Skip to content

Month: April 2006

Published by digby on April 4, 2006

“I’d like to thank the craft service guy”

by digby

Congratulations everyone.

The Winners:

I am gobsmacked. Writing this blog is not all that easy for me, unfortunately. I write slowly and laboriously, unlike a lot of my fellow bloggers who seem to have an endless supply of great ideas and words at the ready to apply to any subject. I get writers block way too frequently. But I’ve got this little bloggy monkey on my back that just won’t leave me alone (not that I really want him to.) Despite my limitations, blogging is incredibly fun. And getting approbation from readers is fantastic. Thank you.

This is a wonderful political community, constantly evolving and growing and moving in new directions. This year brought many new bloggers into the forefront, some of whom have small but loyal followings, like my friends at Bagnews and others who are blogging juggernauts like Jane and Christy at firedoglake and and John Amato at Crooks and Liars who are clear cutting new paths through the blogosphere. And blogs are starting to have a tangible impact; it’s exciting to be a part of it.

But I have to say that the reason the political blogs are changing things has far less to do with our entertaining writing or cogent analysis than with the fact that we provide a forum for citizens to interact and a system for interacting with each other. We bloggers set forth ideas and lead the debate, but our political power derives from our readers and commenters. Essentially, it’s a collaborative political media — and the political and media establishments are starting to notice that many thousands of average citizens are engaging. They aren’t stupid. They know that blog readers are all opinion leaders in their own lives who take the arguments and ideas that are hashed out on the blogs to water coolers, dinner tables, bars and churches everywhere. That’s some powerful mojo.

I probably should say something about pseudonymity since it’s come up recently. This tradition goes back to the early days of our nation in which the enlightenment belief that pseudonymous written argument, based in reason rather than authority, democratizes ideas and promotes freedom. Many of the writers and activists who fomented the American revolution used fictitious personaes or wrote pseudonymously — Sam Adams wrote under 25 different identities. The idea (aside from protecting themselves from charges of treason!) was that the written words standing on their own, without the edifice of credentialed expertise and social status — or grounding in the received word of religion — had the greatest persuasive power. (The best example of this, of course, is Publius, of the Federalist Papers.) Writing pseudonymously openly distinguishes between the private person and a citizen of the public sphere by removing all but the disembodied voice from the argument. I find that interesting.

Until recently it was rapidly becoming necessary for people once again to have money, status or specialized knowledge in order to engage in national civic life. TV had created a public sphere,to be sure, but it was one-way. The impotence I felt during the Clinton impeachment, in which a media and political elite hijacked the discourse against the public will, was excruciating. When the internet serendipitously came along at precisely that moment with it’s natural affinity for fungible “identities,” I found it irresistable to try to write pseudonymously and engage the debate in this unique fashion. I do not claim to have accomplished anything spectacular by doing this but I’ve found it suits my temperament and continues to challenge my thinking in ways I never anticipated. That others find it entertaining and edifying as well pleases me to no end. After all, it’s the (early) American way.

Thanks very much everyone, particularly my talented contributor, tristero, and the gang at Wampum who are kind enough to sponsor these awards for our community. I’m truly grateful.

.

Published by digby on April 4, 2006

Short Sighted Strategery

by digby

Joe Klein is piling on Bill Frist, no doubt in anticipation of his future fellatory profile of the man of his dreams, John McCain. He’s just clearing the decks. It’s enjoyable watching Frist get skewered, of course, but did anyone ever believe that such a dry socket could become president? Seriously, he makes Evan Bayh seem like Mick Jagger.

The column is, therefore, as useless as most of his columns, but there is one throw away line that caught my attention:

A series of terrible leadership moves have ensued. There was Frist’s effort to deploy the “nuclear option” — that is, to perform radical surgery on the Senate’s filibuster rules in order to allow votes on President Bush’s more extreme judicial appointments. But the nuclear option was thwarted when 14 Senate moderates cut a deal to keep the rules and allow votes on some of the appointees. “We saved him on that,” said a G.O.P. staff member involved in the negotiations. “Frist never had the votes he needed for the nuclear option.”

