I received a frantic voicemail from one of my dear friends yesterday, wondering if dirty little chipmunks had taken me away and had me for supper. I realized that I had a duty, to set the record straight for my compadres. That's right my beloved dumplings of the blogosphere, I am alive. I come to you, with my little Azerbaijanian head down, begging for you to take me home. I have been thinking about you my precious, a lot. I missed your laughs, your warmth, and the way your belly hairs curl when you smile. But alas, we are united again, and I come with some news. I'm pregnant...Is Nuraido on the floor? Ok, no I'm not pregnant, and no I'm not getting married, and no I'm not a pony in disguised (sorry Mathgimp). The big news is that I am officially free from the shackles that were my comprehensive exams. That ugly beast, that sucked the life out of me for the past month, is gone! You would have been proud, I poured my munchkin heart out for those cretins for 3 damn hours, and now I'm feeling like butta! Ok, onto politics. OOOH, sidenote, when did Politico become so popular? Every news channel turns to them as the source for all things USA. Anywho, Obama is speaking at UMD on Monday, the 11th, at 12:30pm, and the doors open at 10:30am. It's free and it's probably gonna be a madhouse, so if you're interested we could meet up early on campus and roll together, might be cool. Well my precious, I have to return to my coffee and Wheat Thins, but know that you are on my mind and I'm just a phone call away. PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST!
Friday, February 8, 2008
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Hilary Clinton's campaign = FEMA??
It's probably a problem that every time I read the US political news I throw up a little bit in my mouth. Deceitfulness is not confined to repugnant Republicans, sadly.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Stupid International Relations
I had a strange feeling on the way to work this morning. I was thinking about the Dalai Lama (there were some awesome Burmese monks on my train), and at first I couldn't identify the feeling in my stomach. Then I realized it was something akin to pride in my government - and, sort of, the president.
I'm actually proud of Bush for meeting with the Dalai Lama. It's what he should have done. He should say "fuck you" to China for condoning the slaughter of Burmese civilians and continuing to commit human rights atrocities against its own people, the people of Tawain, and the people of Tibet. China has no right to blackmail us for supporting human rights. Way to go, Bush.
Unfortunately, he's apparently willing to piss off China but not Turkey. While we're at it, fuck Turkey too. They committed genocide, a really long time ago. They should humbly accept the fact they murdered 1.5 million Aremenians, and refocus the conversation on their efforts to make sure it never happens again. Instead, they're recalling their diplomats, threatening to attack Iraq, and threatening to expell our military? All because we're calling you out on something you did nearly a century ago?
I was actually proud of our military for standing up to Turkey and saying "fine. We'll work around it." And then, one by one, the Congress started to disappoint me. Again. Turkey says "don't do that," and we say fine? Really? No wonder we're not a moral leader. Did we not think this was going to happen? Did we think Turkey would make a sad face and walk away? Once again, Congress reveals its cowardice. Here's a list. I'm especially ashamed of Hank Johnson, (D-GA). He's Buddist, and used to be awesome.
Monday, October 15, 2007
I wasn't going to blog today...
Cause I have a crazy list of things I need to get done, and I'm involved in 20 games of online scrabble. But those republicans make it impossible not to write!
Rhonda scooped me on the best news of the day: Fred "Lizard-Face, French-Kissin', Finger-Lickin Good" Thompson. Eeeeeewwwww. That's about all. Remember, Mathgimp's dad did not vote for Bush because he blinked too much. I imagine that most of the country will never kiss or lick a stamp again because of the recurring image of Law and Order guy's tongue. Enough is enough.
In other, profoundly weird news, check out this link. Reliable sources (like Wonkette) assure me it's not a joke. The Republicans actually thought it would be funny to mock the idea of giving kids health insurance with THE SIMPSONS. And incest jokes. Clearly party of good, clean, family values.
I rarely experience the "thank God I'm not alone!!!" feeling when reading newspaper articles. This article took me aback and filled me with a warm, gushy, glow. The countless times a day I reach into my purse cause my phone was ringing, only there's no one on the other end? It's not a longing for acceptance or communication, it's phantom vibration syndrome! Experienced by millions of cell phone, blackberry, and pager users all over the world! Naming my pain really is the first step to getting better. Hooray PVS!!!!
