Month: September 2008

The Refs Begin To Tremble

by digby

Looks like GOP caterwauling has had its effect:

MSNBC Takes Incendiary Hosts From Anchor Seat

By BRIAN STELTER

MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel’s coverage of the election.

That experiment appears to be over.

After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.

The change — which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle — is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel’s perceived shift to the political left.

It was obviously also a result of the spitting and hissing between the two anchors during the coverage, but it’s pretty clear that NBC is taking some serious heat from the GOP and this is, after all, the house that Jack built. They’ll keep Matthews and Olberman on, of course, and they’ve added Maddow. But the word has gone forth and there will be adjustments, many of them small and nearly subconscious. They will hardly even know they’re doing it.

.

Georgia And The Failure Of American Diplomacy

by tristero

There is a truly brilliant short article about Georgia by George Friedman in the current NY Review of Books. It also includes a simple map [with a color scheme we colorblind folks can perceive, thank God] that makes it quite clear how serious the two areas of conflict – Abkhazia and South Ossetia – are for regional stability. Even for those of us who have no illusions that Bush foreign policy is in any way competent, the sheer stupidity of contemporary American diplomacy towards Russia is breathtaking. [And as noted earlier , the incompetent Rice has now been shoved aside by the dangerously incompetent Cheney.]

First, Friedman summarizes the recent conflict. Basically, Russia was baiting Georgia. Georgia, stupidly, bit. Then he asks the question everyone should be asking, but with rare exception, doesn’t:

Why did the Georgians choose to invade South Ossetia on August 7? There had been a great deal of shelling by the South Ossetians of Georgian villages for the previous three nights, but while possibly more intense than usual, such artillery exchanges were routine. The Georgians might not have fought well, but they committed fairly substantial forces that must have taken at the very least several days to deploy and supply. Georgia’s move was deliberate.

The United States is Georgia’s closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government, and people doing business there. (The United States conducted joint exercises with Georgian troops in July, with over a thousand US troops deployed. The Russians carried out parallel exercises in response. US troops withdrew. The Russian maneuver force remained in position and formed the core of the invading force.) It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian border. US technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew that the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the deployments of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that Russia had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?

It is difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against US wishes. The Georgians rely on the United States, and they were in no position to defy it. This leaves two possibilities. The first is a huge breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the deployments of Russian forces or knew of them but—along with the Georgians—miscalculated Russia’s intentions. The second is that the United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when its military was in shambles and its government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s and 1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that they would not risk the consequences of an invasion.

Imagine Bush’s surprise. No one could have anticipated, etc, etc, etc.

Read the whole thing. Much that is puzzling about this strange war gets clarified.

Bloggy Love

by digby

I love County Fair, the new blog written by Jamison Foser and Eric Boehlert. Here’s a good reason why. And here’s another. These guys are the best in the business at dissecting the media kewl kidz’s eccentric folkways and mores.

.

Great Pumpkin

by digby

I’ve been trying to suss out what the likely October Surprise might be and recently wrote that I thought the stepped up incursions into Pakistan might be the clue. But a reader sent me an analysis from Stratfor that actually sounds more plausible. They claim that a deal with Iran may be in the works.

The report cites as evidence the fact that the Bush administration has gone silent on Iran since the Russia-Georgia war and that the US either engineered or did not not step in when Iraq has expelled the anti-Iranian terrorist group, the MeK, which has been a long standing Iranian requirement.They also point out that Iran, unlike Syria, has not sent an envoy to Moscow in aftermath of the Georgian war and have been unusually low key. There are even rumors that Cheney will meet with some Iranian envoy in Italy during his midnight train to Georgia tour.

This is, obviously, all rumor and speculation. But I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if they pulled a stunt just in time for the election and this one seems as if it might actually be possible. After all, it’s the United States that wouldn’t take yes for an answer on most of these issues up to now.

.

Lies And Lying

by tristero

Watch Rachel Maddow tell the truth and call McCain’s lies…, well, she calls them lies.

Given that the GOP never goes tit for tat but escalates, we can expect, at minimum, 2nd tier Republicans to start calling Obama a liar. After all, racist GOP CongressCritters already feel emboldened enough to call Obama “uppity” – and not apologize. And they’ve called into question his patriotism.

So Obama’s campaign, and the Dems in general, will need to double down and not back away from calling out lies when Republicans spread them (ie, whenever they open their traps). We’ll see if they do.