Who saved him exactly? The seven Republicans or the seven Democrats who cut that deal?

In case you forgot:

* Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut
* Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia
* E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska
* Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
* Daniel Inouye, Hawaii
* Mark Pryor, Arkansas
* Ken Salazar, Colorado

So what are these seven extracting from Bill Frist for their trouble? Nothing? What an excellent deal it was then.

It’s a perfect example of Chuck Schumer’s “protect the marginals” strategy, which is revealed in all its glory in the most amazing piece of narcissistic premature chicken counting I’ve ever seen. Does anyone really think it’s a good idea for Shumer to give an in-depth interview at this point in the cycle outlining his cynical, unprincipled political strategy? Could he not keep his big mouth shut for a few months at least?

It’s disturbing to see that Shumer cares more about big donors and moving the party ever rightward than fulfilling the Democratic vision; there is ample reason to condemn him for some of his decisions and criticize his strategy, which I will discuss shortly. But it’s unbelievable to me that he is such an egomaniac that he cooperated with a story that will damn the Democrats as being phony and hypocritical — which they are if what he’s saying is true. The only earthly reason to discuss his strategy publicly and in such detail is to toot his own horn and bask in the approbation of political pundits and sleazy strategists. And to do this before he has won is simply inexplicable.

What is it about Democratic politicians that they cannot keep their pieholes shut about process and strategy? Note to Harry Reid: think twice about assigning camera hogs to do backround work.

On the substance, I can see both good and bad in his strategy. On the positive side, I think he’s probably been pretty good at attracting good candidates in red states and I think it was very smart to bribe the Democratic senators who were tempted to retire with whatever they needed. We cannot lose any more senators. And I think we all understand that Democrats running in conservative races around the country need to be given latitude to run in a different way than one would run in New York or California. It is an unpleasant reality that the Senate, being a basically undemocratic institution, overrepresents conservatives. It always has.

But there are signs that Shumer’s agenda is not merely to draw a defensive line around red state Democrats — it’s to actually change certain fundamental aspects of the Democratic platform in order to make his job easier. Recruiting anti-abortion candidates in states where being pro-choice is acceptable even for Republicans like Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, for instance, is very hard to reconcile unless there is some attempt to marginalize that issue in the caucus. That will not do. I realize that it is always better to have Democrats in power than Republican when it comes to preserving choice (although history suggests that it is not an inviolable rule — the Hyde amendment was passed by a Democratic congress and signed by a Democratic president.) But to try to undermine choice by actively recruiting candidates in Blue States who believe that abortion should be outlawed looks very much like a move to push the party into the anti-abortion camp. (And like the Democrats’ eventual endorsement of the death penalty, it will not accomplish anything politically in the long run except making abortion illegal. There’s always another issue for the right to demagogue.)

It’s possible that there are forces at work in those two cases of which I’m unaware, but this is how it looks to me out here in grassrootsland. Chuck Shumer seems to be bargaining away choice in order to win and from where I sit that’s no different than endorsing rolling back the voting rights act in order to win. This is a fundamental issue of civil liberties that cuts to the heart of what the Democratic party stands for. Being willing to create the illusion that the party is anti-abortion (when a majority of the population is clearly in favor!) makes it appear that the party will do anything to win. And that, in my view, is what’s killing us.

Shumer puts it this way:

Schumer knew that the full fury of pro-choice Democrats would rain down on him when Casey announced his candidacy. But that was exactly the point. By pissing off the party’s most loyal supporters, Schumer sent a message that he was serious about winning, one that rippled into other states and helped persuade reluctant recruiting targets to run. “I said, ‘Hey, we have to win!’ If we had 58 seats, maybe you wouldn’t do this, but our back is against the wall,” Schumer says.

58 seats! (I suppose we should be grateful to at least know what’s required before we can stand up for our principles.)

