Does anyone remember the movie "Getting Straight"?
It was Elliot Gould's best movie, and Candice Bergen's too. Among many great scenes, the greatest was the Master's Oral.
It culminated in a bit of business between Gould and one of the Masters examiners, who was trying to get Gould to agree that F. Scott Fitzgerald was gay. Seeing his degree disappearing unless he could appease this examiner, Gould tried mightly to find some ethical way to agree with the examiner's belief. He twisted and turned, but he just couldn't do it, finally bursting out with "well, that will be news to Zelda". Needless to say, the Oral deteriorated from there. ("The greatest expression of English literature is...the Limrick!")
I was reminded of this scene when I read this post Matthew Yglesias: Thinking Things Through about the Social Security debate in the US. The right-wing politicians and economists are trying so hard to find some way to support Bush's plan, twisting and turning to make sense of it, and to try to make it sensible. But they just can't do it. It DOESN'T make sense, it will never make sense, the emperor HAS NO CLOTHES.
And that won't be news to Zelda at all.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Dispatch from the trenches
On Rabble, we find Charles Demers' Pride and prejudice in the chapel o' love
A good article all around, skewering people who want the left to stop dealing with "wedge issues" like gay marriage. "One would assume that, in the face of such a blatantly contradictory, homophobic, illiberal, anti-democratic, obscurant campaign by the right, we might see a reinvigorated, confident, accessible and lucid counter from left. One would be wrong, as one nearly always is when one expects invigoration, confidence, accessibility and lucidity from us." He decries the left's failure to mount an aggressive defense of gay marriage because it is thought to be a "wedge issue". ". . . we know from the experience of workers and activists of colour what appeals to ignore 'wedge issues' means: 'Shut up about abortion, language rights, affirmative action, tiered wages, and wheelchair access. We need to emphasize campaigns that white men can get behind.' "
And he points out something I have wondered about as well -- the hypocrisy of Harper's use of the "polygamy" scare tactic, while also courting Muslim men whose religion has been interpreted by some to actually support having more than one wife.
And for more news on the gay marriage fight, now the Conservatives are playing the victim over some sort of email scam where MPs were told to send their constituents a pamphlet about gay marriage. The CP story leads with this remarkable sentence "The Conservatives say they're the victims of a dirty tricks e-mail campaign designed to make them look anti-gay ... "
Well, let me just remind the conservatives of this one little fact: opposing gay marriage IS anti-gay! They cannot have it both ways, demonizing gay marriage while pretending they actually support gay rights and gay people.
But they want to, oh how they want to. As a result, they're living in a self-created myth world, where they think they can pander to bigoted religious groups while denying that they are actually promoting bigotry.
I checked out the Conservative Party Website to see what it had to say on the issue. Here is their discretely-titled section "Definition of Marriage: The Conservative Party will fight to give a greater voice to Parliament. We will ensure that issues like marriage are decided by parliament, not the courts." That's all. So, I guess they'll be issuing a press release any day now to say how happy they are now that parliament is deciding the issue, eh?
And here's an example of Harper's fire-and-brimstone rhetoric on the issue, from the text of a Feb. 5 speech , the most recent speech posted on the website. "I think its important to have equal rights, just as important to preserve traditional definition." That's it, one incoherent sentence. Of course, he was speaking to a Conservative meeting in Nova Scotia, with Peter McKay apparently in the room, so he knew he couldn't actually get into the scare tactics used in the Conservative ad campaign, about which he had not informed McKay before it started.
Well, I can only conclude that, while the left may be somewhat cowardly on the issue, this pales in comparison to the mean-spirited, deliberately-misleading hypocritical cowardice on the Conservative side.
A good article all around, skewering people who want the left to stop dealing with "wedge issues" like gay marriage. "One would assume that, in the face of such a blatantly contradictory, homophobic, illiberal, anti-democratic, obscurant campaign by the right, we might see a reinvigorated, confident, accessible and lucid counter from left. One would be wrong, as one nearly always is when one expects invigoration, confidence, accessibility and lucidity from us." He decries the left's failure to mount an aggressive defense of gay marriage because it is thought to be a "wedge issue". ". . . we know from the experience of workers and activists of colour what appeals to ignore 'wedge issues' means: 'Shut up about abortion, language rights, affirmative action, tiered wages, and wheelchair access. We need to emphasize campaigns that white men can get behind.' "
And he points out something I have wondered about as well -- the hypocrisy of Harper's use of the "polygamy" scare tactic, while also courting Muslim men whose religion has been interpreted by some to actually support having more than one wife.
