Two visits yesterday by political illuminati made news in upstate New York's media today.
Vice-President Dick Cheney paid a visit to Fort Drum, near Watertown, in northern New York. He offered the usual strident rhetoric about fighting against Evil, struggling for freedom and liberty (said breathlessly) and the like. No mention of how torture (which he so eagerly defended) fits into that whole freedom and liberty thing.
He offered the usual vague platitudes like 'Stay the course' and 'Don't cut and run' without bothering to get specific about what that course is. He surely hopes that the self-righteous indignation in his tone will mask the lack of substance of his words. To the administration, warmed over cliches, obfuscation, deception and belligerent rhetoric are substitutes for a real, well-thought out plan.
Near the end of a North Country Public Radio report on Cheney's visit, a reporter interviewed an anti-war protester who'd gathered some distance away (because of 'security reasons'). The protester said he had a sign that read, "Torture and prisoner abuse is never justified."
He said one genius passerby rolled down his window and told the protester, "If you don't like it, why don't you move to Iraq?"
That's about as brilliant as saying, "If you don't like traffic, why don't you move to Los Angeles?"
Closer to home, Sen. Hillary Clinton attended a local Democratic county fundraiser and a few other events.
Clinton was met by a number of Democratic and liberal anti-war activists protesting her support for the Iraq aggression.
Well, she would've been met by the protesters except she slipped in the back door so as to avoid them. Perhaps she has more in common with the president than she realizes.
One man was protesting separately Clinton's position on partial birth abortion. If he believes that the procedure constitutes the killing of innocent human life, then perhaps he has more in common with the anti-war protesters than he realizes.
Update: Rather than work on a viable resolution to the Iraq mess, Clinton has been busy pandering to the right (her natural consistuency, of course) by proposing a ludicruous bill criminalizing flag burning. Rather than address serious problems, she's spending time on this never-was-an-issue.
[T]he senator's staff did not have any immediate examples of actual New York flag-burnings in the recent past, notes a New York Times editorial. It's telling that an almost non-existent thing like flag burning outrage her but war does not. Political protest should be criminalized, but not international aggression.
Hurting a veteran's feelings may be socially unacceptable, but it shouldn't be a criminal offense... though this seems to be the direction the country's going in.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Monday, December 05, 2005
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
"All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." -Lord Acton
One of the hallmarks of the Bush administration is its refusal to listen to anything that goes against its preconceived notions. Another is its use of overt politicization and cronyism to ruin previously competent organizations.
The results of cronyism at the Federal Emergency Management Agency became apparent during Hurricane Katrina. It was reported that five of the top eight officials [going into Katrina] at FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, had little experience in handling disasters and owed their jobs to their political ties to Bush..
It is unprecedented to appoint friends to high ranking positions? Of course not. But a smart president will make sure such appointees are surrounded by well-qualified deputies.
The administration also sabotaged the previously non-partisan Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The CPB was designed to be a shield for public broadcasting from political pressure. But former director Ken Tomlinson was a beacon of partisanship, hiring G.O.P. consultants as ludicrous bias-control monitors, notes a New York Times editorial. Ludicrous to the point that Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican and friend of the president, was absurdly labelled by Tomlinson's snoopers as 'anti-Bush.'
Furthermore, the monitoring activity concluded PBS (public television) liberal bias primarily on the basis of a single program, NOW with Bill Moyers, instead of looking at the totality of PBS' public affairs output. The same applied to National Public Radio and the Diane Rehm Show. Conveniently, alleged liberal bias in public broadcasting is something the far right has complained about for years. The monitors concluded exactly what they were paid to conclude. Pre-conceived notions were affirmed.
Even more ludicrous is that Tomlinson recruited as his successor, Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee. So a woman who was named to lead what's supposed to be non-partisan corporation held a previous job whose SOLE PUPROSE is partisan activity. It would be as if a future Democratic president appointed Howard Dean to the same position.
Tomlinson was involved in the creation of a PBS show, the conservative Journal Editorial Report, in violation of the CPB's own guidelines. This, according to a report issued by the CPB's independent inspector general.
Now we find out another example of Republican corruption: "gerrymandering in Texas.
Bush Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan, reports The Washington Post.