UPDATE: Speaking of lies and liars, Katharine Seelye in the Times types a real howler in her lede:

Oprah Winfrey has said she will not interview Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, the hottest political star in the firmament, and the decision is drawing negative reviews from many fans of the doyenne of daytime television.

Later, in the same post, Seelye writes:

…it is clear that Ms. Winfrey doesn’t want her.

That is simply untrue and Seelye knows it. In short, Seelye’s lying.

TRUE: Winfrey did express intense interest in interviewing Palin. After the election.

SEELYE KNOWS IT: Later in the same post, she writes:

Ms. Winfrey said she would be happy to interview Ms. Palin, but only after the November election.

Nor, despite what Seelye implies elsewhere in the post, is this evidence of “liberal media bias” because, as she writes:

[Winfrey] had pledged after endorsing Senator Barack Obama last year that she would not use her TV show to promote political candidates. Honoring that pledge, she declined to interview Senator Hillary Clinton during the primaries while she battled Mr. Obama for the Democratic nomination.

Ergo, Seelye is both lying outright and misleading elsewhere in her post.

QED.

UPDATE: The techncial term for this is “bullshit”:, but it’s pretty close to an outright lie:

Promising a ‘very bipartisan approach’ to how he’ll run his administration, Sen. John McCain said in an interview broadcast Sunday that he would appoint Democrats to his Cabinet.

Democrats like the “Independent Democrat” Joseph Lieberman. Or maybe quisling Democrats.

It’s The Economy Dillweed

by digby

Apparently, working class Hillary voters don’t think Palin is all that. What a surprise:

UNIONTOWN, PA. — Trish Heckman, a 49-year-old restaurant cook and disappointed Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter, watched last week as the country’s newest political star made her explosive debut.

She followed the news when John McCain introduced Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, paid attention to the raging debate over her qualifications, even tuned in to watch her dramatic speech at the Republican convention.

BBut when it came down to an issue Heckman really cares about — sending a daughter to college on $10.50 an hour — her desire to see a woman reach the White House took a back seat to her depleted savings account.

“I wanted Hillary to win so bad, but I saw Sarah, and it just didn’t work for me,” said Heckman, taking a break in the empty courtyard of J. Paul’s restaurant in a downtown struggling to revive. “I have no retirement. Obama understands it’s the economy. He knows how we live.”

[…]

Interviews with some two dozen women here after Palin’s convention speech found that these voters were not swayed by the fiery dramatic speeches or compelling personal biographies that marked both the Republican and Democratic conventions. Instead, they were thinking about the price of milk — nearly $5 a gallon — or the healthcare coverage that many working families here cannot afford.

Even if they admire Palin’s attempt to juggle political ambition, an infant son with Down syndrome and a pregnant unwed daughter, these women say that maternal grit is not enough to win their votes.

Waitress Judy Artice, “Miss Judy,” as she is known at Glisan’s roadside diner, declared Palin “the perfect candidate” after watching her Wednesday speech. That said, Artice had already decided that her vote would go to the first candidate who mentioned gasoline prices.

“And — I’ll be danged — it was Obama,” Artice, 46, said between servings of liver and onions during the lunch rush.

Both campaigns have signaled that these blue-collar hamlets could be where the election will be decided, an assessment made even more likely when the nation’s unemployment rate hit a five-year high in August.

[…]

Life here is basic and hard. Coal miners still work the mountains. The upscale Nemacolin Woodlands Resort just down the road is replete with shops and restaurants that Uniontown residents can’t afford.

And residents describe their downtown, where a portrait of native son and five-star general George C. Marshall covers a building several stories high, as “quaint but sad.”

If these women are any indication, the threat to Obama’s camp is not that they will side with McCain but that they will stay home, as Heckman, the restaurant chef and single mother of two, says many people on her block plan to do.

But those disenchanted voters could be balanced by newly inspired ones, such as Jennifer Glisan, 23, an emergency medical technician who saves lives every week but cannot afford health insurance. Clinton’s gender was enough to awaken her political interest, but Palin’s failed to hold it.

“I think Palin is a fake. She will run the economy into the ground,” Glisan said after catching glimpses of the vice presidential nominee’s speech between emergency calls.

“I have to kill myself every day at work to earn enough to pay for gas to get there. I think Obama is sincere. I think we need a change.”

I have thought from the beginning that the Palin choice was more about getting the base motivated than going after disaffected Hillary voters. That just didn’t scan for me. The women in those Ohio and Pennsylvania towns and hamlets who voted for Hillary were Democrats, after all. If they were far right social conservatives, they would be firmly in the Republican camp already.