And for more news on the gay marriage fight, now the Conservatives are playing the victim over some sort of email scam where MPs were told to send their constituents a pamphlet about gay marriage. The CP story leads with this remarkable sentence "The Conservatives say they're the victims of a dirty tricks e-mail campaign designed to make them look anti-gay ... "
Well, let me just remind the conservatives of this one little fact: opposing gay marriage IS anti-gay! They cannot have it both ways, demonizing gay marriage while pretending they actually support gay rights and gay people.
But they want to, oh how they want to. As a result, they're living in a self-created myth world, where they think they can pander to bigoted religious groups while denying that they are actually promoting bigotry.
I checked out the Conservative Party Website to see what it had to say on the issue. Here is their discretely-titled section "Definition of Marriage: The Conservative Party will fight to give a greater voice to Parliament. We will ensure that issues like marriage are decided by parliament, not the courts." That's all. So, I guess they'll be issuing a press release any day now to say how happy they are now that parliament is deciding the issue, eh?
And here's an example of Harper's fire-and-brimstone rhetoric on the issue, from the text of a Feb. 5 speech , the most recent speech posted on the website. "I think its important to have equal rights, just as important to preserve traditional definition." That's it, one incoherent sentence. Of course, he was speaking to a Conservative meeting in Nova Scotia, with Peter McKay apparently in the room, so he knew he couldn't actually get into the scare tactics used in the Conservative ad campaign, about which he had not informed McKay before it started.
Well, I can only conclude that, while the left may be somewhat cowardly on the issue, this pales in comparison to the mean-spirited, deliberately-misleading hypocritical cowardice on the Conservative side.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Emotional physics
My Bhalg posts about Gwyne Dyer's new book, so I decided to look up his recent columns. What a great writer he is. The latest column on his website is Jan 17, when he writes about . the chances that the US will invade Iran. Here is how he ends it:
"Edward Luttwak, the military historian and strategic analyst who is renowned in Washington for his maverick views, recently described US foreign policy post-9/11 almost as an exercise in emotional physics. Never mind all the elaborate strategic plans and projects of the neo-conservatives, he implied; what really drives all this is just push-back. After 9/11, there was an enormous need in the US to do something big, to smash stuff up and punish people for the hurt that had been done to Americans. Afghanistan was a logical and legitimate target of that anger, but it fell practically without a fight and left the national need forOn Hardball tonight, the retired generals were talking about the US being in Iraq for another three years. I wonder how long Iran will be willing to wait?
vengeance unassuaged. The invasion of Iraq was an emotional necessity if the rage was to be discharged, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to the United States. In this interpretation, all the talk about attacking Iran is the last wave of this emotional binge running feebly up the beach, and it is unlikely to sweep everything away. The talk is still macho, but the performance is not there to back it up. What the US public gets for all the taxes it pays on defence -- currently around $2,000 a year for every American man, woman and child -- is armed forces that are barely capable of holding down one middle-sized Arab country. There simply aren't any American troops available to invade Iran, and air strikes will only annoy them. What would really tip the whole area into an acute crisis is a re-radicalised Iran that has concluded that it will never be secure until it has expelled the United States from the region."
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Guantanamo goes mainstream
Wednesday night I watched one of my favorite shows, NYPD Blue. The plot of this episode was disturbing and horrifying.
An Army recruiter is shot in front of a school, and the first suspect found by the detectives is a teenager - 17 years old - who had argued previously with the recuiters because his brother died in Iraq. And the boy admitted he had learned how to shoot in Scouts. Oh, and he also had taken a school trip to Spain and Morocco the previous summer.
So, according to the Army CID guy helping the NYPD investigate the case, the boy fit the profile of an "enemy combatant" and the CID was therefore entitled to use "special interrogation methods" to force him to confess. The good detectives of the squad, though, wanted to investigate a little further. and of course they finally found the real culprit. And in the end, the boy went up to the recruiter and basically apologized for causing so much trouble.