The lawyers are civil service bureaucrats there on merit. Senior officials are political appointees of the administration of the day.
(Former GOP majority leader DeLay has since been indicted on money laundering and conspiracy charges)
Gerrymandering isn't a uniquely GOP phenemon. Here in New York state, it's a bipartisan affair. Senate Republicans collude with Assembly Democrats to protect incumbent majority party legislators as much as possible. The difference is that they are clever enough to do it in a way that barely passes the legality test.
Though not particularly 'sexy,' I happen to think gerrymandering is a big issue. Legend has it that because of this manipulation, the New York state legislature has a higher incumbent re-election rate than the communist Chinese National Assembly. In the 2004 elections, four incumbent senators (there are 62 seats in the chamber) were defeated at the polls... and this was considered a revoution! Gerrymandering is the best way to minimize accountability for legislators and it must not be tolerated.
That's why each state should have an independent electoral redistricting commission, instead of having it done by partisan legislators who have a vested interest in preserving their jobs. To my knowledge, Iowa is the only state that has such a commission... and it has the highest proportion in the country of competitive Congressional races.
And a finally come these comments from Rep. John Murtha. The hawkish, pro-military Democrat made waves recently by calling for a speedy (not immediate) withdrawal from Iraq. But the more interesting remarks came yesterday. He claims that US commanders on the ground in Iraq support withdrawal but are afraid to make their position known to the president for fear they will be fired. It is more than plausible, in a Bush administration that equates disagreement with disloyalty.
Unfortunately, it's precisely the administration's refusal to consider unpleasant facts that led to the mess in Iraq in the first place.
Some critics of the president maliciously revel in calling him an idiot or stupid. I don't know what his IQ is and I really don't care. To belittle his intelligence is not only mean-spirited and reflects worse on the taunter than on the president, but it completely misses the point. The biggest character flaw of both the president and the vice-president isn't their intelligence; by all accounts, the vice-president is extremely smart and intelligence isn't an issue of character anyway. Their grossest character flaw is that they are closed-minded.
Everyone makes poor decisions, but closed-minded people make them more often and more grieviously because they won't listen to anyone else. And closed-minded people choose not to see their mistakes, or simply refuse to acknowledge that they make any. As a result, their mistakes are prolonged by their refusal to change course when cirumstances would logically dictate as much. Staying the course isn't courageous when it means beating your head against a stone wall a few hundred more times in the hopes that your head is so special and your will so strong that you can defy the laws of physics; it's simply stupid.
One of the hallmarks of the Bush administration is its refusal to listen to anything that goes against its preconceived notions. Another is its use of overt politicization and cronyism to ruin previously competent organizations.
The results of cronyism at the Federal Emergency Management Agency became apparent during Hurricane Katrina. It was reported that five of the top eight officials [going into Katrina] at FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, had little experience in handling disasters and owed their jobs to their political ties to Bush..
It is unprecedented to appoint friends to high ranking positions? Of course not. But a smart president will make sure such appointees are surrounded by well-qualified deputies.
The administration also sabotaged the previously non-partisan Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The CPB was designed to be a shield for public broadcasting from political pressure. But former director Ken Tomlinson was a beacon of partisanship, hiring G.O.P. consultants as ludicrous bias-control monitors, notes a New York Times editorial. Ludicrous to the point that Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican and friend of the president, was absurdly labelled by Tomlinson's snoopers as 'anti-Bush.'
Furthermore, the monitoring activity concluded PBS (public television) liberal bias primarily on the basis of a single program, NOW with Bill Moyers, instead of looking at the totality of PBS' public affairs output. The same applied to National Public Radio and the Diane Rehm Show. Conveniently, alleged liberal bias in public broadcasting is something the far right has complained about for years. The monitors concluded exactly what they were paid to conclude. Pre-conceived notions were affirmed.
Even more ludicrous is that Tomlinson recruited as his successor, Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee. So a woman who was named to lead what's supposed to be non-partisan corporation held a previous job whose SOLE PUPROSE is partisan activity. It would be as if a future Democratic president appointed Howard Dean to the same position.
Tomlinson was involved in the creation of a PBS show, the conservative Journal Editorial Report, in violation of the CPB's own guidelines. This, according to a report issued by the CPB's independent inspector general.
