and now cover-up of this murder means that it is directly implicated. “Slab” also ordered that no one in the community was to speak to the Garda or PSNI. He was taking full responsibility for the incident because his close associates were involved.
Having felt that they had to blame someone, on 9 November, Friday night past, six armed IRA men went to the home of Vincent Traynor and forced their way in, but Vincent was not there. For the past week Vincent Traynor has been guarded by the police quick reaction force based at Crossmaglen and Newtownhamilton PSNI barracks. Responding to the visit, the QRF was at his house in a matter of minutes, but the IRA gang had gone. Vincent Traynor is now considered to be number one on the IRA hit list because he talked the leadership in South Armagh into the situation that saw the brutal and savage murder of Paul Quinn.
The blame for the murder and the subsequent situation has to lie with the IRA. The IRA veterans of South Armagh want to bring into line the young republicans of the area who are openly defying the leadership. Given those activities, “Slab” Murphy should have his bail in the Republic revoked, as he is now involved in the intimidation of witnesses. At his next court appearance, he should be held in custody while papers for his extradition to Northern Ireland are prepared.
Extreme republicans close to the IRA Army Council are trying to suggest that Paul Quinn’s family is being manipulated to create anti-Sinn Fein propaganda. This is not so. I have been contacted by a number of people and groups from the area who would not normally consider me as a friend asking that the police remove and prosecute those involved, and get them off the streets.
To clarify the situation, if any charges as a result of this murder are brought before the Irish courts, I have not influenced a potential jury by my remarks. It must be remembered that any court without a jury would be a special court. Both Governments need to deal with this type of criminal activity. To brush it under the carpet, as seems to many to be taking place, is just a short-term solution. The island of Ireland will never be at peace until illegal activities are tackled in full and equality is in total operation.
1 The remarks began at 7.02pm during the debate on the Queen's Speech.
Imbalance of power
One thing that the apparent success of the Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign highlights -- despite his character flaws -- is the bizarre view of Europe that is taken as read amongst Republican presidential candidates and thus their electoral base. This Crooked Timber post has a related theme, but consider also the opinion page of today's Wall Street Journal where Mark Helprin describes a Germany that many Germans would have difficulty recognising: one where the old strategic headache of a two-front war has returned, this time consisting of the old enemy Russia expanding from the east, and a new enemy, the global jihad including Iran, targeting Germany with nuclear weapons knowing that Germany has no way of responding --
But, more importantly, the variations in European attitudes and capabilities vis-Ã -vis responding to terrorism or nuclear blackmail are what make Germany such an attractive target. Unlike the U.S., France, and Britain, Germany is a major country with no independent expeditionary capability and no nuclear weapons, making it ideal for a terrorist nuclear strike or Iranian extortion if Iran is able to continue a very transparent nuclear policy to its logical conclusion. Though it is conceivable that after the shock of losing Washington or Chicago, the U.S. -- or Britain after Birmingham, France after Lyon -- would, even without an address certain, release a second strike, it is very unlikely that, even with an address certain, any nuclear power would launch in behalf of another nation, NATO ally or not, absent an explicit arrangement such as the dual-key structure during the Cold War.
Looking at Germany, then, Iran sees a country with nothing to counter the pressure of merely an implied nuclear threat. Jihadists see the lynchpin of Europe, easy of access and inadvertently hospitable to operations, that will hardly punish those who fall into its hands, and that can neither accomplish on its own a flexible expeditionary response against a hostile base or sponsor, nor reply to a nuclear strike in kind. Thus the German government should be especially nervous about cargos trucked overland from the east.
That's a representative sample. Germany is held hostage to the fact that Iran could nuke Berlin and no other country would respond. He proposes a massive expansion of NATO's mandate to become an explicitly anti-Russian alliance and formal adoption of a retaliatory nuclear strike war strategy by Germany. And in the shorter-term, George Bush's beloved missile interceptor system.
It's all doomsday fantasy stuff. But it gets taken seriously and represents an important dynamic in the election season. The only bit of good news is a sign that level-headed people at the Pentagon are losing patience with it.
