Geraldine Ferraro's Op-Ed in this morning's New York Times is really just specious and awful.
She's essentially arguing that the election should be left to the Superdelegates, since they're the only ones with enough common sense to know the difference between Shinola and that other thing.
One more reason to vote for Ralph Nader.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Obama Bashing?
A friend of mine wrote me this morning to tell me his sister read Robert J. Samuelson's op-ed in the Washington Post this morning, and that it "crystallized" her hesitation to support Barack Obama.
The Post is a fine paper, and Samuelson's as bright as they come, but with all due respect to both institutions of American journalism -- as well as any individual's right to vote for whomever -- Samuelson is wrong. (It's also not exactly "objective journalism" to be writing such columns, dressed up as OpEd's, but there's always more to write about, isn't there?)
Without taking a stance on Obama one way or the other, it's American politics that's at stake in this next election, and it's been increasingly taken away from the American people since someone realized that what the Nixon-Kennedy debates really represented were advertising dollars, and the media got on board besides (besides the aforementioned instance, see Network for as good an example as any). And so here is my response to him:
It's seems as if there's nothing "radical" about ANY of this years candidates. Maybe Ron Paul, who's not on the table.
So what if Obama's platform is similar to Hilary's?! (Oh yeah, except she voted for the war, and hasn't apologized.)
The politicians have fooled us all for so long that we'd indeed be foolish not to be more cynical. Any candidate that's going to be nominated is only so free to say what s/he really thinks. If America really wanted a progressive platform, John Edwards would still be in the hunt, and Bush wouldn't have been re-elected in 2004.
Obama will like do much the same as Hilary once he gets into office; he's not likely to be "bad" for America. How much experience did George Washington have before becoming president? (Ok, not much of an argument, but still.)
Besides that, what this country needs is inspiration!
Look at JFK: If he'd been an older guy with dyed hair and a plain wife who lived through two terms we'd probably be comparing him to Nixon. Not much more experience than Obama when he was elected; rich, entitled, anti-semitic family; friend to Joseph McCarthy; Bay of Pigs; Cuban Missile crisis; got us in to Vietnam; not really that much of a stellar record; perhaps didn't even write his most famous, Pulitzer Prize-winning book - but people still have his picture on the wall 45 years later because he brought hope to America. (No, that's not Kennedy bashing.)
If GWB can bring the national mood down, what's wrong with qualifying a candidate that can bring the mood up? What's true of Obama that wasn't true of Bill Clinton in '92? (Ok, Bill was a two-term governor, but still.)
Two more points: 1) There are a lot of Clinton haters out there -- even on the Left -- and Hillary might not beat McCain; and 2) If there's one thing that's been true of journalism since Henry Blodgett, if not before, it's that some pundit always wants to be the one that says he was the first to say boo -- and it's certainly no skin off his nose to do so. For instance: David Brooks wrote the exact same column yesterday.
The Post is a fine paper, and Samuelson's as bright as they come, but with all due respect to both institutions of American journalism -- as well as any individual's right to vote for whomever -- Samuelson is wrong. (It's also not exactly "objective journalism" to be writing such columns, dressed up as OpEd's, but there's always more to write about, isn't there?)
Without taking a stance on Obama one way or the other, it's American politics that's at stake in this next election, and it's been increasingly taken away from the American people since someone realized that what the Nixon-Kennedy debates really represented were advertising dollars, and the media got on board besides (besides the aforementioned instance, see Network for as good an example as any). And so here is my response to him:
It's seems as if there's nothing "radical" about ANY of this years candidates. Maybe Ron Paul, who's not on the table.
So what if Obama's platform is similar to Hilary's?! (Oh yeah, except she voted for the war, and hasn't apologized.)
The politicians have fooled us all for so long that we'd indeed be foolish not to be more cynical. Any candidate that's going to be nominated is only so free to say what s/he really thinks. If America really wanted a progressive platform, John Edwards would still be in the hunt, and Bush wouldn't have been re-elected in 2004.
Obama will like do much the same as Hilary once he gets into office; he's not likely to be "bad" for America. How much experience did George Washington have before becoming president? (Ok, not much of an argument, but still.)
Besides that, what this country needs is inspiration!
Look at JFK: If he'd been an older guy with dyed hair and a plain wife who lived through two terms we'd probably be comparing him to Nixon. Not much more experience than Obama when he was elected; rich, entitled, anti-semitic family; friend to Joseph McCarthy; Bay of Pigs; Cuban Missile crisis; got us in to Vietnam; not really that much of a stellar record; perhaps didn't even write his most famous, Pulitzer Prize-winning book - but people still have his picture on the wall 45 years later because he brought hope to America. (No, that's not Kennedy bashing.)
If GWB can bring the national mood down, what's wrong with qualifying a candidate that can bring the mood up? What's true of Obama that wasn't true of Bill Clinton in '92? (Ok, Bill was a two-term governor, but still.)