Finally, Stephen Colbert is hilarious. Much funnier than Maureen Dowd. He brings us the quote of the day, straight from the NYT op-ed page: [W]inning the Nobel Prize does not automatically qualify you to be commander in chief. I think George Bush has proved definitively that to be president, you don’t need to care about science, literature or peace.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Looking out for Mother Earth
Congratulations to Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for winning the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Gore commented, "We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity." I couldn't have said it better myself.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Breaking News!
Hey, we're not doing so hot with that Iraq War, but by God, you can chalk up that pesky War on Drugs as officially WON by the US of A. Take THAT, terror! God bless you, Ronald Reagan!!
Friday, September 28, 2007
Hedgehogs and idiots.
Happy Friday, HONers! We made it through another week, squirrels, fruit-sniffing dogs, and all. Today's a good internet day -- read all about it after the jump!
First, disgusting fuckhead of the day is profiled here. It's easy to name this attorney the worst man in America. What amazes me more though is that there are, apparently, forums for mothers to sell sex with their daughters. Absolutely awful.
In more sad news, a woman fabricates a complicated, amazing story about her escape from the WTC on 9/11, and then dedicates her life to helping survivors. I have complicated feelings about this story. Does it matter that she made it all up? She didn't earn money, and she helped a lot of people. Clearly this is pathological attention/gratification seeking behavior. It kind of seems like a merger of PTSD and Munchausen Syndrome. Very odd.
In odder, but perhaps happier news, did you guys know that babies are sometimes born with TAILS? I didn't. Learn something new. Thanks to Metafilter for fronting this amazing revelation.
Adorable pictures of the day are of confused British hedgehogs.
Bastards of the day --- this will shock you --- the devestating INS/IRS duo of doom. Aren't there terrorists to harass, instead of this poor dishwasher? Give him his money, let him go buy land on a mountain, and stop spending my tax dollars on prosecuting people who work harder than most legal American workers.
Friday, September 21, 2007
This and that
Dinosaurs are at the top of my agenda today, but I have a few misc thoughts/comments/observations to get us all through this beautiful Friday afternoon.
1. I love me a good protest. I went to the ANSWR protest last weekend, and left with a bad taste in my mouth. No one was particularly motivated or excited; it seemed like an exercise in adolescent rebellion. However, crazy props to the Myanmarian Monks and the Jena 6 crowd: they know how to throw a protest. [Check out the NYT photograph in the link - it's pretty awesome]. I also love the coverage both stories are getting (especially the Jena 6). I think (feel free to flame me) it's relatively in depth, balanced, and insightful. Both protests also show the connection that's possible between online activism and real world action. In short, hero of the day status is awarded to the kick ass monks and civil rights activists.
2. I've been pursuing polling numbers. What I find most interesting: In the ABC/WP poll, only 68% of Republicans describe themselves as "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" with the pool of Republican candidates, (they got Fred - what else could they possibly want?) compared with 78% of Democrats (other than getting Gore, I actually think we have all that we could possibly want. I like our field, and our campaign strategy, more and more). That's a pretty big number of Republican swing voters.
3. Still looking at the polls, I'm always struck by the "never heard of" option to favorability questions. Who are the 1% of Americans who have never heard of Hillary Clinton, but clearly have access to phones (or else they couldn't be polled)? I think it would be sort of cool to be that person, or at least watch how they live their lives for a day. In 2003, we had 217.8 million people age 18 and over - which I suppose means that over 2 million adults have never heard of Hillary. Completely fascinating.
4. Bought my plane ticket home! I'll be in Austin from Oct 5-Oct 9. Yay!!!! Get ready!
5. Registered for the GREs. November 3rd it is. After super-awesome-fun weekend, my life will spiral into "I have three jobs, I'm volunteering, I have to study for the GRES, apply to grad school, and I hate everything" mode. So be warned.
6. Finally, on a happy note, my future husband Keith Olbermann returned to Countdown last night in fine form. I thank all of you for your well wishes and concern during this time of tribulation. Everything's going to be alright.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Outrages of the day
Short summary, then rant below the jump: Mariya Fatima, a 10th grader from Jamaica, Queens, had a stroke at school (as an interesting aside, this is the neighborhood where my mom grew up, and Tommy and I were born). The principal had initiated a ban on 911 calls in an attempt to make the school appear safer. So, no one does anything, and help arrives 90 minutes later. Mariya now has trouble walking, can't use her right hand, and went from being a great student to reading on a 5th grade level.