Now we find out another example of Republican corruption: "gerrymandering in Texas.
Bush Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan, reports The Washington Post.
The lawyers are civil service bureaucrats there on merit. Senior officials are political appointees of the administration of the day.
(Former GOP majority leader DeLay has since been indicted on money laundering and conspiracy charges)
Gerrymandering isn't a uniquely GOP phenemon. Here in New York state, it's a bipartisan affair. Senate Republicans collude with Assembly Democrats to protect incumbent majority party legislators as much as possible. The difference is that they are clever enough to do it in a way that barely passes the legality test.
Though not particularly 'sexy,' I happen to think gerrymandering is a big issue. Legend has it that because of this manipulation, the New York state legislature has a higher incumbent re-election rate than the communist Chinese National Assembly. In the 2004 elections, four incumbent senators (there are 62 seats in the chamber) were defeated at the polls... and this was considered a revoution! Gerrymandering is the best way to minimize accountability for legislators and it must not be tolerated.
That's why each state should have an independent electoral redistricting commission, instead of having it done by partisan legislators who have a vested interest in preserving their jobs. To my knowledge, Iowa is the only state that has such a commission... and it has the highest proportion in the country of competitive Congressional races.
And a finally come these comments from Rep. John Murtha. The hawkish, pro-military Democrat made waves recently by calling for a speedy (not immediate) withdrawal from Iraq. But the more interesting remarks came yesterday. He claims that US commanders on the ground in Iraq support withdrawal but are afraid to make their position known to the president for fear they will be fired. It is more than plausible, in a Bush administration that equates disagreement with disloyalty.
Unfortunately, it's precisely the administration's refusal to consider unpleasant facts that led to the mess in Iraq in the first place.
Some critics of the president maliciously revel in calling him an idiot or stupid. I don't know what his IQ is and I really don't care. To belittle his intelligence is not only mean-spirited and reflects worse on the taunter than on the president, but it completely misses the point. The biggest character flaw of both the president and the vice-president isn't their intelligence; by all accounts, the vice-president is extremely smart and intelligence isn't an issue of character anyway. Their grossest character flaw is that they are closed-minded.
Everyone makes poor decisions, but closed-minded people make them more often and more grieviously because they won't listen to anyone else. And closed-minded people choose not to see their mistakes, or simply refuse to acknowledge that they make any. As a result, their mistakes are prolonged by their refusal to change course when cirumstances would logically dictate as much. Staying the course isn't courageous when it means beating your head against a stone wall a few hundred more times in the hopes that your head is so special and your will so strong that you can defy the laws of physics; it's simply stupid.
Friday, December 02, 2005
If only Bush had listened to... himself
Forget the fact that the president didn't listen anyone else who didn't tell him what he wanted to hear on Iraq. Imagine how much trouble would've been avoided if he'd simply listened to... himself.
"Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the [Balkan] peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra strategy obvious."
-George W. Bush, presidential debate, October 11, 2000.
Other choice quotes from him on that date:
"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be."
"I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use."
"Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the [Balkan] peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra strategy obvious."
-George W. Bush, presidential debate, October 11, 2000.
Other choice quotes from him on that date:
"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be."
"I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use."
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Trade Mike O'Connell!
Usually when I write about sports, it's about soccer. But I'm going to touch on a little ice hockey news today.
I was floored to read this morning that the Boston Bruins had traded Joe Thornton. The B's sent their captain, best player, team leader and public face of the team to San Jose for three average players.
Boston has been struggling this year, due mainly to their inability to win close games; they're 2-11 in games decided by one goal. Their defense is weak and they lack players with grit and character. So the solution is to get rid of their leading scorer, a player who combines skill and power. Their solution is to get rid of the one player who strikes fear into the heart of opposing defenses and coaches. Their solution is to get rid of such their only player capable of carrying the team when necessary.
This is a way for the team to say to it's fans, "We're throwing in the towel already and admitting that this is going to be YET ANOTHER wasted season." Years of patiently building a team around captain Thornton have been thrown out the window and Bruins fans will suffer at least five more years of "re-building" that the management will probably fine some way to screw up in the end as well.