Two more points: 1) There are a lot of Clinton haters out there -- even on the Left -- and Hillary might not beat McCain; and 2) If there's one thing that's been true of journalism since Henry Blodgett, if not before, it's that some pundit always wants to be the one that says he was the first to say boo -- and it's certainly no skin off his nose to do so. For instance: David Brooks wrote the exact same column yesterday.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
Schumpeter
More Galbraith, who it seems I'm reading forever and ever. (What can I say, in these extended moments of free time, StumbleUpon holds as much sway as anything else.)
In Chapter IV of The Affluent Society, titled "The Uncertain Reassurance," following a discussion of the tendency of governments to equivocate in times of economic uncertainty ("recession," etc.), he cites Joseph Schumpeter writing about the business cycle and depression:
"In all cases...recovery came of itself...But this is not all: our analysis leads us to believe that recovery is sound only if it does come of itself. For any revival which is merely due to artificial stimulus leaves part of the work of depressions undone and adds, to an undigested remnant of maladjustment, new maladjustments of its own."
Ok, I'm certainly no economist, and that was written almost 75 years ago and before the post 1929-depression economic stimuli (including WW II) had fully taken effect, but still, I can't help but think it's relevant in present times. Especially since many have suggested, a la Minsky, that it just might be the financial sector that needs the biggest "correction."
In Chapter IV of The Affluent Society, titled "The Uncertain Reassurance," following a discussion of the tendency of governments to equivocate in times of economic uncertainty ("recession," etc.), he cites Joseph Schumpeter writing about the business cycle and depression:
"In all cases...recovery came of itself...But this is not all: our analysis leads us to believe that recovery is sound only if it does come of itself. For any revival which is merely due to artificial stimulus leaves part of the work of depressions undone and adds, to an undigested remnant of maladjustment, new maladjustments of its own."
Ok, I'm certainly no economist, and that was written almost 75 years ago and before the post 1929-depression economic stimuli (including WW II) had fully taken effect, but still, I can't help but think it's relevant in present times. Especially since many have suggested, a la Minsky, that it just might be the financial sector that needs the biggest "correction."
Friday, February 15, 2008
Software is too Important to be Left to Programmers
Every programmer, as well as any art director, creative director, or project manager that works with digital media should read this interview with Sidney Dijkstra.
I'm amazed at how, throughout my short and frustrating career in digital media, how many people still don't get this. In every case, it turns out to be one of two things (or both): A cult of personality forms around the leader of a programming team with a (perhaps well deserved) bunker mentality, or leadership that doesn't understand jack-a-doody about digital media.
This seems to especially be the case when people are promoted to head up digital media projects based on seniority and not expertise. It's a huge gap between what you know and don't know about these initiatives, but somehow if you can run a photography department or wrote a book on dog breeding then that's seen as pretty much the same thing. Is it because everyone knows how to check e-mail?
Books on this very subject have been written for years! So why is the creation of the business case left to the marketers -- many of whom have a "don't know, don't want to know" mentality about what's possible and what the technology issues are -- where it then gets built into an impossible project smothered in buzzwords and good intentions. Then the programming team gets a hold of it, rolls its eyes, makes a few "suggestions," but now the deadline is slipping so we're off to the races with no real plan in place, and the project sucks and everyone hates it.
It's truly amazing that it continues to happen, and that I'm surprised every time. Maybe I should take the positive approach and write a book about it.
I'm amazed at how, throughout my short and frustrating career in digital media, how many people still don't get this. In every case, it turns out to be one of two things (or both): A cult of personality forms around the leader of a programming team with a (perhaps well deserved) bunker mentality, or leadership that doesn't understand jack-a-doody about digital media.
This seems to especially be the case when people are promoted to head up digital media projects based on seniority and not expertise. It's a huge gap between what you know and don't know about these initiatives, but somehow if you can run a photography department or wrote a book on dog breeding then that's seen as pretty much the same thing. Is it because everyone knows how to check e-mail?
Books on this very subject have been written for years! So why is the creation of the business case left to the marketers -- many of whom have a "don't know, don't want to know" mentality about what's possible and what the technology issues are -- where it then gets built into an impossible project smothered in buzzwords and good intentions. Then the programming team gets a hold of it, rolls its eyes, makes a few "suggestions," but now the deadline is slipping so we're off to the races with no real plan in place, and the project sucks and everyone hates it.
It's truly amazing that it continues to happen, and that I'm surprised every time. Maybe I should take the positive approach and write a book about it.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Read About Ben Stein's Money
Ben Stein nails it again, and closes with a self-referential joke besides:
When is he going to run for president?
When is he going to run for president?
"Liberal?"
It is, of course, horrible fiscal policy to believe that putting Federal money in the hands of Americans will somehow "fix" the economy. But the even bigger problem is that the all of the people that know that don't care, and all of the people that don't know that especially don't care. Who doesn't feel good about $300 in the mail?