What was horrifying about it was, first, that on the basis of coincidence, with zero evidence, the Army CID type concluded the boy was guilty and was all set to ship the boy to Guantanamo, and second, that everybody else in the squad accepted without a murmur the right of the CID to do this. They all acted like torturing the boy and condemning him without a trial would be perfectly OK if they couldn't find a better suspect.
I was reminded of this plotline when I read Digby today writing about Death in Life "We are disappearing people, rendering them to friendly governments that aren't afraid to put the electrode to genitals and threaten with dog rape. And we are building our own infrastructure of torture and extra legal imprisonment. It is a law of human nature that if you build it, they will come. This infrastructure will be expanded and bureaucratized. It's already happening. And when they decide, as Professor Yoo has already decided, that an election is a sanctioning of anything the President chooses to do in the War on Terror, it is only a matter of time before internal political enemies become a threat.
And then it will be us."
Perhaps it is time for people like Digby and Kos and Atrios and BOP and Frog and the other progressive bloggers to start making some back-up plans, like European mirror sites. And does anyone know if the Weathermen safe houses still exist? Canada would welcome you all, of course.
An Army recruiter is shot in front of a school, and the first suspect found by the detectives is a teenager - 17 years old - who had argued previously with the recuiters because his brother died in Iraq. And the boy admitted he had learned how to shoot in Scouts. Oh, and he also had taken a school trip to Spain and Morocco the previous summer.
So, according to the Army CID guy helping the NYPD investigate the case, the boy fit the profile of an "enemy combatant" and the CID was therefore entitled to use "special interrogation methods" to force him to confess. The good detectives of the squad, though, wanted to investigate a little further. and of course they finally found the real culprit. And in the end, the boy went up to the recruiter and basically apologized for causing so much trouble.
What was horrifying about it was, first, that on the basis of coincidence, with zero evidence, the Army CID type concluded the boy was guilty and was all set to ship the boy to Guantanamo, and second, that everybody else in the squad accepted without a murmur the right of the CID to do this. They all acted like torturing the boy and condemning him without a trial would be perfectly OK if they couldn't find a better suspect.
I was reminded of this plotline when I read Digby today writing about Death in Life "We are disappearing people, rendering them to friendly governments that aren't afraid to put the electrode to genitals and threaten with dog rape. And we are building our own infrastructure of torture and extra legal imprisonment. It is a law of human nature that if you build it, they will come. This infrastructure will be expanded and bureaucratized. It's already happening. And when they decide, as Professor Yoo has already decided, that an election is a sanctioning of anything the President chooses to do in the War on Terror, it is only a matter of time before internal political enemies become a threat.
And then it will be us."
Perhaps it is time for people like Digby and Kos and Atrios and BOP and Frog and the other progressive bloggers to start making some back-up plans, like European mirror sites. And does anyone know if the Weathermen safe houses still exist? Canada would welcome you all, of course.
"I'm not a journalist but I've played one at the White House"
AMERICAblog summarizes the Gannon coverage. Spiderleaf at Daily Kos provides the timeline which shows how Gannon was a major player in twisting the Plame leak story. For me, this is much hotter stuff than the "military escorts men for men" angle, though your mileage may differ.
UPDATE: Digby blows away the "poor conservative journalist targetted by the liberal blogosphere" spin, which isn't going to survive the sh*tstorm now directing attention squarely where it belongs, on the White House press office, which I assume will shortly be approached by the Daily Show for credentials.
UPDATE: Digby blows away the "poor conservative journalist targetted by the liberal blogosphere" spin, which isn't going to survive the sh*tstorm now directing attention squarely where it belongs, on the White House press office, which I assume will shortly be approached by the Daily Show for credentials.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Nothing is taboo for these guys
Pogge has a good post about the latest missle defense moves: Peace, order and good government, eh?: Let's not let the facts influence our decision
What frustrates me about the missile defense discussion is Canada's pious insistence that even if it does participate in the "defense" part, it would not participate in the weaponization of space, oh no, never, and besides the Americans say they don't want to put weapons in space anyway.
My question is -- why wouldn't they?