Oh, and the military can't count to six. Which wouldn't matter, if we weren't talking about nuclear weapons.
I have taught on high school and college campuses for most of my adult(ish) life. I've seen any number of insane and mind boggling rules and regulations and bureaucratic bullshit. I have NEVER in my life heard of a ban on 911 calls for kids experiencing a medical emergency.
What teacher is so desperate to keep her job, or so inured by the protection bureaucracy provides, or so numbed from the violence she sees everyday, that she chooses to do nothing? It is a teacher's job, above all else, to protect the lives and health of children. When in conflict, you choose children's lives over memos and policies, even if it means official reprimands or losing your job. If you have a kid collapsed on the floor in front of you for NINETY MINUTES, you think "fuck this principal and his statistics," and you act to save her life. Every time.
Complete and utter insanity.
In other news, and I sincerely hope this man is wrong, we appear to have "lost" a nuclear warhead, and mainstream media continues to appear not to care.
I might be more willing to dismiss the post I just linked to as pure conspiracy, if not for the fact that the Military Times, who I can only presume is a) on the military's side and b) knows what they're talking about and c) wants to minimize any sort of story, rather than exacerbate it, hadn't originally reported that there were six nukes on board that plane. Check out the byline on this story published today - why is Michael Hoffman from The Military Times now saying 5 nukes? There are lots of blog posts floating around about this, and I'm no expert, but seriously --- where'd the other one go? Up until September 10, they were reporting 6. Even stranger chronology: apparently, The Military Times originally thought it was 5, then updated it to 6, and now it's back down to 5 again?
If we were talking about, say, the number of billions of dollars Halliburton embezzles per week in Iraq. Or whether the Rockets lost by 5 or 6 points in their last game. Or whether I had 5 or 6 hot dates in the next week. Any of those would be puzzling, but OK. But it matters to me, kind of a lot actually, if there is actually an unaccounted number of nuclear warheads that we lost and then found and then maybe lost again.
I read a few DOD briefings, just for fun. Interestingly, on Sept. 5 the press secretary for the Pentagon was asked about the "six nuclear warheads." In his answer, the press secretary refrained from using any numbers. After two questions, the issue was dropped. Probably for the best. It's not mentioned, that I can find, in any other briefings or press releases -- but rest assured, once we realized, four hours later, that the warheads were missing, someone woke up Robert Gates to let him know.
Can someone clear this up for me? What am I missing? Did 5 or 6 warheads originally leave North Dakota? If it was 6, and we still have 6, then not great but ok. But if 6 left, and 5 arrived, then where is the other one and why is no one asking questions?
OK. I feel like a conspiracy theorist, and need to stop googling "nuclear warheads" on a government computer before someone gets suspicious, so I'm going to go read poli-gossip blogs for a while.
Interesting stuff
Lots of neat stuff today!
As always, HON is inadvertently ahead of the curve; most of you remember our insightful review retrospective of The Graduate from a few weeks back. The movie turned 40 yesterday! Everyone's "revisiting" the movie... just make sure to tell 'em you read it here first. Between that and On the Road turning 50, stuff's getting pretty old.
Russia's doing all kinds of crazy stuff to simultaneously save and destroy civilization. First, we have Russia testing the biggest non-nuclear explosive device in the world: an "air fuel bomb."
But while test ranges are getting bombed, other Russians are gettin' it on in honor of "Conception Day," also known as "If you have sex you don't have to work" day or give-birth-to-a-patriot-win-a-prize-day. Can you imagine what a state-condoned day of sex would look like here? Oh, maybe like Mardi Gras. Never mind.
Moving around the globe to my people, the Irish are proving once again that they can take our life, but they can never take our Guinness. In a rare show of bipartisanship, Ireland and the UK throw down with the EU in a battle to keep the pint as a unit of delicious, delicious measurement(oh, and the mile...and the Troy ounce...and something about bananas). I say, right on.
And, sadly, Alex the talking parrot, who we infantilized and anthropomorphisized to put an adorable face on animal testing, is dead at 31. I do, admittedly, like the fact he would scold the other parrots into talking better. Intellectual bird elitism...my favorite.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Can you sue the president?