I'm amazed at the landslide vote by which this passed:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/2/votes/42/
And by all of the crap our Senate votes on in general:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/bills/
"National Mentoring Month?!" Why I outta...
Galbraith (again) talks about why politicians can't stray far from what's "commonly accepted" and why talking about new ideas more than suffices for actually having any. I was thinking about that -- and what's truly "liberal" about the left in the current election?
Health care? FDR Democrats would have felt right at home with that issue. End the War? Yo' Momma marched for that one back in '68. All of the truly "progressive" candidates -- think Nader or Paul -- never get very far. Not because of Washington, but because of us. It's easier to believe what you already know, etc.
Alexander Hamilton was praised at his funeral for not succumbing to the charms of Adam Smith's "liberal" economics. Lincoln, a Republican, freed the slaves. The left went to the center in '92 and has stayed right there as all of us that came of political age at that time have begun to make money.
Yet one more reason to vote Obama.
I'm amazed at the landslide vote by which this passed:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/2/votes/42/
And by all of the crap our Senate votes on in general:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/bills/
"National Mentoring Month?!" Why I outta...
Galbraith (again) talks about why politicians can't stray far from what's "commonly accepted" and why talking about new ideas more than suffices for actually having any. I was thinking about that -- and what's truly "liberal" about the left in the current election?
Health care? FDR Democrats would have felt right at home with that issue. End the War? Yo' Momma marched for that one back in '68. All of the truly "progressive" candidates -- think Nader or Paul -- never get very far. Not because of Washington, but because of us. It's easier to believe what you already know, etc.
Alexander Hamilton was praised at his funeral for not succumbing to the charms of Adam Smith's "liberal" economics. Lincoln, a Republican, freed the slaves. The left went to the center in '92 and has stayed right there as all of us that came of political age at that time have begun to make money.
Yet one more reason to vote Obama.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Galbraith, Redux
I finally finished The Age of Uncertainty.
True to form, Galbraith tries to end on somewhat of a high note, presenting solutions for the mess we're presumably in (or were in, anyway in the 1970's). He makes a case for emulating the Swiss, whose systems supports -- demands -- more of the role of the individual in government.
People don't vote for politicians, who are other people to solve your problems; people vote to solve the problems themselves. Not a bad idea, I suppose, although in this country referendums would probably turn into the tyranny of the populous.
He also makes a joke that in 200 years, the brightest minds and the American people have helped politics evolve from George Washington, through Abraham Lincoln, to Richard Nixon. If only he could see us now!
True to form, Galbraith tries to end on somewhat of a high note, presenting solutions for the mess we're presumably in (or were in, anyway in the 1970's). He makes a case for emulating the Swiss, whose systems supports -- demands -- more of the role of the individual in government.
People don't vote for politicians, who are other people to solve your problems; people vote to solve the problems themselves. Not a bad idea, I suppose, although in this country referendums would probably turn into the tyranny of the populous.
He also makes a joke that in 200 years, the brightest minds and the American people have helped politics evolve from George Washington, through Abraham Lincoln, to Richard Nixon. If only he could see us now!
Friday, February 08, 2008
Why I Love Isabel Hilborn
Isabel has a great post up on her blog about the power of orthogonal thinking. (She takes the idea from a post by Russ Nelson, but one love at a time.) Her post leads me to consider:
1) All of this blogging about who we love, powered by the power of the network just might mean that some day everyone will love everybody. And what's so bad about that? Not only that but:
2) Yeah, why do "orthogonal thinkers" get such a bad rap? In my experience, more often than not when watching the brain trust flounder leads me to make a comment along the lines of "Why can't we just do X," that, in turn, invariably leads someone to reply along the lines of "You have to understand something..."
That reply that follows has never once lead to either increasing my understanding, or actually revealing something I do, indeed, need to understand. (I'll understand if you post a comment telling me there's something I need to understand about not writing sentences like that last one.)
And then what happens?
Six months later the thing that couldn't be done magically pops out of someone else's mouth, and because that person usually happens to be higher up on the ladder than me, far less orthogonal, or both, it passes for forward thinking. Which I love, but but also hate, if you know what I mean.
But that's not why I love Isabel Hilborn.
Why I love Isabel Hilborn is because she did come up with a way to suggest, in the sweetest possible way (you'll notice my use of the word "hate" in a previous paragraph), that it just might not be all that bad.
If I make a fortune selling "Be Orthogonal®" T-Shirts and bumper stickers, she surely gets a generous cut. Hopefully then I'll be free of my own battle between love and hate.
1) All of this blogging about who we love, powered by the power of the network just might mean that some day everyone will love everybody. And what's so bad about that? Not only that but:
2) Yeah, why do "orthogonal thinkers" get such a bad rap? In my experience, more often than not when watching the brain trust flounder leads me to make a comment along the lines of "Why can't we just do X," that, in turn, invariably leads someone to reply along the lines of "You have to understand something..."