For the last 40 years, the American military has worked to weaponize everything else -- just tonight, on Countdown I think, there was a laudatory story about how US unmanned planes can fire missiles at Iraqi snipers, on orders from corporals sitting in bunkers a thousand miles away. One of the big scare stories in the Iraq war buildup was the "discovery" of some torpedo-like tubes which the Americans said were Iraqi prototypes of unmanned aircraft which the Iraqis were planning to use to attack the US -- of course, they turned out to be nothing of the kind, but it shows what the Americans were thinking. And they're working hard making nuclear weapons that they can actually use, that will, for instance, burrow underground.
So why wouldn't they want to be able to put weapons in space? In fact, some think they already are doing this -- its the final frontier, for one thing, and besides, they likely think they will need such weapons to win the war against China which they probably think America will be fighting in about 20 years.
What frustrates me about the missile defense discussion is Canada's pious insistence that even if it does participate in the "defense" part, it would not participate in the weaponization of space, oh no, never, and besides the Americans say they don't want to put weapons in space anyway.
My question is -- why wouldn't they?
For the last 40 years, the American military has worked to weaponize everything else -- just tonight, on Countdown I think, there was a laudatory story about how US unmanned planes can fire missiles at Iraqi snipers, on orders from corporals sitting in bunkers a thousand miles away. One of the big scare stories in the Iraq war buildup was the "discovery" of some torpedo-like tubes which the Americans said were Iraqi prototypes of unmanned aircraft which the Iraqis were planning to use to attack the US -- of course, they turned out to be nothing of the kind, but it shows what the Americans were thinking. And they're working hard making nuclear weapons that they can actually use, that will, for instance, burrow underground.
So why wouldn't they want to be able to put weapons in space? In fact, some think they already are doing this -- its the final frontier, for one thing, and besides, they likely think they will need such weapons to win the war against China which they probably think America will be fighting in about 20 years.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Bring it on
My Blahg: American Intrusion provides an excellent roundup describing how America's so-called "pro-family" groups are issuing ultimatums and funding advertising campaigns opposing Canada's gay marriage law, and the blogs which are blogging against this.
I hadn't realized how bad this was getting until I read this post. Canadians, including Canadian politicians, will have to come to grips with an unpleasant truth -- Canada's attempt to legalize gay marriage is becoming another symbolic battle for America's Christian Right. We rank right up there with Spongebob and Janet Jackson as a American cause celebre.
To my mind, this makes the success of the gay marriage bill even more important -- imagine being able to strike a decisive blow for Canadian civil rights AND undermine the whole American Christian Right take-over-the-world agenda, just with one measly little vote supporting gay marriage!
I hadn't realized how bad this was getting until I read this post. Canadians, including Canadian politicians, will have to come to grips with an unpleasant truth -- Canada's attempt to legalize gay marriage is becoming another symbolic battle for America's Christian Right. We rank right up there with Spongebob and Janet Jackson as a American cause celebre.
To my mind, this makes the success of the gay marriage bill even more important -- imagine being able to strike a decisive blow for Canadian civil rights AND undermine the whole American Christian Right take-over-the-world agenda, just with one measly little vote supporting gay marriage!
The protesters won
All those protesters at the world's economic summits over the last few years have been reviled and trivialized by the media and dissed by the politicians and teargassed by the police.
But now they have won -- The Globe and Mail: Canada offers debt-relief plan: ". . . despite the confusion and disagreement at this weekend's summit, it will be remembered as the moment when the rich countries agreed to take on all the debt of the poorest economies. 'What will be known as the '100-per-cent debt summit' owes its progress to the millions who have campaigned for justice, for the strength of their resolve, the vision of their leadership, their determination in pursuit of a great cause' . . . "
They haven't won everything, of course, but they have succeeded in forcing the finance ministers from the richer countries do what the world needs done.
But now they have won -- The Globe and Mail: Canada offers debt-relief plan: ". . . despite the confusion and disagreement at this weekend's summit, it will be remembered as the moment when the rich countries agreed to take on all the debt of the poorest economies. 'What will be known as the '100-per-cent debt summit' owes its progress to the millions who have campaigned for justice, for the strength of their resolve, the vision of their leadership, their determination in pursuit of a great cause' . . . "
They haven't won everything, of course, but they have succeeded in forcing the finance ministers from the richer countries do what the world needs done.