Harry Sinden served as Bruins' general manager from 1972, a few months after Boston's last Stanley Cup title, until 1996. Current GM Mike O'Connell apprenticed under Sinden and then succeeded him. Sinden was legendary for making stupid moves that screwed up successful teams. And apparently he passed his "knowledge" along to protégé O'Connell.
The Sinden/O'Connell 33 year reign of incompetence has exactly coincided with the longest period in team history without a Stanley Cup. When they trade one of their best player for a trio of question marks, you come to understand why.
Update: Widely respected Boston Globe columnist Kevin Paul DuPont offers a dissenting view.
Update 2: I guess this shows how much I know.
I was floored to read this morning that the Boston Bruins had traded Joe Thornton. The B's sent their captain, best player, team leader and public face of the team to San Jose for three average players.
Boston has been struggling this year, due mainly to their inability to win close games; they're 2-11 in games decided by one goal. Their defense is weak and they lack players with grit and character. So the solution is to get rid of their leading scorer, a player who combines skill and power. Their solution is to get rid of the one player who strikes fear into the heart of opposing defenses and coaches. Their solution is to get rid of such their only player capable of carrying the team when necessary.
This is a way for the team to say to it's fans, "We're throwing in the towel already and admitting that this is going to be YET ANOTHER wasted season." Years of patiently building a team around captain Thornton have been thrown out the window and Bruins fans will suffer at least five more years of "re-building" that the management will probably fine some way to screw up in the end as well.
Harry Sinden served as Bruins' general manager from 1972, a few months after Boston's last Stanley Cup title, until 1996. Current GM Mike O'Connell apprenticed under Sinden and then succeeded him. Sinden was legendary for making stupid moves that screwed up successful teams. And apparently he passed his "knowledge" along to protégé O'Connell.
The Sinden/O'Connell 33 year reign of incompetence has exactly coincided with the longest period in team history without a Stanley Cup. When they trade one of their best player for a trio of question marks, you come to understand why.
Update: Widely respected Boston Globe columnist Kevin Paul DuPont offers a dissenting view.
Update 2: I guess this shows how much I know.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
The racists are quaking in their boots
This essay is part of a weekly feature on my blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel and Iraq.
England has long had a terrible reputation for racism and hooliganism at their soccer grounds. But this black eye is a holdover from the 1970s ad 1980s when they truly deserved it. While English soccer authorities have made great strides in the last 15 years against the expression of hatred and violence at matches, other European countries have refused to tackle this issue. Racism and hooliganism has diminished in England partly due to efforts by the clubs and partly due to the gentrification of the once strongly working class game. But those illnesses still plague the game not only in Eastern Europe, but in other parts of supposedly sophisticated Western Europe.
Though the problem of racism and violence may not be any worse in Italy than in parts of Eastern Europe, it's more problematic since the Italian Serie A is one of the best and most high profile leagues in the world. As such, it draws a lot of black players, from Africa and Brazil.
A recent match between Messina and Inter Milan saw some Inter 'supporters' (henceforth known as morons) make monkey noises and other revolting chants at Messina's Ivorian defender Marc Zoro.
Zoro was so incensed by the lunacy that he tried to walk off the field in protest... though I'm not sure why he thought this would've displeased the morons. He was persuaded to remain on the pitch by a couple of Inter's black players, Obafemi Martins and Adriano. (That Inter itself has several black players was, not surprisingly, of no conesquence to the morons)
"They were very kind" said Zoro afterwards. "Martins and Adriano both said that this kind of thing happens to them a lot too, and not to let it provoke me. But they seemed more concerned with getting the game restarted and avoiding any complications than anything else. I came back on to avoid causing them problems."
I realize that fans will say a lot of things to unnerve opposing players. That's perfectly fine. But there has to be a line of decency that must not be crossed. Chanting monkey noises at black players is on the wrong side of that line.
The Italian soccer federation reacted as it usually does when faced with a serious issue: by burying its head in the sand.
The federation ordered that the next round of league matches be delayed by five minutes so that players could protest the treatment of Zoro.
So the morons will have five extra minutes to sing racist songs and make monkey noises. I'm sure that'll teach a lesson!