That reply that follows has never once lead to either increasing my understanding, or actually revealing something I do, indeed, need to understand. (I'll understand if you post a comment telling me there's something I need to understand about not writing sentences like that last one.)
And then what happens?
Six months later the thing that couldn't be done magically pops out of someone else's mouth, and because that person usually happens to be higher up on the ladder than me, far less orthogonal, or both, it passes for forward thinking. Which I love, but but also hate, if you know what I mean.
But that's not why I love Isabel Hilborn.
Why I love Isabel Hilborn is because she did come up with a way to suggest, in the sweetest possible way (you'll notice my use of the word "hate" in a previous paragraph), that it just might not be all that bad.
If I make a fortune selling "Be Orthogonal®" T-Shirts and bumper stickers, she surely gets a generous cut. Hopefully then I'll be free of my own battle between love and hate.
They DON'T Have 7 kids...
Not that I thought there'd be anything to it, but I decided to look into who was behind those seizure-inducing classmates.com "She married him...?" ads.
What I was surprised to find is not that the information is out there, or how many people wondered about it, but how many people wonder that they aren't the only ones to wonder about it. Go figure.
The Seattle Times has the full story. I think it was better in my imagination than it turns out to actually be, like so many things.
What I was surprised to find is not that the information is out there, or how many people wondered about it, but how many people wonder that they aren't the only ones to wonder about it. Go figure.
The Seattle Times has the full story. I think it was better in my imagination than it turns out to actually be, like so many things.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Hold on Tighter!
I have now read several times -- starting with Galbraith in his introduction to the 4th Ed. of The Affluent Society -- that David Stockton, Ronald Reagan's budget director, admitted that "Reaganomics" and "Supply Side Economics" were little more than claptrap subterfuge aimed at destroying social services, increasing taxes on the middle class, and helping the rich get richer.
It's not that I'm stupid or ignorant (or like to use a blog to admit I just might be) but really to ask the question, again, if "we" know these things why don't "we" do something about it? This naked ambition coming from the current administration, for instance...
Not that I'm advocating Communism, or anything.
It's not that I'm stupid or ignorant (or like to use a blog to admit I just might be) but really to ask the question, again, if "we" know these things why don't "we" do something about it? This naked ambition coming from the current administration, for instance...
Not that I'm advocating Communism, or anything.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
CBS News and Katie Couric
It never fails -- and my own work history is a testament to it: given a shortcut to take, big media will take it.
For instance, Katie Couric and CBS News. I love this post.
Essentially: "I didn't think this move through, and neither did CBS -- crazy, huh?!"
Where can I get a job where you're paid big money to make bad decisions?
It never fails -- and my own work history is a testament to it: given a shortcut to take, big media will take it.
For instance, Katie Couric and CBS News. I love this post.
Essentially: "I didn't think this move through, and neither did CBS -- crazy, huh?!"
Where can I get a job where you're paid big money to make bad decisions?
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Microsoft and Yahoo!
Microsoft's hostile bid against Yahoo!? I couldn't say it better than Google says it, right here:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/yahoo-and-future-of-internet.html
My ISP is SBC/Yahoo! for DSL. If it becomes SBC/Microsoft, I'll have to switch. Having watched Microsoft co-opt (is "steal" perhaps too strong a word?) standard after standard through out the 1990's, and seeing how Vista has essentially become "Fat Elvis," I think that company's gone as far as it needs to go. The purchase of Yahoo! might very well be the knockout punch for a (somewhat) fair and open Internet.
We'll see!
Microsoft's hostile bid against Yahoo!? I couldn't say it better than Google says it, right here:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/yahoo-and-future-of-internet.html
My ISP is SBC/Yahoo! for DSL. If it becomes SBC/Microsoft, I'll have to switch. Having watched Microsoft co-opt (is "steal" perhaps too strong a word?) standard after standard through out the 1990's, and seeing how Vista has essentially become "Fat Elvis," I think that company's gone as far as it needs to go. The purchase of Yahoo! might very well be the knockout punch for a (somewhat) fair and open Internet.
We'll see!
Saturday, February 02, 2008
The City in the Age of Uncertainty
I've recently been reading John Galbraith's The Age of Uncertainty. Maybe everyone knows about this book but me? Certainly everyone should read it.
Among other useful bits of information, Galbraith's later chapters focus on modern life and what it means for the average citizen. In the chapter entitled "The Metropolis," he talks about the rise of the modern city and what it means to the people that live in or near it. It was here that I found some ideas that completed some thoughts I've had in mind for quite some time.
In that Midwest of mine, many of the places that were the middle of nowhere when I was a kid are now exurbs, with seemingly new houses going up every other day in some parts. I remember that a 45 minute drive north of Chicago would take you to the country, and was surprised the last time I drove to Green Lake with my father that we never really left an exurban setting until the very, very end of the drive. Where did all of these people come from?