I can’t help but wonder, however, if people like Shumer are hoping to win this next election exclusively with Independent and Republican votes; this is a very dicey strategy to employ in a mid-term, which depends upon turn out. On the substance I think he’s wrong. On the politics, I think he’s insane to be saying this publicly. Does he think we can’t read?

I honestly can’t decide which is worse — Shumer doing what he’s doing or Shumer advertising what he’s doing. When you look at both the optics and the substance, I don’t think I’ve ever read an article that makes be feel more depressed about the direction of the Party.

The days of “Sistah Sojahing” the base are over. It was useful 14 years ago but it is deadly now. Democrats should be very congnizant that disrespecting their core voters at this point will produce a backlash. And they should also be cognizant that turn-out of the Democratic base in the fall is not guaranteed by Bush’s unpopularity. There is a strong sense out here that our participation is meaningless — we will have Bush for two more years no matter what and the congress is impotent and unwilling to challenge him no matter how unpopular he becomes. Clearly there will be no accountability for the last five years and the only change in policy the Democrats seem interested in is to bring the nation ever closer to making choice illegal. Why should the base bother to vote in this election?

.

Published by digby on April 3, 2006

Assuming The Worst

by digby

Howard Kurtz isn’t satisfied quite yet with Jill Carroll’s explanations as to why she didn’t get herself beheaded for George W. Bush. Apparently, until he can “see into her soul” he can’t judge whether she was truly not being a terrorist collaborator even though she said her statement was coerced. Here’s Kurtz:

Jill Carroll is now back in Boston. (Here’s the Christian Science Monitor piece on her return.) Since I was among a number of journalists expressing puzzlement about her videotaped interview in an Islamic party office in Baghdad after her release, I was glad to see the statement she released over the weekend. I just wish it had been in front of a camera, since it’s hard for a written statement to catch up with a piece of video that’s been endlessly replayed.

Yes, because the media failed to provide proper context for her statements, she now needs to submit herself for inspection on television so that people can properly evaluate her veracity. Excellent journalism, once again. Professionals like Kurtz, being naive little tots who couldn’t possibly have used some discretion and refrained from airing their “puzzlement” at her “behavior” until they had the facts, just don’t know what to think.

Here’s what Kurtz said on Friday:

I must say, though, that I found her first interview yesterday rather odd. Carroll seemed bent on giving her captors a positive review, going on about how well they treated her, how they gave her food and let her go to the bathroom. And they never threatened to hit her. Of course, as we all saw in those chilling videos, they did threaten to kill her. And they shot her Iraqi translator to death.

Why make a terrorist group who put her family and friends through a terrible three-month ordeal sound like they were running a low-budget motel chain?

What a good question. Why indeed?

But, perhaps I’m being unfair, right? Maybe Kurtz didn’t know that she made the tape before she was safely out of the hands of her captors. Nope — from the same column:

Now perhaps this is unfair, for there is much we do not know. We don’t know why Carroll was kidnapped and why she was abruptly released. She says she doesn’t either, but surely she must have gotten some clues about her abductors’ outlook and tactics during her 82-day captivity. Maybe she was just shell-shocked right after being let go. Maybe she won’t feel comfortable speaking out until she’s back on American soil.

As my colleagues in Baghdad point out, when that interview was taped, Carroll was still in the custody of a Sunni political party with ties to the insurgency. It may have just made sense for her to be especially cautious.

Yah think?

But it would have been wrong for the media critic of the Washington Post to sit tight and wait to get the fact before speculating that she is a terrorist sympathizer. He was just awfully “puzzled” by the sight of a kidnap victim giving a propaganda statement.

And they tell me that Carroll did cry — off camera — when the subject of her murdered translator came up.

Thank god for that. Of course, you would have thought that the tape of her almost hysterical from a couple of months ago would have been a clue that she wasn’t a willing participant, but whatever. Unless she cries when howie and his pals think she should cry, she’s suspect. Lucky for her, someone was there to vouch for the fact that she behaved appropriately.