I think McCain’s appeal to swing votes and independents isn’t going to be on the basis of Palin’s gender (which does help inoculate her in the media after their sexist overkill during the Dem primary)but the more general appeal to “reform.” He wants to portray himself as the kind of guy who will think outside the box (like picking someone with very little experience to be the first female on the GOP national ticket!) and do things differently. I doubt that’s going to be enough. He’s still a Republican and Republicans got us in this mess.

Carville said on CNN today that the pitch is simple: “If you think that what America needs is another tax cut for people making over half a million dollars a year, then vote for McCain. If you think middle-class people are struggling, that their incomes are going down and they need help, vote for Obama. It’s a very simple choice out there, I think.”

That sounds right to me.

Update: Plus, the misery index is back.

Oh, and this too:

The Bush administration seized control Sunday of troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, aiming to stabilize the housing market turmoil that is threatening financial markets and the overall economy.

.

Reverend McGrath Gets Evoluton

by tristero

This is heartening:

…I was once a loudmouth on the young-earth creationist bandwagon…

Is it “indoctrination” if we teach the history of the Holocaust and do not give equal time to the deniers of the Holocaust?

Is it indoctrination if we teach astronomy and make no mention of astrology?

Is it indoctrination if we teach the heliocentric view of the solar system without giving equal time to geocentrists?

Asking for equal time for “alternatives” to evolution is in exactly the same category. It is asking that a point of view with nothing but questions and complaints to offer be treated as the equal of a scientific field of research that has been remarkably productive and consistently confirmed by all sorts of evidence not available when the theory was first formulated. The media makes much of being “fair” in trying to always hear another side of the story, and there is something indeed laudable about checking to see if there is an opposing viewpoint. Too many of us forget to do that, and forget too often. But not every opposing viewpoint has merit, and the reason we have education standards is to ensure that educators do not waste time on nonsense to the detriment of things that are truly important, valuable, and (ultimately) true.

h/t, Mike the Mad Biologist

.

Cheney Shoots Rice In The Face

by tristero

How humiliating it must be for Rice, a self-styled expert on Russia, to have a boorish bozo like Cheney blunder in to the major diplomacy on Georgia, pushing aside not only her, but her entire State Department.

Dissing people is something conservatives do with the same manic enthusiasm as they collect mansions and private jets.

Saturday Night At The Movies

From crayons to perfume: Top 10 school flicks

By Dennis Hartley

It’s a funny thing. I know that this is supremely silly (I’m over 50, fergawdsake)- but as soon as September rolls around and retailers start touting their “back to school” sales, I still get that familiar twinge of dread. How do I best describe it? It’s a vague sensation of social anxiety, coupled with a melancholy resignation to the fact that from now until next June, I have to go to bed early. BTW, now that I’m allowed to stay up with the grownups, why do I drift off in my chair at 8pm every night? It’s another one of life’s cruel ironies.

At any rate, since it is “that time of the year”, I thought I would share my Top 10 show-and-tell picks for homeroom. As per usual, I must point out this is a completely subjective list of personal favorites; I am not proclaiming these selections to be The Most Beloved School Movies Ever (in case you’re wondering where I stashed Mr. Chips). So I would ask that you grade my list on a curve. Also, please keep both hands away from the keyboard (on top of your desk where I can see them) and don’t start snarking until you have thoroughly read and understood this lesson plan completely. Wait a minute (sniff)- is somebody out there eating pizza? Put it down, and pay attention. Now, ready? Begin!

Twenty-Four Eyes-This naturalistic, tremendously moving drama from Keisuke Kinoshita could very well be the ultimate “inspirational teacher” movie. Set in an isolated, sparsely populated village on the ruggedly beautiful coast of Japan’s Shodoshima island, the story begins in 1928 and ends just after WW 2. This is a deceptively simple yet deeply resonant tale about a long term mentorship that develops between a compassionate, nurturing teacher (Hideko Takamine) and her 12 students, from grade school through adulthood. Many of the cast members are non-actors, but you would never guess it from the uniformly wonderful performances. Kinoshita enlisted sets of siblings to portray the students as they “age”, giving the story a heightened sense of realism. The film, originally released in 1954, was hugely popular in Japan; a revival some years later enabled it to be discovered by Western audiences, who warmed to its humanist stance and undercurrent of anti-war sentiments. Keep a box of Kleenex nearby.