But, more importantly, the variations in European attitudes and capabilities vis-Ã -vis responding to terrorism or nuclear blackmail are what make Germany such an attractive target. Unlike the U.S., France, and Britain, Germany is a major country with no independent expeditionary capability and no nuclear weapons, making it ideal for a terrorist nuclear strike or Iranian extortion if Iran is able to continue a very transparent nuclear policy to its logical conclusion. Though it is conceivable that after the shock of losing Washington or Chicago, the U.S. -- or Britain after Birmingham, France after Lyon -- would, even without an address certain, release a second strike, it is very unlikely that, even with an address certain, any nuclear power would launch in behalf of another nation, NATO ally or not, absent an explicit arrangement such as the dual-key structure during the Cold War.
Looking at Germany, then, Iran sees a country with nothing to counter the pressure of merely an implied nuclear threat. Jihadists see the lynchpin of Europe, easy of access and inadvertently hospitable to operations, that will hardly punish those who fall into its hands, and that can neither accomplish on its own a flexible expeditionary response against a hostile base or sponsor, nor reply to a nuclear strike in kind. Thus the German government should be especially nervous about cargos trucked overland from the east.
That's a representative sample. Germany is held hostage to the fact that Iran could nuke Berlin and no other country would respond. He proposes a massive expansion of NATO's mandate to become an explicitly anti-Russian alliance and formal adoption of a retaliatory nuclear strike war strategy by Germany. And in the shorter-term, George Bush's beloved missile interceptor system.
It's all doomsday fantasy stuff. But it gets taken seriously and represents an important dynamic in the election season. The only bit of good news is a sign that level-headed people at the Pentagon are losing patience with it.
One Musharraf tentacle
Here's one our posts from a few months ago about the mysterious case of Saud Memon. The Wall Street Journal has done some follow-up (subs. req'd) and seems to have established the following facts --
Memon was wanted in Pakistan in connection with the murder of Daniel Pearl and possible links to al Qaeda, including their alleged WMD program.
He fled to Mozambique and then to South Africa.
He was detained in South Africa, almost certainly by the CIA, and then transferred to an unknown detention facility, possibly in Afghanistan.
After the vaunted enhanced interrogation techniques got him to confess to an impressive range of crimes -- many already claimed by others -- he was transferred back to Pakistan, whose investigators then applied their own enhanced interrogation techniques.
Some combination of the two "we don't torture" experiences, his conditions of detention, or his own ill-health resulted in him catching multiple infectious diseases.
For some reason, possibly that he had become the subject of a "disappeared" court case in Pakistan, he was dumped out of custody outside his home, and died a few days later, though not before putting in an appearance at the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was looking into his case.
George Bush's friend President Musharraf in effect abolishes the Supreme Court, ensuring that Memon's case and others like it will disappear -- and removing the irony that the Pakistani legal system was doing more to help track him down than the system of his American jailors.
Memon was wanted in Pakistan in connection with the murder of Daniel Pearl and possible links to al Qaeda, including their alleged WMD program.
He fled to Mozambique and then to South Africa.
He was detained in South Africa, almost certainly by the CIA, and then transferred to an unknown detention facility, possibly in Afghanistan.
After the vaunted enhanced interrogation techniques got him to confess to an impressive range of crimes -- many already claimed by others -- he was transferred back to Pakistan, whose investigators then applied their own enhanced interrogation techniques.
Some combination of the two "we don't torture" experiences, his conditions of detention, or his own ill-health resulted in him catching multiple infectious diseases.
For some reason, possibly that he had become the subject of a "disappeared" court case in Pakistan, he was dumped out of custody outside his home, and died a few days later, though not before putting in an appearance at the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was looking into his case.
George Bush's friend President Musharraf in effect abolishes the Supreme Court, ensuring that Memon's case and others like it will disappear -- and removing the irony that the Pakistani legal system was doing more to help track him down than the system of his American jailors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)