England has long had a terrible reputation for racism and hooliganism at their soccer grounds. But this black eye is a holdover from the 1970s ad 1980s when they truly deserved it. While English soccer authorities have made great strides in the last 15 years against the expression of hatred and violence at matches, other European countries have refused to tackle this issue. Racism and hooliganism has diminished in England partly due to efforts by the clubs and partly due to the gentrification of the once strongly working class game. But those illnesses still plague the game not only in Eastern Europe, but in other parts of supposedly sophisticated Western Europe.
Though the problem of racism and violence may not be any worse in Italy than in parts of Eastern Europe, it's more problematic since the Italian Serie A is one of the best and most high profile leagues in the world. As such, it draws a lot of black players, from Africa and Brazil.
A recent match between Messina and Inter Milan saw some Inter 'supporters' (henceforth known as morons) make monkey noises and other revolting chants at Messina's Ivorian defender Marc Zoro.
Zoro was so incensed by the lunacy that he tried to walk off the field in protest... though I'm not sure why he thought this would've displeased the morons. He was persuaded to remain on the pitch by a couple of Inter's black players, Obafemi Martins and Adriano. (That Inter itself has several black players was, not surprisingly, of no conesquence to the morons)
"They were very kind" said Zoro afterwards. "Martins and Adriano both said that this kind of thing happens to them a lot too, and not to let it provoke me. But they seemed more concerned with getting the game restarted and avoiding any complications than anything else. I came back on to avoid causing them problems."
I realize that fans will say a lot of things to unnerve opposing players. That's perfectly fine. But there has to be a line of decency that must not be crossed. Chanting monkey noises at black players is on the wrong side of that line.
The Italian soccer federation reacted as it usually does when faced with a serious issue: by burying its head in the sand.
The federation ordered that the next round of league matches be delayed by five minutes so that players could protest the treatment of Zoro.
So the morons will have five extra minutes to sing racist songs and make monkey noises. I'm sure that'll teach a lesson!
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Saddam's trial
Putting aside for a moment what one might think of the US aggression against Iraq, the occupation or even the trial of Saddam Hussein itself, the judicial proceedings against the former dictator have more than their fair share of irony. And that's totally aside from the fact that he's being given a public, transparent trial with high profile defense lawyers, such as a former US attorney general.
One irony is that ordinary people who may or may not be al-Qaeda members and who may or may not have done anything bad, they are not afforded due process at all within the lovely confines of Guantanamo Bay (or Eastern Europe or wherever else the CIA might have secret prison camps). Yet, one of the world's most odious dictators is being given a public judicial trial with a chance to defend himself in front of the eyes of the world. Brutal tyrants are treated more fairly than men who may be guilty of nothing more than being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Another irony is that here you have an autocrat widely accused of genocide, using chemical weapons, torture, arbitrary arrests and generally some of the most unimaginable, stomach-turning atrocities. And during his trial, the former Tough Guy was snivelling about not having a pen and of having to walk up stairs because they elevator was broken.
I'm willing to send him a pack of Bics if he quits whining.
One irony is that ordinary people who may or may not be al-Qaeda members and who may or may not have done anything bad, they are not afforded due process at all within the lovely confines of Guantanamo Bay (or Eastern Europe or wherever else the CIA might have secret prison camps). Yet, one of the world's most odious dictators is being given a public judicial trial with a chance to defend himself in front of the eyes of the world. Brutal tyrants are treated more fairly than men who may be guilty of nothing more than being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Another irony is that here you have an autocrat widely accused of genocide, using chemical weapons, torture, arbitrary arrests and generally some of the most unimaginable, stomach-turning atrocities. And during his trial, the former Tough Guy was snivelling about not having a pen and of having to walk up stairs because they elevator was broken.
I'm willing to send him a pack of Bics if he quits whining.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
John Murtha and the intricacies of credibility
The blogosphere was abuzz last week following the comments of Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha. Murtha is a hawkish Democrat who originally backed the Iraq invasion but recently called for called for the quick withdrawal of US troops (not an 'immediate' one as some critics and even some journalists have wrongly attributed to him).
“We’re the targets,” Murtha said in a speech in the Capitol. “We’re uniting the enemy against us. And there’s terrorism all over the world that there wasn’t before we went into Iraq.
“This is a policy wrapped in an illusion.”