The devil is in the details
Said the cowboy to the debutante "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
"Well, OK" said the debutante.
"Would you sleep with me for $10?"
"Absolutely not! What do you think I am?"
"We already know what you are, ma'am. We're just haggling about the price."
I was reminded of this old joke when I read LiberalOasis: The Dangers Of Getting Cute and Tacking Right
Liberal Oasis is absolutely correct -- the danger for the left in accepting the right's frame is that the argument becomes one of details rather than of principle.
And he is right that this becomes particularly important when dealing with the abortion issue. I have blogged about this before. The core issue for abortion rights is not "what choice" but rather "whose choice" -- supporting abortion rights is not support for whether abortion itself is moral or immoral, but rather support for the right of women to decide for themselves, based on their own moral compass, whether or not to have an abortion. I can, as a person, agree or disagree with another woman's choice. I can even, as a mother, argue with her about whether abortion is her best decision. But I believe absolutely that she has the right to make the decision for herself. This is the core principle that has to be fought for and maintained.
"Well, OK" said the debutante.
"Would you sleep with me for $10?"
"Absolutely not! What do you think I am?"
"We already know what you are, ma'am. We're just haggling about the price."
I was reminded of this old joke when I read LiberalOasis: The Dangers Of Getting Cute and Tacking Right
Liberal Oasis is absolutely correct -- the danger for the left in accepting the right's frame is that the argument becomes one of details rather than of principle.
And he is right that this becomes particularly important when dealing with the abortion issue. I have blogged about this before. The core issue for abortion rights is not "what choice" but rather "whose choice" -- supporting abortion rights is not support for whether abortion itself is moral or immoral, but rather support for the right of women to decide for themselves, based on their own moral compass, whether or not to have an abortion. I can, as a person, agree or disagree with another woman's choice. I can even, as a mother, argue with her about whether abortion is her best decision. But I believe absolutely that she has the right to make the decision for herself. This is the core principle that has to be fought for and maintained.
If I was a Democrat in Congress...
Yahoo! News - Bush Proposes Steep Cuts in $2.57T Budget
If I was a Democrat in Congress, house or senate, I would just simply vote against this horrible budget and do nothing else.
Its Bush's shell game -- propose a budget so horrible that the Congress won't vote for it, then blame them for raising the deficit.
So the Democratic response should be -- nothing. No negotiations, no massaging, no special pleadings to restore this or that program, no porkbarreling, no little quid-quo-pros that would add line items for my district back in so that I would vote in favour, no cooperation, no "bipartisanship", no nothing. Its a Republican budget all the way, so let them vote for it and live with it.
Of course, I live in a parliamentary system, where the governing party is always responsible and accountable for the budget it proposes and if they screw up, people always know who to blame for the mess.
If I was a Democrat in Congress, house or senate, I would just simply vote against this horrible budget and do nothing else.
Its Bush's shell game -- propose a budget so horrible that the Congress won't vote for it, then blame them for raising the deficit.
So the Democratic response should be -- nothing. No negotiations, no massaging, no special pleadings to restore this or that program, no porkbarreling, no little quid-quo-pros that would add line items for my district back in so that I would vote in favour, no cooperation, no "bipartisanship", no nothing. Its a Republican budget all the way, so let them vote for it and live with it.
Of course, I live in a parliamentary system, where the governing party is always responsible and accountable for the budget it proposes and if they screw up, people always know who to blame for the mess.
Monday, February 07, 2005
The Islamic state of Iraq
To find out what is really going on in Iraq now, I go to Juan Cole's Informed Comment and to Today in Iraq.
Today, Cole is writing about the Sunday talk shows "The Republican Party spin machine was bouncing around the airwaves like an overloaded washing machine on Sunday attempting to obscure from the American public that they had by their actions managed to install a Shiite religious ruling class in Iraq."
My personal response to Cole's post, actually, was to wonder, to whom is this news? I guess its a surprise to the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, but not to anyone else with half a brain.
Of course the Shiites were going to elect a people who would write an Islamic constitution - its what they want. It's what they've always wanted. Its what Iran wants, too. And the Kurds don't care as long as they are left alone to keep democracy in their own way, which the new constitution will also ensure.