None of it is really well built or, I suspect, meant to endure. Lots of it is strip malls. Where my brother lives it's mall after mall after mall, and what now passes for "landmarks" are essentially the flagship stores in each. Other than that it's hard to tell the difference.
These areas are not meant to be walked in, and in fact, in many place there aren't even sidewalks. In that part of the country during warmer or colder seasons, it's never necessary to go outside -- one goes from the home to the garage, into the car and to the parking garage, and then from there to work or to shop. No need to bring a coat!
And so what? Who cares? What difference does it make?
Well Galbraith's chapter suggested what the difference might be. He divides the metropolis into four parts: The Political Household, the Merchant City, the Industrial City and The Camp. It was in reading about the Industrial City that I began to see what difference it makes.
A city of course reflects the identity of its citizens. In the case of the Industrial City, it serves a mere function of utility, bring the citizens closer to work. As Galbraith puts it, "People were now a servo-mechanism."
Well so then what reflects on the people that live in the disposable society? It's easy to think of cliché things, like the decline of America or the current prevailing attitude in this county of divisiveness and mistrust. I'll have to think it through a bit more before making a proclamation.
I've recently been reading John Galbraith's The Age of Uncertainty. Maybe everyone knows about this book but me? Certainly everyone should read it.
Among other useful bits of information, Galbraith's later chapters focus on modern life and what it means for the average citizen. In the chapter entitled "The Metropolis," he talks about the rise of the modern city and what it means to the people that live in or near it. It was here that I found some ideas that completed some thoughts I've had in mind for quite some time.
In that Midwest of mine, many of the places that were the middle of nowhere when I was a kid are now exurbs, with seemingly new houses going up every other day in some parts. I remember that a 45 minute drive north of Chicago would take you to the country, and was surprised the last time I drove to Green Lake with my father that we never really left an exurban setting until the very, very end of the drive. Where did all of these people come from?
None of it is really well built or, I suspect, meant to endure. Lots of it is strip malls. Where my brother lives it's mall after mall after mall, and what now passes for "landmarks" are essentially the flagship stores in each. Other than that it's hard to tell the difference.
These areas are not meant to be walked in, and in fact, in many place there aren't even sidewalks. In that part of the country during warmer or colder seasons, it's never necessary to go outside -- one goes from the home to the garage, into the car and to the parking garage, and then from there to work or to shop. No need to bring a coat!
And so what? Who cares? What difference does it make?
Well Galbraith's chapter suggested what the difference might be. He divides the metropolis into four parts: The Political Household, the Merchant City, the Industrial City and The Camp. It was in reading about the Industrial City that I began to see what difference it makes.
A city of course reflects the identity of its citizens. In the case of the Industrial City, it serves a mere function of utility, bring the citizens closer to work. As Galbraith puts it, "People were now a servo-mechanism."
Well so then what reflects on the people that live in the disposable society? It's easy to think of cliché things, like the decline of America or the current prevailing attitude in this county of divisiveness and mistrust. I'll have to think it through a bit more before making a proclamation.
Friday, February 01, 2008
So How About That Election?
I was right about TimesSelect (although my date was off) and wrong about the PS3. Did I ever care?
So how about that election?
For me the election is not about who says s/he's going to do what, and how. It's clear elections have become these sophisticated, vote-getting machines that Tammany Hall could only dream of! So how can we believe that the "issues" of the election are anything the candidates "believe" in? It's a reaction to poll numbers, per target audience, plain and simple.
To me, at this point, it's more about who's going to be the least hypocritical. This country's got some serious healing to do. So who's going to lead us there? It ain't about health care, or the economy, or the war, or anything else they shove down your throat to get your vote; it's about getting past this "hate your neighbor" politics and getting back to being a sane country again. It's about getting over W.
So I'm voting for Obama. The only one preaching the politics of unity. As simple as that. Tonight's debate might change my mind, but I doubt it!
And when will Hillary explain her vote on the war? "Misled by false intelligence?" That leads me to believe not much more than that she's either not terribly bright (unlikely) or that she lacks integrity (more likely).
So how about that election?
For me the election is not about who says s/he's going to do what, and how. It's clear elections have become these sophisticated, vote-getting machines that Tammany Hall could only dream of! So how can we believe that the "issues" of the election are anything the candidates "believe" in? It's a reaction to poll numbers, per target audience, plain and simple.
To me, at this point, it's more about who's going to be the least hypocritical. This country's got some serious healing to do. So who's going to lead us there? It ain't about health care, or the economy, or the war, or anything else they shove down your throat to get your vote; it's about getting past this "hate your neighbor" politics and getting back to being a sane country again. It's about getting over W.
So I'm voting for Obama. The only one preaching the politics of unity. As simple as that. Tonight's debate might change my mind, but I doubt it!