Still, people are buzzing because her taped remarks have been played over and over again on television. I hope she’ll be able to share a fuller account of her ordeal soon.

The main people who were “buzzing” were despicable asses in the right blogosphere and rightwing talk radio who are going to hell for what they said. And I would suggest that Howie is going right along with them; his column on Friday was unconscionable. The only decent assumption under the circumstances was that she had been coerced. That’s certainly what I thought when I saw the tape. It was always theoretically possible that she could have suffered from Stockholm Syndrome or had “gone over to the enemy” but to assume that based upon a tape that was produced by anyone other than a reputable news agency is either a sign of second rate journalism or an obvious political agenda. With Kurtz’s history it appears to be both.

.

Published by digby on April 3, 2006

Interspecies Marriage

by digby

Far be it for me to cast aspersions on anyone’s choice of spouse. I’m a romantic. “Let me not to the marriage of true minds, admit impediments” and all that other crap.

But I think this illustrates some of what is going on with our political media — and why those of us who are left of center find the cries of “liberal media” increasingly absurd.

The political media and political establishment are intertwined — indeed, they are intermarried:

Campbell Brown, left, co-anchor of NBC News’ ‘Weekend Today’ and primary correspondent for ‘NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams’ and the weekday ‘Today’ and her new husband, Dan Senor, former Bush foreign policy advisor and current Republican strategist and Fox News Analyst, smile after their wedding ceremony at The Beaver Creek Chapel in Beaver Creek, Colorado, Sunday, April 2, 2006.

There is nothing new about this. I’m sure that journalists have been intermarrying with the people they cover for decades (haven’t they?) Certainly it’s pretty common today. People need to keep this in mind when they evaluate the mainstream media. It’s part of the mix. The Washington establishment works together, plays together — and sleeps together. They are part of the same organism. And that’s why it’s valuable to have an alternative media outside the beltway to offer different perspectives on politics and current events. We don’t have to face people we cover over cocktail weenies in the evening or over the pillow in the morning.

Congratulations Dan ‘n Campbell. May your marriage be as happy as the union of common interests between the GOP and the corporate media.

hat tip to Jane Hamsher.

.
.

Published by digby on April 3, 2006

Two Great Darwin Books

by tristero

Scientist, Interrupted reviews Niles Eldredge’s Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life so I don’t have to. Basically, I agree, there was a sense of it being rushed but it’s still very, very good. What wasn’t mentioned in the review was that while Eldredge uses the opportunity to push his and Gould’s “punctuated equilibrium” theory at various times, he doesn’t mention recent criticism of the idea. As I understand it, the strong case for punctuated equilibrium – that all or nearly all evolution occurs more rapidly than Darwin imagined and it seems to group around, among other things, evironmental disuptions – is still controversial. However, the weaker case – that instances of evolution proceed at different rates, some of them quite fast in geological terms – has been pretty much accepted. (Knowledgeable scientists: please correct the above if there are any misconceptions and I’ll change it.)

However, what makes the book remarkable is the description of Darwin’s notebooks which are so fascinating that I went and bought the scholarly transcription of them. For containing a great discussion of the Darwin notebooks, and for the beautiful layout of the book, I would reccommend it. (And the exhibit at the Natural History Museum is a joy and a wonder, complete with live iquana and tortoises.)

Another book, one which I can’t rave enough about is Jay Hosler’s Sandwalk Adventures which you can get a taste of by clicking the above link. It’s a graphic novel – not a comic book – about Darwin’s discussions about evolution with “a follicle mite named Mara livining in his left eyebrow.” But that grossly misrepresents the book. First and foremost, it’s a thoroughly enjoyable work of fiction, not explicitly in the Lewis Carroll mode, but certainly with an Alice-like whimsy. This means it’s a book for grownups that kids will thoroughly adore. The ending I found quite touching.

But then the book is also an example of how true historical events and ideas are transformed into myth and epic. This is all done in such a humorous and convincing fashion that you are often hardly aware of it.