This could be more a reflection with the hawk's disillusionment with the way the occupation has been bungled since the start. Though I suppose such a frustration could only occur if you thought it ever had a chance of succeeding in the first place.
I've never been a fan of Murtha and one incident isn't going to magically change my mind (unlike some hypocrites who attack him with cheap shots like 'Hero to zero').
But some reaction has been telling. Dennis, over at the Moderate Republican blog, offered this comment.
You don't have to agree with an immediate withdrawl from Iraq-I don't. But you have to respect his words because he knows of what he speaks. Murtha is a Marine and knows war. If this guy who isn't a Michael Moore/MoveOn lefty, says that we should consider getting out of Iraq, maybe the Bushies should listen. Anyway, if the Bushies were paying attention, they would see Murtha wasn't saying we should totally cut and run... he was calling for withdrawal at 'the earliest practicable date.'
I want to focus on this one particular phrase:
If this guy who isn't a Michael Moore/MoveOn lefty, says that we should consider getting out of Iraq...
I'll qualify my comments by stating that I am not a big fan of Michael Moore or of MoveOn. I find them both extremely shrill and obnoxious. I think they're fairly good at preaching to the choir but I doubt they've convinced any of the undecided.
That said, I find the whole credibility thing curious.
Rep. Murtha voted to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq; like many other Democrats, he was complicit in the launching of this aggression. Now, he changes his mind about the wisdom of that excursion. What was so unexpected about what's happened that caused him to change his mind? And more cogently, WHY was it unexpected to him?
How is it that a guy who was complicit in launching the war has more credibility when he says 'withdraw' than a person or a group who opposed the war from day one? How is it that the judgement of a guy who says 'My bad' is revered but a man and a group who were right all along are blithely dismissed as loony 'lefties'? This is a sentiment I've seen quite a bit since Murtha's comments and it baffles me.
I do not criticize Murtha for changing his mind. Sure, maybe if he'd thought as carefully about it before.... well never mind. But I respect him for admitting his mistake, the refusal of which has been the only consistent principle of the Bush administration. At least Murtha's finally seen this debacle for what it is. Better late than never, right?
Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not quite so sure. There are no mulligans, no 'take backs' when it comes to war. That's why they should be launched only as an absolute last resort. Not because you think there might possibly be some undefined conceivable danger in 10 or 20 or 50 years time.
I'm glad Murtha changed his mind and realized what a mess he helped get us into. I'll give Murtha a smidge of credit for admitting his error. Just not the nearly as much as everyone else seems to think he deserves.
I suppose I should be happy every time a pro-war person sees the light. But I can't help but thinking that if the pro-war position hadn't had such overwhelming support in 2003, President Bush might not have dared launch the aggression in the first place. I know it's a little arrogant of me; I'm not right all the time so I shouldn't hold it against others. It's just frustrating when some people take so long to see what's seemed blindingly obvious for years. I know it comes across as smug, but I can't help it.
Murtha's ambivalence seems to mirror that of the American public. Right before the invasion, some 70 percent of Americans thought the war was a great idea. Now, only 35 percent polled thought that US troops should be kept in large numbers until a democracy is established (a prospect which only 32 percent were confident of). While most Americans were eager to rush into this unnecessary war on a wave of bravado, machismo and 'patriotism' (ie: the replacement for critical thinking), support has dropped once the realized what was really involved in a war and occupation. As they say, no one wants to know how sausage is made.
The response to Murtha did, however, demonstrate even more conservative hypocrisy. While the right normally advocates the propaganda slogan of 'Support our troops and veterans and their families' as a means to silence dissent, they're eager to make exceptions for those who refuse to cease dissent. The Swift Boat smears against veteran John Kerry (hardly a revoultionary firebrand). The 'media whore' charges against mom of a soldier Cindy Sheehan. This was no different.
Before his comments, the hawkish Murtha was a 'war hero' and a 'decorated veteran,' someone to be admired even though he was a Democrat. He reportedly even used to advise Dick Cheney on military matters. Now, some conservatives attack him with cheap shots like 'Hero to zero.'
A pathetic Congresswoman from Ohio read a letter on the floor of the House calling Murtha a "coward." Even more pathetically, she later claimed that she "[n]ever wished to attack Congressman Murtha."
But no, "disagreement, argument and debate" were welcome, according to Vice-President Dick Cheney.