And when will Hillary explain her vote on the war? "Misled by false intelligence?" That leads me to believe not much more than that she's either not terribly bright (unlikely) or that she lacks integrity (more likely).
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
After reading Assassins' Gate I think I've finally come up with a position on the Iraq War that I can live with.
The American People were certainly lied to in starting the war, and it seems to have been run by men and women with singular agendas that had little to do with combating the threat of terrorism. Incentives right or wrong be damned, we went in there and we tore that sovereign nation apart. Every American, right or left, should right now be quite concerned about putting that nation back together.
It would be great if the media -- instead of running one more expose on the documents someone found, or another article offering conclusive proof that some cabinet member lied -- could start focusing a little more on what it's going to take to get us out of Iraq. People might be able to donate clothes, money, or materials to initiatives that get Iraq back on its feet. There may be a complicated socio-political minefield left behind, but at least it won't be said that the US came in and created a big mess, and then was to proud to clean it up.
This is a platform that could galvanize the left as well, and these could be the things that the left begins to say that John Kerry never said. There's got to be a better platform than playing "The President Is An Idiot;" while it might be true it's a position that's divisive and gets little accomplished.
History will take care of this country's leadership, and I doubt they will be judged favorably. The time has come to forget this muddy and shameful past and focus on the present and the future.
The American People were certainly lied to in starting the war, and it seems to have been run by men and women with singular agendas that had little to do with combating the threat of terrorism. Incentives right or wrong be damned, we went in there and we tore that sovereign nation apart. Every American, right or left, should right now be quite concerned about putting that nation back together.
It would be great if the media -- instead of running one more expose on the documents someone found, or another article offering conclusive proof that some cabinet member lied -- could start focusing a little more on what it's going to take to get us out of Iraq. People might be able to donate clothes, money, or materials to initiatives that get Iraq back on its feet. There may be a complicated socio-political minefield left behind, but at least it won't be said that the US came in and created a big mess, and then was to proud to clean it up.
This is a platform that could galvanize the left as well, and these could be the things that the left begins to say that John Kerry never said. There's got to be a better platform than playing "The President Is An Idiot;" while it might be true it's a position that's divisive and gets little accomplished.
History will take care of this country's leadership, and I doubt they will be judged favorably. The time has come to forget this muddy and shameful past and focus on the present and the future.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Assassin's Gate, PART I
After reading so much about George Packer's book Assassin's Gate I decided to get a copy for myself. I'm about halfway through, and it's a lot of information to amass. The beginning of the book is full of the kind of stuff that particularly gets former politics majors excited, and that's the political motivations that lead leaders into whatever spots they get themselves into.
AG talks a lot about the extent to which the Bush Administration was influenced my the writings of Leo Strauss, and there's some focus given to an essay by Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt called "Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence."
As biased as I would like to be, I keep trying to be objective (and, of course, reminding myself that if even half of what's in Packer's book is true, the Iraq war is still patently outrageous) and since I've not read the book all the way through or done much work looking for corraborating sources, I am going to defer to the excellent discussion of Shulsky and Schmitt's paper that's going on in the Blog Sic Semper Tyrannis
I will go so far as to say that I do truly hope that our decision to invade Iraq was based on more than this paper, which reads to me more like throat-clearing than foreign policy.
After reading so much about George Packer's book Assassin's Gate I decided to get a copy for myself. I'm about halfway through, and it's a lot of information to amass. The beginning of the book is full of the kind of stuff that particularly gets former politics majors excited, and that's the political motivations that lead leaders into whatever spots they get themselves into.
AG talks a lot about the extent to which the Bush Administration was influenced my the writings of Leo Strauss, and there's some focus given to an essay by Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt called "Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence."
As biased as I would like to be, I keep trying to be objective (and, of course, reminding myself that if even half of what's in Packer's book is true, the Iraq war is still patently outrageous) and since I've not read the book all the way through or done much work looking for corraborating sources, I am going to defer to the excellent discussion of Shulsky and Schmitt's paper that's going on in the Blog Sic Semper Tyrannis
I will go so far as to say that I do truly hope that our decision to invade Iraq was based on more than this paper, which reads to me more like throat-clearing than foreign policy.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
William F. Buckley, one of the nation's leading conservatives, has conceded that perhaps the war in Iraq ain't all it's cracked up to be. I'm not going to write anything about how glad I am to hear that, when really I'm distressed that it takes an otherwise intelligent person so long to finally say the right thing.
What is most disturbing about the Buckley column, however, is the rhetoric that's arisen as a result of it. I've seen so many conservative bloggers fall all over themselves to try to find a position to maintain in the face of being confronted with Buckley's "betrayal." Never mind the fact that the war has flown in the face of accepted US military and foreign policy doctrine from the very beginning. Never mind the resignation of high-level Bush officials during the course of the war. Never mind objective evidence of other Administration failures like the response to Hurricane Katrina. Last of all, never mind the fact that there's ample evidence and concession from the President himself that the war was based on "faulty intelligence" and probably never should have been fought to begin with. Oh no. The "conservative" bloggers feel it's a good war, and even if it isn't we're there and that's that.