We're watching the West Wing. Mathgimp (who would be referred to as "I" if nuraido wasn't posting this) stopped the episode for the past 20 minutes so we can Google whether the following claim is accurate: "It is unlawful for a citizen to sue a sitting president." Please, for the love of the Constitution, can someone answer this question so that we can resume mindless tv watching?
Love
HON
ps: mathgimp's contention is that there is nothing in the constitution itself that directly precludes a civil suit against the president. If there exists a SC decision saying it's precluded, that's different, and I'm still right. hahahahaha.
pps: nuraido doesn't actually care, hates law school, and just wants to watch TV and go to bed. hahahahahhaha.
West Wing claimed it, not I, says the turtle.
Update: nuraido needs to explain to me (mathgimp) how GM food will extinct humans. A couple of notes: I think GM food is likely to be risky, particularly considering the farming system and lack of oversight in the US. Extinction is, however, a very strong word. Second, she wanted this reminder in this post, so I'm not being a jerk. Really.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
What can I say?
As burned out as I am on Iraq right now, Keith Olbermann, my future husband, still gets me all shivery when he gets all indignant and starts yelling at Bush. If you didn't see Olbermann's Special Comment on Countdown last night, you should watch it here.
He's brilliant, and he's right.
In case there's any doubt left that the surge is a terrible idea, you should read Hilary Hilzoy's post on Andrew Sullivan's blog here.
The analysis is smart and, as far as I can tell, goes unrefuted by anyone in the Bush administration.
Finally, there's this story in Salon today about Jamie Dean. Jamie was in the Army, came back from Afghanistan with PTSD, was receiving treatment for the disability through the VA and had applied for disability status, and was recalled. He went a little nuts, the Maryland cops lost their shit, and they shot and killed him. It's incredibly sad.
Moral of the story? Bush is a lying coward with purely political motivations for prolonging this conflict. On a strategic level, none of this is working, and more people will just continue to die as we make things worse. In the mean time, the troops that are injured in the unending war don't get the help they need, and inefficient bureaucracy means that they needlessly die. Awesome.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
You don't own me!
While politically savvy, I guess, it's really kind of stupid.
I mean the very concept precludes mundane interference, right?
And who honestly thinks - who also buys into the reincarnation thing in the first place - that the Chinese government is the appropriate arbiter for this sort of thing?
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Let's Organize a Bake Sale for Tony Snow!!
Poor Tony Snow, Bush's White House spokesman. He has to resign from the post because he's not making enough money. And how much is he making, you ask? After the jump, my friends. After the jump...
$168,000 a year.
That's right. This just wasn't enough for poor Tony. In a country where the median household income is $46,326 , Tony and his family couldn't survive off an income of over 3 1/2 times over this median.
So fare thee well, Tony Snow. The decision was probably for the best: what else is a rat going to do besides throw himself off a sinking ship? I hope you can drum up some cash. I'm sure Fox News will be glad to take you back.
Friends, I leave you with a few gems from Tony Snow himself:
"We think it's important that, in doing that, they try to limit as much as possible the so-called collateral damage, not only on civilians but also on human lives." –-White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, on Israel's conflict with Lebanon
"I need to get a more precise definition." --White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, asked to define civil rights after he said banning gay marriage was a civil rights issue.
"We didn't create the war in Iraq. We didn't create the war on terror."
Monday, August 13, 2007
Heroes of the day
Dr. Denis Mukwege, who treats rape victims in the Congo, and Eve Ensler, the author of the Vagina Monologues, who had the courage to talk to the survivors and experience some of the worst violence against women anywhere in the world.
This article is fantastic, and you should read every word. It took me about an hour to get through it - parts are so graphic I had to put it down to keep myself from shaking or crying, so you might want to wait until you're not at work to read it. But you should.
Stuff a'brewin part two: Politix
Nothing better than to start Monday mornings with reasons to throw a party. We're drinkin at my house on August 31.
I guess that happens every day anyway, but now we have a special reason - Rove's resignation. He's out, as the Wall Street Journal announced this morning. (You can hear Rupert Murdoch sighing with contentment and rubbing his hands together about that little scoop).
Yeah, Rove lost his relevance. Yeah, he's been on his way out. Yeah, he'll still be able to pull all of the same strings. Blah blah blah. It still makes me happy.