Except from 'lefites,' 'cowards,' 'media whores' and those who have 'dishonored their country.'
Update: In a Nov. 30 interview with the BBC World Service's Newshour program, journalist Seymour Hersch theorizes that the rabidly pro-military Murtha may have been echoing the views of the military hierarchy who feels that their views are being ignored or otherwise not heard by the White House.
2nd update: This piece in Alternet echoes some of my comments.
“We’re the targets,” Murtha said in a speech in the Capitol. “We’re uniting the enemy against us. And there’s terrorism all over the world that there wasn’t before we went into Iraq.
“This is a policy wrapped in an illusion.”
This could be more a reflection with the hawk's disillusionment with the way the occupation has been bungled since the start. Though I suppose such a frustration could only occur if you thought it ever had a chance of succeeding in the first place.
I've never been a fan of Murtha and one incident isn't going to magically change my mind (unlike some hypocrites who attack him with cheap shots like 'Hero to zero').
But some reaction has been telling. Dennis, over at the Moderate Republican blog, offered this comment.
You don't have to agree with an immediate withdrawl from Iraq-I don't. But you have to respect his words because he knows of what he speaks. Murtha is a Marine and knows war. If this guy who isn't a Michael Moore/MoveOn lefty, says that we should consider getting out of Iraq, maybe the Bushies should listen. Anyway, if the Bushies were paying attention, they would see Murtha wasn't saying we should totally cut and run... he was calling for withdrawal at 'the earliest practicable date.'
I want to focus on this one particular phrase:
If this guy who isn't a Michael Moore/MoveOn lefty, says that we should consider getting out of Iraq...
I'll qualify my comments by stating that I am not a big fan of Michael Moore or of MoveOn. I find them both extremely shrill and obnoxious. I think they're fairly good at preaching to the choir but I doubt they've convinced any of the undecided.
That said, I find the whole credibility thing curious.
Rep. Murtha voted to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq; like many other Democrats, he was complicit in the launching of this aggression. Now, he changes his mind about the wisdom of that excursion. What was so unexpected about what's happened that caused him to change his mind? And more cogently, WHY was it unexpected to him?
How is it that a guy who was complicit in launching the war has more credibility when he says 'withdraw' than a person or a group who opposed the war from day one? How is it that the judgement of a guy who says 'My bad' is revered but a man and a group who were right all along are blithely dismissed as loony 'lefties'? This is a sentiment I've seen quite a bit since Murtha's comments and it baffles me.
I do not criticize Murtha for changing his mind. Sure, maybe if he'd thought as carefully about it before.... well never mind. But I respect him for admitting his mistake, the refusal of which has been the only consistent principle of the Bush administration. At least Murtha's finally seen this debacle for what it is. Better late than never, right?
Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not quite so sure. There are no mulligans, no 'take backs' when it comes to war. That's why they should be launched only as an absolute last resort. Not because you think there might possibly be some undefined conceivable danger in 10 or 20 or 50 years time.
I'm glad Murtha changed his mind and realized what a mess he helped get us into. I'll give Murtha a smidge of credit for admitting his error. Just not the nearly as much as everyone else seems to think he deserves.
I suppose I should be happy every time a pro-war person sees the light. But I can't help but thinking that if the pro-war position hadn't had such overwhelming support in 2003, President Bush might not have dared launch the aggression in the first place. I know it's a little arrogant of me; I'm not right all the time so I shouldn't hold it against others. It's just frustrating when some people take so long to see what's seemed blindingly obvious for years. I know it comes across as smug, but I can't help it.
Murtha's ambivalence seems to mirror that of the American public. Right before the invasion, some 70 percent of Americans thought the war was a great idea. Now, only 35 percent polled thought that US troops should be kept in large numbers until a democracy is established (a prospect which only 32 percent were confident of). While most Americans were eager to rush into this unnecessary war on a wave of bravado, machismo and 'patriotism' (ie: the replacement for critical thinking), support has dropped once the realized what was really involved in a war and occupation. As they say, no one wants to know how sausage is made.