Today, Cole is writing about the Sunday talk shows "The Republican Party spin machine was bouncing around the airwaves like an overloaded washing machine on Sunday attempting to obscure from the American public that they had by their actions managed to install a Shiite religious ruling class in Iraq."
My personal response to Cole's post, actually, was to wonder, to whom is this news? I guess its a surprise to the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, but not to anyone else with half a brain.
Of course the Shiites were going to elect a people who would write an Islamic constitution - its what they want. It's what they've always wanted. Its what Iran wants, too. And the Kurds don't care as long as they are left alone to keep democracy in their own way, which the new constitution will also ensure.
Straws in the wind
Buzzflash points to this important article -- Hunger for Dictatorship from The American Conservative magazine. Even conservatives are becoming concerned about the rising tide of American fascism:
"I don’t think there are yet real fascists in the administration, but there is certainly now a constituency for them —hungry to bomb foreigners and smash those Americans who might object. And when there are constituencies, leaders may not be far behind. They could be propelled into power by a populace ever more frustrated that the imperialist war it has supported—generally for the most banal of patriotic reasons—cannot possibly end in victory. And so scapegoats are sought, and if we can’t bomb Arabs into submission, or the French, domestic critics of Bush will serve."
"I don’t think there are yet real fascists in the administration, but there is certainly now a constituency for them —hungry to bomb foreigners and smash those Americans who might object. And when there are constituencies, leaders may not be far behind. They could be propelled into power by a populace ever more frustrated that the imperialist war it has supported—generally for the most banal of patriotic reasons—cannot possibly end in victory. And so scapegoats are sought, and if we can’t bomb Arabs into submission, or the French, domestic critics of Bush will serve."
Saturday, February 05, 2005
No Way!
TheStar.com - Canadian troops to Iraq?
Not only would it be stupid in and of itself for Canada to send troops to Iraq -- because the US is the agressor and the occupier and the insurgents are right to want them to leave -- but it would also allow Bush to announce how Canada had finally seen the light and recognized that he was right and we were wrong, so there, nayh nayh nayh nayh nayh nayh big fat razzberry bzzzzzzz!
Thanks, Ross, for the heads up.
So what can we do about it? Who is organizing the protests?
Not only would it be stupid in and of itself for Canada to send troops to Iraq -- because the US is the agressor and the occupier and the insurgents are right to want them to leave -- but it would also allow Bush to announce how Canada had finally seen the light and recognized that he was right and we were wrong, so there, nayh nayh nayh nayh nayh nayh big fat razzberry bzzzzzzz!
Thanks, Ross, for the heads up.
So what can we do about it? Who is organizing the protests?
Friday, February 04, 2005
"Outside agitators"
FOXNews.com - Politics - Capitol Hill Mulls 'Regime Change' in Iran
Does anyone else remember the times when US leadership at various levels was opposed to "outside agitators"?
This was the right-wing ephithet hurled at everyone from the union activitists who worked to get unions certified in factories, to civil rights workers who signed up Southern voters, to Communists and "fellow-travellers" who were supposed to be "infiltrating" various progressive groups like the Sierra Club and the Democratic Party and the peace movement in the 60s.
At that time, the "outside agitators" were awful, stirring up the poor folks and the darkies and the workers and the students, getting them to protest when they should have known better.
So now, the US is making itself into the "outside agitators" in Iran? Well, what goes around, comes around, I guess.
Does anyone else remember the times when US leadership at various levels was opposed to "outside agitators"?
This was the right-wing ephithet hurled at everyone from the union activitists who worked to get unions certified in factories, to civil rights workers who signed up Southern voters, to Communists and "fellow-travellers" who were supposed to be "infiltrating" various progressive groups like the Sierra Club and the Democratic Party and the peace movement in the 60s.
At that time, the "outside agitators" were awful, stirring up the poor folks and the darkies and the workers and the students, getting them to protest when they should have known better.
So now, the US is making itself into the "outside agitators" in Iran? Well, what goes around, comes around, I guess.
Iraqi sayings
LRB | Eliot Weinberger : What I Heard about Iraq
This is almost too painful to read, but it has a deadly fascination that keeps you going. From All Spin Zone.
This is almost too painful to read, but it has a deadly fascination that keeps you going. From All Spin Zone.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)