I don't have children, but I keep thinking of children. I think of a 16-year-old kid, caught with a bag of pot in his dresser drawer saying to his father, "Well I thought it was good for me, a cool thing to do, whether it is or isn't is not important. I spent $60 on that bag and I have to stay the course." For a party that talks so much about personal responsibility I don't see a whole lot of it coming from the leadership. Instead I see people attacking Buckley for never really having being conservative enough. That's when the debate separates from logic and common sense, that's when thinking stops and killing is justified.
I'm not 100% sure I agree with the position that we have to stay in Iraq, since I don't see much evidence that our leaving in a year is going to be much different than our leaving now, but I'll concede the "stay the course" arguments. Support the troops, absolutely, I've never taken any other position. But the evidence is overwhelming that there's a leadership failure here, and the fact that there are so many that are not only willing to ignore that, but working to justify it is an affront to civilized discourse. This is just as bad as saying the "intelligent design" debate has two sides. Well yeah, it does: there's scientifically supported fact, and then there's mumbo jumbo. The mother, standing over that 16-year-old saying, "Absolutely, the pot's not so bad for him, and to prove it let's give him the car!" that's where the Right is coming from.
Wake up over there, it's over.
What is most disturbing about the Buckley column, however, is the rhetoric that's arisen as a result of it. I've seen so many conservative bloggers fall all over themselves to try to find a position to maintain in the face of being confronted with Buckley's "betrayal." Never mind the fact that the war has flown in the face of accepted US military and foreign policy doctrine from the very beginning. Never mind the resignation of high-level Bush officials during the course of the war. Never mind objective evidence of other Administration failures like the response to Hurricane Katrina. Last of all, never mind the fact that there's ample evidence and concession from the President himself that the war was based on "faulty intelligence" and probably never should have been fought to begin with. Oh no. The "conservative" bloggers feel it's a good war, and even if it isn't we're there and that's that.
I don't have children, but I keep thinking of children. I think of a 16-year-old kid, caught with a bag of pot in his dresser drawer saying to his father, "Well I thought it was good for me, a cool thing to do, whether it is or isn't is not important. I spent $60 on that bag and I have to stay the course." For a party that talks so much about personal responsibility I don't see a whole lot of it coming from the leadership. Instead I see people attacking Buckley for never really having being conservative enough. That's when the debate separates from logic and common sense, that's when thinking stops and killing is justified.
I'm not 100% sure I agree with the position that we have to stay in Iraq, since I don't see much evidence that our leaving in a year is going to be much different than our leaving now, but I'll concede the "stay the course" arguments. Support the troops, absolutely, I've never taken any other position. But the evidence is overwhelming that there's a leadership failure here, and the fact that there are so many that are not only willing to ignore that, but working to justify it is an affront to civilized discourse. This is just as bad as saying the "intelligent design" debate has two sides. Well yeah, it does: there's scientifically supported fact, and then there's mumbo jumbo. The mother, standing over that 16-year-old saying, "Absolutely, the pot's not so bad for him, and to prove it let's give him the car!" that's where the Right is coming from.
Wake up over there, it's over.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
My prediction about Times Select was wrong...New Year's Day has come and gone, and it's still with us. Well, I've been wrong before.
Lately, it seems every fashion magazine, cover, hip TV show is about exactly three people: Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, and Jennifer Aniston. I've admittedly devoured gossip probably more than I should have, and I don't have anything against any of them, but haven't we maybe had enough of America's most famous love triangle?
Most of these articles are titled something like, "Jen Bounces Back." I wonder that Jen ever didn't see the writing on the wall. The thing that made Jennifer Aniston was Brad Pitt. Friends "jumped the shark" in its 2nd season (can anyone believe that show actually was Emmy worthy), and the show's lunchboxes are now on clearance sale for $9.99 at the NBC online store. Jen was (admittedly arguably) the worst of the three females on the show, and 4th or 5th over all. (At the bottom of that list is David Schwimmer, mostly for being an actor who would probably have won an Academy Award by now had that show never come along -- and who do you blame when it's your own damn fault?)
I don't even want to get into the rest of her career, other than to point out her certainly notable performance on the Bill Bixby directed TV version of Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
So why does she make the tabloids? Because of her brilliant acting talent? Or is it because she's the ultimate sucker, the Ed Rooney (to extend the FBDO reference) of that trio, and everybody loves an underdog? Brad Pitt cheats on and then leaves his wife for his pregnant girlfriend, who steals him away knowing he's married, something that would be completely reprehensible to most were it to happen to someone at the office or in a circle of friends. But America, instead, is rooting for Brangelina, and good for them.
Maybe I have better things to worry about?