But it also puzzles me a little. Rove's been able to keep his nose clean for a little while now, with Cheney and Gonzo taking most of the blows for Rove's dirty deeds. Why the sudden departure? He's been scapegoating our dear VP and AG, not the other way around. Are they next? What's he hiding? And why the WSJ instead of a speech? Something interesting is actually happening. Go, bloggers! Figure out what it is!
As an aside, Rove's interview is brilliant satire of the resignation genre. I don't believe for a second that it's because Josh Bolton asked him nicely to go. And, really, Karl, how did you use the "it's for my family" line with a straight face?
Second item of interest is an update to this post I wrote a few weeks ago. Brief recap: Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon sing Bush's praises in the lead up to the Iraq war. And then, in early August, they write an editorial saying the war's going well. And the media freaks out and says "look!!!! Even critics of the war think it's going well!!!" And I think "who are these people??"
Glen Greenwald, one of my favorite bloggers, interviewed Michael O'Hanlon and asked him these very questions. The interview is good, but here are the highlights: O'Hanlon says "yeah, I was pretty much a staunch supporter, not a staunch critic, of that war thing." And he also says "yeah, all the people I met in Iraq, who told me things were going well, were handpicked by the DOD cause I thought I might die otherwise." Good times, good interview, good going Glen.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Snark on the web
Snark is every where these days, and although I love words, I love new words, and I love new uses for old words, there's something about the sound that snark makes, the way it gets stuck in the front of your nose as you say it, that rubs me the wrong way.
Besides, it seems as though the media has sought out upon a circle-jerk of snarkiness, and it is vaguely unsettling to me. So, in the immortal footsteps of Lewis Carroll, I went on a snark hunt of my own, trying to figure out what the hell the word means, and why people keep on using it.
A sensible place to begin any linguistic hunt is with the OED. They provide three definitions: as a noun, a snark is an imaginary animal (a la Lewis Carroll). Two uses as a verb: to snore or snort, or to nag or to find fault with.
The Urban Dictionary is more helpful in this case. They define snark as:
A witty mannerism, personality, or behavior that is a combination of sarcasm and cynicism. Usually accepted as a complimentary term. Snark is sometimes mistaken for a snotty or arrogant attitude.
This definition immediately brought to mind teenagers, and, as such, my youngest brother. I've heard plenty of his highbrow conversations with his emo indie friends that deftly fuse sarcasm and cynicism.. And besides, he's my reference for all things hip. I figured snark might be the new apathy. Ben, though, proved a false lead. He'd heard the word once at a debate tournament, written it off as terminally un-hip, and moved on.
So, I turned to the internet writ large: 109 google news hits contained the word snark. I eliminated those that were links to productions of Lewis Carroll plays, and began my exploration.
As it turns out, the press refers to themselves (and each other) as snarky A LOT. It's some sort of badge of honor. What originally piqued my interest was this article in Newsweek about John Edward's failure to attract media attention with his poverty tour. Hidden inside parentheses, Newsweek has a ready explanation for it: Edwards's poverty campaign echoes RFK's, but times have changed (and Edwards is no RFK).(He does have a snarkier press corps than RFK. Not only did reporters not criticize the size of Kennedy's Virginia mansion, they wrote fawning prose about the senator in the hopes of scoring an invitation.)
Interesting. Particularly because I would assume that the writer in question is part of this *snarky* press corps, right? I thought to myself "wow. What a different article this would be if they covered the poverty tour, instead of covering how no one covers the poverty tour."
Jamison Foser, my future husband, wrote an insightful article for the organization "Media Matters" that nailed the issue on the head (Since I've yet to hear back from Keith Olbermann and Johann Hari, Jamison can join the list of official marriage proposals. Keith and Johann are just playing hard to get.)Here's how Foser breaks it down, pretty simple really (but read the rest of the article -- it's great):America's political reporters don't like John Edwards, and have tried to destroy him.
In reference to the John Edwards haircut story that just won't die, Marc Ambinder from The Atlantic adds: "There is a difference in the political reality: fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards. Fairly or unfairly, there's also a difference in narrative timing: when the first quarter ended, the press was trying to bury Edwards."
Wow. OK. Got it. The "snarky" press corps are actually actively fucking John Edwards out of a legitimate shot at the presidency. They've waged war. Awesome.