There’s also a terrific introduction to Darwin’s theories and reasoning – it has to be introductory, because, after all, Darwin is trying to persuade a mite, which doesn’t have the intelligence of a fly. Simple it is, but as far as I can tell – Hosler’s an experimental biologist – it’s accurate.

Finally, Hosler manages to debunk the standard “intelligent design” creationism nonsense, refuting their arguments in a cartoon panel or two – yep, that’s about all it takes.

I just love this book. No matter how old you are, please get a copy and read it. I think I first heard of it on Pharyngula but I haven’t been able to find any reference to it there when I looked recently so whomever first told me about Sandwalk Adventures, thanks!

Published by digby on April 3, 2006

Iraq: Terrorism Insurance Is Not The Only Growth Industry

Memo to Howard Kaloogian: Why bother wasting everyone’s time trying to pretend an Istanbul ‘burb is Baghdad? Here’s proof positive that business is fine in the Iraqi capital. If you’re selling AK-47’s that is.

And only an ignorant, defeatist liberal scoundrel would leap to the conclusion that all those guns are being used to slaughter other Iraqis. We know better. They are being fired off during spontaneous street celebrations of their country’s freedom from tyranny. Freedom!

Go ahead. Prove all those weapons are being used in some mythical civil war. You can’t.

Published by digby on April 2, 2006

Stop It

by digby

So Sorry. I didn’t mean to go dark this week-end — technical problems.

First I’d like to call out a big fuck you to all the bloggers and wingut radio blowhards who assumed that since Jill Carroll isn’t a screeching, GOP operative harpy like Laura Ingraham that she is sympathetic to terrorists. She had the guts to get out there and try to report from the belly of the beast and got kidnapped and terrorized while doing it. And these pathetic little chickenhawks had the unmitigated gall to attack her — apparently because she managed to survive and because she was a journalist for the Christian Science Monitor. I knew they hated Christian peace activists and enjoy it when they get beheaded, but I hadn’t realized that they wished that on journalists too.

You can’t win for losing with these people. Ingraham attacks the press for failing to get out there and report the “real” story, but when one does, and gets abducted because it’s so dangerous, she’s a terrorist sympathizer.

Might I make a little tiny suggestion to the kewl kidz of the DC press corps? Maybe you shouldn’t be quite so eager to appear on that fetid thug Don Imus’ show from now on. You have already shown that you don’t care about his hilarious sexist, racist commentary. But maybe you can be roused to just a tiny bit of personal integrity by this stomach churning attack on your fellow journalist:

IMUS: We’re back here on the “Imus in the Morning” program on the radio all over the country and on MSNBC. Well, the official position, of course, of the program, is thank god correspondent Jill Carroll from the Christian Science Monitor has been released.

MCCORD: You bet, since now maybe now she can resume her work for the Iraqi people for whom she has, you know — this has been a person who strived for their, represented their plight for a long, long time.

IMUS: Well, good for her.

MCGUIRK: She strikes me as the kind of woman who would wear one of those suicide vests. You know, walk into the, try and sneak into the Green Zone.

IMUS: Oh, no. No, no, no, no.

MCCORD: Just because she always appears in traditional Arab garb and wearing a burka.

MCGUIRK: Yeah, what’s with the head gear? Take it off. Let’s see.

IMUS: No, no. This is not –

MCCORD: That’s why the Arab world called for her to be released, because, you know, she defended Iraqis. She was against the war in Iraq and, I wouldn’t be surprised if

IMUS: Well, so are we. So am I!

MCCORD: Exactly. She cooked with them, lived with them.

IMUS: This is not helping.

MCGUIRK: She may be carrying Habib’s baby at this point.

[laughter]

IMUS: Shut up! I’m begging you to shut up. Both of you. I’m going to murder both of you.

MCCORD: Just because she slept with them doesn’t mean she slept in the manner he’s talking about.

MCGUIRK: Something stinks.