Lately, it seems every fashion magazine, cover, hip TV show is about exactly three people: Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, and Jennifer Aniston. I've admittedly devoured gossip probably more than I should have, and I don't have anything against any of them, but haven't we maybe had enough of America's most famous love triangle?
Most of these articles are titled something like, "Jen Bounces Back." I wonder that Jen ever didn't see the writing on the wall. The thing that made Jennifer Aniston was Brad Pitt. Friends "jumped the shark" in its 2nd season (can anyone believe that show actually was Emmy worthy), and the show's lunchboxes are now on clearance sale for $9.99 at the NBC online store. Jen was (admittedly arguably) the worst of the three females on the show, and 4th or 5th over all. (At the bottom of that list is David Schwimmer, mostly for being an actor who would probably have won an Academy Award by now had that show never come along -- and who do you blame when it's your own damn fault?)
I don't even want to get into the rest of her career, other than to point out her certainly notable performance on the Bill Bixby directed TV version of Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
So why does she make the tabloids? Because of her brilliant acting talent? Or is it because she's the ultimate sucker, the Ed Rooney (to extend the FBDO reference) of that trio, and everybody loves an underdog? Brad Pitt cheats on and then leaves his wife for his pregnant girlfriend, who steals him away knowing he's married, something that would be completely reprehensible to most were it to happen to someone at the office or in a circle of friends. But America, instead, is rooting for Brangelina, and good for them.
Maybe I have better things to worry about?
Monday, November 28, 2005
On November 26, the New York Times published an article by Felicia R. Lee called "The Anger and Shock of a City's Slave Past." It is about the exhibition, now running at the New York Historical Society, called "Slavery in New York."
The article was filled with all kinds of quotes from seemingly horrified and now enlightened White Americans, surprisingly mostly middle-aged, saying things like, "It's striking for any of us who are New Yorkers to realize that the ground we touch, every institution, is affected by slavery," or that it makes "A difference when you look at a black person on a subway train, or you're working next to a black person, that you have a little more empathy and understanding and also praising for how far so many people came," or that "It's terrible to know that the city that I love was part of the slave trade." Best of all is the "elderly white woman who said she had two college degrees" who said, "I never knew until I walked in here about slavery in New York...It just breaks my heart."
With all due respect to Ms. Lee and the excellent exhibit, I really don't understand the choice of focusing on comments such as these. It seems to me like it is New York Times liberalism -- and I certainly do not use that word in the contemptuous Bill O'Reilly sense -- run amok. I do not ever recall in any history class in my life being told that the North did not engage in the slave trade, and that there were not slaves in Northern cities. I don't think most intelligent people would be truly shocked -- shocked! -- to find that there were, once upon a time, slaves in New York.
There is even a quote from a professor at GW University who says: "Back in the 90's, when Bill Clinton asked for a national conversation about race, most people didn't have the context in which to have the conversation." You mean...most people didn't know that once upon a time there were slaves in America, and that that, in fact, is the reason why most African-Americans are here? Or that now a disproportionate number of those Americans live in poverty or are in prison? That racism is a fact of daily life for many people? No one had that context, and now this exhibition has set us free!
Well blessed be, I am so glad the New York Times and the New York Historical Society have seen to it that the truth has finally come to light. So when do I get my reparations check?
The article was filled with all kinds of quotes from seemingly horrified and now enlightened White Americans, surprisingly mostly middle-aged, saying things like, "It's striking for any of us who are New Yorkers to realize that the ground we touch, every institution, is affected by slavery," or that it makes "A difference when you look at a black person on a subway train, or you're working next to a black person, that you have a little more empathy and understanding and also praising for how far so many people came," or that "It's terrible to know that the city that I love was part of the slave trade." Best of all is the "elderly white woman who said she had two college degrees" who said, "I never knew until I walked in here about slavery in New York...It just breaks my heart."
With all due respect to Ms. Lee and the excellent exhibit, I really don't understand the choice of focusing on comments such as these. It seems to me like it is New York Times liberalism -- and I certainly do not use that word in the contemptuous Bill O'Reilly sense -- run amok. I do not ever recall in any history class in my life being told that the North did not engage in the slave trade, and that there were not slaves in Northern cities. I don't think most intelligent people would be truly shocked -- shocked! -- to find that there were, once upon a time, slaves in New York.
There is even a quote from a professor at GW University who says: "Back in the 90's, when Bill Clinton asked for a national conversation about race, most people didn't have the context in which to have the conversation." You mean...most people didn't know that once upon a time there were slaves in America, and that that, in fact, is the reason why most African-Americans are here? Or that now a disproportionate number of those Americans live in poverty or are in prison? That racism is a fact of daily life for many people? No one had that context, and now this exhibition has set us free!
Well blessed be, I am so glad the New York Times and the New York Historical Society have seen to it that the truth has finally come to light. So when do I get my reparations check?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