But I digress. Let's track some snarkiness on the internet. Who are the snarkiest of the snarkists? (Snarkist is my word -- you heard it here first).
So the word gets bandied around in articles, but also becomes an entire subgenre: the snark. You have The Snark-Free Corner (just good ol’ fashioned criticism) at Comic Book Resources, sworn enemy (only in my head) of The “Snark Attack,” and entire column of the Seattle Post Intelligencer where opinion columnists get to air their…snarky(?) views of the week. Here's a good one: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales seemed anxious to get away from congressional testimony and return to restoring the tarnished image of justice. The highly impeachable AG needs mentoring from O.J. Simpson on the patience and perseverance required for a mission where people wonder why the culprit is posing as the rescuer.
Even if they don't go so far as the SPI, apparently most publications have their resident snarkists. Leading the ranks is Michael Kinsley, who is "Dean of the Snark School of Journalism." Slate columnist Anne Applebaum points to NYT's Maureen Dowd as dealing in some trademark snark. Not to be outdone, apparently Dana Milbank at the Washington Post "supplies the paper's daily dose of snark with a page-two news column" (according to the UK's "The Guardian".) Female bloggers at the Yearly Kos promise to bring "the wine, cheese and, of course, the snark" to their round table discussion. Although he's not a journalist, Simon Cowell at least bears a mention for his label, The Sultan of Snark.
Right wing bloggers don't seem quite so in love with the snark, which makes me think the term is a leftist phenomenon (and hence, probably a communist plot). They accused The New Republic of "offering snark instead of substantive answers" in regard to the recent controversy over “Baghdad Diarist.” Additionally, although it makes me twitch to even provide this link, Michelle Malkin condemns Joe Biden's "snark and smarm" in response to the idiotic question he got during the Youtube debate from the right wing gun nut.
The Brits are, in typically snarky Brit fashion, trying to defend their elevated sense of rhetorical flourish. The Guardian calls American journalists out big time here: You didn't invent snark, we had snottiness a long time ago. Except we won't do it in terms of a shtick of populism against a decadent elite, but apply the format to a besieged culturalist sensibility that appeals to our audience. Instead of a call to crash the gates, sound the alarm of barbarians at the gates.
(I have no real idea what that last sentence means) But ouch. Despite the British scorn, the word at least offers some playful literary endeavors. Here are some of my favorites:
This is probably my favorite snark-related sentence: “Behind the snark lies a genuine shiver of revulsion towards the complacency and sun-baked decadence of the Reagan ‘80s." We also have “snark-slinging hipster with an ax to grind.” ; “I can feel a snark itching to hit the keyboard.” ; “a snark bomb”; top-shelf snark; to snark on them. ; And, as a verb, I can't think of a good way to snark this.
PS: Even scientists love the snark. Apparently, there's a link between snarks and minors and contractions (probably doesn't mean folks under the age of 18, but I can't be sure). There are complicated charts and equations and science mumbo-jumbo that perhaps mathgimp can interpret. It contains the following sentence:
And there ya have it. A meandering journey through the minefield of internet-related snarks. I don't have any snarky, off hand comments to end this post with. I generally just write about things that interest me without really having much of a point, so if you've read this far for some sort of deductive brilliance at the end, you've just been snarked.
Short media memory
The media has been in a tizzy since Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon, two CRAZY LIBERAL SOCIALIST THINK TANK HIPPIES Brookings Institution scholars published an interim report saying that the increased troop presence was working in Iraq. OMG, the media says, if Pollack and O'Hanlon, who have been "highly critical of the war," say it's working, the left is in trouble!
Ken Pollack was a leading liberal hawk leading up to the invasion. He made his case in the enormously popular bookThe Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. He was on every Sunday morning talk show ever hyping the invasion.
Yes, since then he has decided the war went badly, but his criticism has been of the strategy and tactics of the invasion, not of the ideological justifications for going in. And he, like everyone else, has a vested interest in being vindicated by history. In this case, Pollack isn't a flip-flopper. Even though I categorically disagreed with him in 2003, and I categorically disagree with him today, he's been remarkably consistent on Iraq throughout his career. He wanted Saddam gone. He advocated a specific invasion strategy. He criticized the administration for botching the job. Now, he's hopeful something good can come out of it.