The response to Murtha did, however, demonstrate even more conservative hypocrisy. While the right normally advocates the propaganda slogan of 'Support our troops and veterans and their families' as a means to silence dissent, they're eager to make exceptions for those who refuse to cease dissent. The Swift Boat smears against veteran John Kerry (hardly a revoultionary firebrand). The 'media whore' charges against mom of a soldier Cindy Sheehan. This was no different.
Before his comments, the hawkish Murtha was a 'war hero' and a 'decorated veteran,' someone to be admired even though he was a Democrat. He reportedly even used to advise Dick Cheney on military matters. Now, some conservatives attack him with cheap shots like 'Hero to zero.'
A pathetic Congresswoman from Ohio read a letter on the floor of the House calling Murtha a "coward." Even more pathetically, she later claimed that she "[n]ever wished to attack Congressman Murtha."
But no, "disagreement, argument and debate" were welcome, according to Vice-President Dick Cheney.
Except from 'lefites,' 'cowards,' 'media whores' and those who have 'dishonored their country.'
Update: In a Nov. 30 interview with the BBC World Service's Newshour program, journalist Seymour Hersch theorizes that the rabidly pro-military Murtha may have been echoing the views of the military hierarchy who feels that their views are being ignored or otherwise not heard by the White House.
2nd update: This piece in Alternet echoes some of my comments.
Friday, November 25, 2005
Culture in Glens Falls
While it may be more fashionable to badmouth the place, Glens Falls does have a wide array of cultural activities for a very small city... especially for an old mill town with not a lot of money. New York City it ain't, but then again Glens Falls is one of the safest cities in the country. Let's not forget that Glens Falls' population is not even 15,000 and, if you ask me, has a higher quality of life than most places.
How many cities the size of Glens Falls have a fantastic fine arts museum (The Hyde), a great new theatre, a professional symphony orchestra AND a theatre company that puts out high quality performances? And that's not even counting the historical museum or the children's museum.
However, clearly the most important cultural institution in the Glens Falls or the immediate area is the Crandall Public Library. Voters recently approved a bond issue to expand the cramped library building.
Back in the early 90s, Glens Falls and the neighboring towns of Queensbury and Moreau agreed to create a special library taxation district. That alone is quite astonishing. While taxes are popular nowhere, this part of upstate New York is more anti-tax than most. I still see bumper stickers that read "Queensbury: Taxtown USA." And Queensbury eliminated its town tax a few years ago.
Yet every year (except one) since the taxation district has been in existence, the library budget has been approved by a majority of voters in each of the three municipalities.
An earlier bond issue for expansion failed because it was seen as too "extravagent" (though I certainly didn't come to that conclusion) and the library leadership did a poor job selling it. So they developed a more modest expansion project and engaged in widespread public consultation. This one passed, with almost 60% in Glens Falls and Queensbury (a bit closer in Moreau).
That the famously anti-tax residents of this area would voluntarily increase their own taxes to support this most important cultural institution, instead of relying on 'free money' from Albany or Washington, is a testament to the esteem with which the library is held by the locals.
How many cities the size of Glens Falls have a fantastic fine arts museum (The Hyde), a great new theatre, a professional symphony orchestra AND a theatre company that puts out high quality performances? And that's not even counting the historical museum or the children's museum.
However, clearly the most important cultural institution in the Glens Falls or the immediate area is the Crandall Public Library. Voters recently approved a bond issue to expand the cramped library building.
Back in the early 90s, Glens Falls and the neighboring towns of Queensbury and Moreau agreed to create a special library taxation district. That alone is quite astonishing. While taxes are popular nowhere, this part of upstate New York is more anti-tax than most. I still see bumper stickers that read "Queensbury: Taxtown USA." And Queensbury eliminated its town tax a few years ago.
Yet every year (except one) since the taxation district has been in existence, the library budget has been approved by a majority of voters in each of the three municipalities.
An earlier bond issue for expansion failed because it was seen as too "extravagent" (though I certainly didn't come to that conclusion) and the library leadership did a poor job selling it. So they developed a more modest expansion project and engaged in widespread public consultation. This one passed, with almost 60% in Glens Falls and Queensbury (a bit closer in Moreau).
That the famously anti-tax residents of this area would voluntarily increase their own taxes to support this most important cultural institution, instead of relying on 'free money' from Albany or Washington, is a testament to the esteem with which the library is held by the locals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)