IMUS: You are an SOB Steve McCord. Stop it! I am begging you both. Stop it! Stop it now! Stop it! This is outrageous.

MCCORD: The fact is that she can do what she wants to do. Representing the Iraqi people, the Baghdad people. Sure.

IMUS: She could. It’s not like she was representing the insurgents or the terrorists or those people.

MCCORD: Well, there’s no evidence directly of that –

IMUS: Oh, gosh, you better shut up! Oh, my gosh, I’m going to hurt you! I will hurt you! I don’t know when that will be exactly. But I’m going to.

MCCORD: We’re glad she was not harmed. And that she was –

IMUS: Yes. Ok. Let’s move along here now.

MCGUIRK: She’s like the Taliban Johnny or something.

IMUS: Ah, you son of a bitches. I’m begging you bastards. Thank you. Please, now, welcome to the Imus in the Morning program, from the great state of Arizona Congressman Hayworth.

HAYWORTH: Now, just a disclaimer, now, the previous opinions stated by Chuckles and Bernie, doesn’t necessarily reflect the opinions of the congressman from the Fifth District of Arizona.

How funny can you get? Imus said “the official” position is that they are glad she was releasedand Hayworth says the commentary doesn’t “necessarily” reflect his views so nobody can accuse them of being insensitive. Besides, that little good cop bad cop routine is hilarious. Think of the material they could have produced if she’d been beheaded. Comedy gold!

Firedoglake has a contest going to catalog the racist commentary in the rightwing blogosphere, so that when lying sacks of GOP talking points like Hugh Hewitt go on national television and claim that talk radio is “responsible” while the “fever swamp” of the left blogosphere is way out of control, Wolf Blitzer can do something other than suck his thumb and nod off, failing to note the eliminationist spew that characterizes most of the right blogosphere. I don’t know if it’s that he doesn’t know, doesn’t care or is afraid of that he-man Hugh Hewitt, but I think it’s important that he at least be armed with a rebuttal. If he allows these charges to go unchallenged after that, then there will have to be some action taken. This has gone on long enough.

The mainstream media is so entrenched in the Republican establishment that they have actually come to believe that Rush Limbaugh saying frequently that Democrats have no souls and should be deported is reasonable discourse. It’s long past time that we set the record straight. Apparently these beltway bubble boys and girls are going to have to be schooled that the right is not engaging in “reasonable discourse” when they accuse journalists of being cowards and terrorist sympathizers and being “the kind of woman who would wear one of those suicide vests.” I know that’s hard to believe, but apparently that’s what we have to do.

Which kewl kid is going yuck it up with the I-man next, do you suppose?

.

Published by digby on April 1, 2006

Down The Hatch

by digby

In the Feingold hearings today, Orrin Hatch said that censure is unconstitutional. Like all the rest of the hypocritical weasels of the Eunuch Caucus, he has a very short memory:

Republicans believe their aggressive pursuit of impeachment is not only required by the Constitution but also satisfies their more conservative political base.

The growing debate about punishment for Clinton short of removal from office stems from a hard political count. Hatch said proponents of ousting the president will almost certainly be short of the required two-thirds vote in the Senate.

“It may be that if more hasn’t come out or if people do not feel we can get 67 votes, it may be that that is the time when something else can be resolved,” Hatch said.

Even though censure is not mentioned in the Constitution, Hatch said he believes it is within Congress’ right.

“But it would have to be done very carefully” to avoid transgressing the Constitution’s prohibition on “bills of attainder,” or a legislatively enacted punishment, he said.

“This is a lot more difficult than people today realize,” Hatch said.

Of course this impressive legal thinker is also the guy who says this:

“It would be unconstitutional for the Congress to say, ‘You have to go through the FISA court.’ We could pass a law that says, ‘We want you to go through the FISA court,’ and I think the president would probably try to live with that. The problem is, you cannot do what they’ve been doing to protect us through the current FISA statute.”

Interesting new theory. The congress passes laws the country must abide by. Except for the president. For him laws are just polite requests.

God Save The King.

.