Folks on the left thought it was stupid, dangerous, and a tragic misalignment of priorities to invade. We thought that what happened in the wake of the invasion was predicable and tantamount to crimes against humanity. We now believe it is highly unlikely that US troop presence will do anything more than prolong the sectionalism, destruction of infrastructure, and incite more ethnic cleansing to throughout the region.
Pollack is a smart man, and a scholar worthy of respect. But his report is not indicative of folks on the left switching teams.
I don't know much about O'Hanlon, but I'm sure he's fine too.
Enjoy your Monday!
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Please don't nuke Mecca
Now, I know a few Republicans read the blog. And I love you despite your...misguided political beliefs. And you can stay because we need all the readers we can get. HOWEVER. Your people are crazy. Absolutely crazy.
On the far left, we have Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. If one of them were to become president, we'd pull out of Iraq, send cookies and milk to the insurgents, and all smoke a lot of pot. Oh and of course, throw boulders into lakes. I won't lie. I kind of like both of them, but that's not the point of the post.
On the far right we have...Tom Tancredo. Who thinks we should nuke Mecca. "If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina," the GOP presidential candidate said. "That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent or you will find an attack. There is no other way around it. There have to be negative consequences for the actions they take. That's the most negative I can think of."
Osama should really put him on the Al Qaeda media relations payroll...having presidential candidates threaten to *nuke Mecca* is exactly the fodder they want for their insurgent recruiting commercials and videos.
Completely insane. All of them.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
NOT as interesting as dolphins at Sea World
I PROMISE no more dorky posts for today. Happy Youtube/CNN debate! Here was my predicting for talk-time:
Obama
Clinton: -:40
Edwards: -1:15
Richardson: -1:45
Dodd:-1:15
Biden: -:30
Kucinich: -2:30
Gravel: -1:00
Basically, based on media coverage, I percieve Clinton and Obama to be statistically tied, with Clinton being a more concise speaker than Obama. I think the media's willing to let Edwards play at the very bottom of the 1st tier - so give him 2 minutes less speaking time than Obama, and call it a day. Despite poll numbers, I don't think the media portrays Richardson as a serious candidate. He seems to be on his own playing field, cause he's out-fundrasing and out-polling Dodd and Biden, but not given the same cred as Edwards. I think of Dodd and Biden as the same person (not as Senators, but in the presidential race), so I can't for the life of me figure out how Dodd got that much more talking time, especially because Anderson Cooper kept yelling at Biden and telling him he was overtime. So it seems as though may be elevating Dodd and demoting Biden, or perhaps promoting Kucinich.
I got the order right, but the amount of time horribly wrong. With my fuzzy math, and rounded seconds, here's how it actually happened:
Obama: 15:11
Clinton: -2:40
Edwards: -1:55
Richardson: -1:15
Dodd:-0:45
Biden: -1:30
Kucinich: -1:00
Gravel: -2:00
11 minutes and 1 second between Gravel and Obama - pretty remarkable.
I thought Clinton, once again, rocked the stage, but for some reason got almost 3 minutes less than Obama - the most significant difference between candi candidates (The next-biggest gap is at the bottom - Kucinich received only 1 minute less than Biden, but Gravel got 2 minutes less than Kucinich). Poor Gravel. I don't even know what to say. He spent over half his time screamin about how he wasn't allowed to talk.
Edwards is closer to Clinton than she is to Obama - about 2 minutes less talking time. Seriously, he needs a foreign policy coach. He's straight up mimicing what Clinton says, and looks relieved that she got to go first. He's got pretty eyes, and I think he's transformative and inspiring on domestic issues... but the man needs to read some back issues of Foreign Affairs. I don't know if an Edwards/Richardson ticket would win, but Richardson as a strong, foreign policy VP to Edwards would be kind of fascinating.
Richardson is a funny, smart, personable guy. Bryan's working on his campagin and has some kind of hero crush on him, I actually like his campaign commercials, but he comes across as two steps from dead up there. He's not articulate, and doesn't break through the party line. I don't think he explained well what the fundamental difference between himself and the Senators on Iraq actually is, and it looked like Biden womped him on the facts - and then he subsequently offered Biden the position of Secretary of State.
This was Kucinich's strongest debate by far. He was able to articulate his positions without sounding whiny and totally left wing.
I hate Anderson Cooper.
That's my debate analysis.