The Blackboard Jungle-I always like to refer to this searing 1955 drama (produced in an era when ADD-afflicted teenagers were referred to as “juvenile delinquents”) as the anti-“Happy Days”. An idealistic English teacher (Glenn Ford) takes on an inner-city classroom full of leather-jacketed malcontents who would much rather steal hubcaps and break windows than, say, study the construct of iambic pentameter. Considered a hard-hitting “social issue” film at the time, it still retains considerable power, despite some dated trappings. Vic Morrow and Sidney Poitier are appropriately surly and unpredictable as the alpha “toughs” in the classroom. The impressive supporting cast includes Richard Kiley, Anne Francis and Louis Calhern. Director Richard Brooks co-scripted with Evan Hunter, from Hunter’s novel (the author is best-known by his non de plume, Ed McBain). The film also had a hand in making Bill Haley’s “Rock Around the Clock” a monster hit.

To Sir With Love-A decade after he co-starred in The Blackboard Jungle, Sidney Poitier traded the switchblade and the bad attitude for a nice suit and an earnest lesson plan; it was his turn to play the mentor. This well-acted 1967 drama offered a bold twist on the usual formula (for its time). Movie audiences were accustomed to watching an idealistic white teacher struggling to tame the wild (and usually “ethnic”) inner city students; in this case, you had an idealistic black teacher trying to relate to a classroom chockablock with citizens of the unruly, white British working class. It’s a tour de force for director James Clavell, who also wrote and produced. Culture clash is a dominant theme in many of Clavell’s novels and films; most famously in Shogun. The film is a great “swinging 60s” time capsule-thanks to a spunky onscreen rendition of the memorable theme song by Lulu, and a brief appearance by the Mindbenders (don’t blink or you’ll miss future 10cc co-founder Eric Stewart). Also with Judy Geeson (who delivers a poignant performance) and future rock star Michael Des Barres (Silverhead, Detective, Power Station).

Dazed and Confused-I will admit upfront that my attachment to Richard Linklater’s amazingly vivid 1993 recreation of a “day in the life” high school milieu circa 1976 has almost everything to do with the sentimental chord it touches within me (I graduated from high school in 1974). The clothing, the hairstyles, the lingo, the social behaviors and (perhaps most importantly) the music is so spot on that I was transported into a total-immersion sense memory the first time I saw the film (no, I wasn’t high-grow up!). Perhaps the first wave of boomers a decade or so ahead of me were similarly affected when they first watched American Graffiti (anyone?). At any rate, I knew all these people! Not necessarily a goofy teen comedy; while there are a lot of laughs (mostly of recognition), the sharply written screenplay offers some inspired moments of keen observation and even genuine poignancy at times. Linklater certainly wouldn’t be able to reassemble this bright, energetic young cast at the same bargain rates nowadays: Matthew McConaughey, Parker Posey, Ben Affleck, Milla Jovovich, Adam Goldberg, Rory Cochrane, Joey Lauren Adams and Nicky Katt, to name but a few. Two bongs up!

Fast Times at Ridgemont High-Amy Heckerling’s 1982 coming-of-age dramedy is another film that introduced a bevy of new talent to movie audiences: Forest Whitaker, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Judge Reinhold, Phoebe Cates, Eric Stoltz, Nicholas Cage, Anthony Edwards, and of course Sean Penn as the quintessential stoned surfer dude, who makes life a special kind of hell for his history teacher (a marvelously dry Ray Walston). I remember at the time searching in vain for a rental copy that didn’t suffer from extensive “freeze frame” damage at right about that moment where Cates reveals her, um, hidden talents (ah, the good ol’ days of VHS!). Heckerling later returned to the same California high school milieu (updated for the 90s) for her hit Clueless. Rolling Stone reporter (and soon-to-be film director) Cameron Crowe scripted from his book, which was based on his experiences “embedded” at a San Diego high school (thanks to his youthful appearance, Crowe had successfully passed himself off as a student for a year).

Gregory’s Girl– Scottish writer-director Bill Forsyth’s delightful examination of puppy love crosses over from one of my previous Top Ten lists. Gawky teenager Gregory (John Gordon Sinclair) goes gaga for Dorothy (Dee Hepburn), a fellow soccer player on the school team. Gregory receives love advice from an unlikely mentor, his little sister (Allison Forster). His male classmates offer advice as well, but of course they are just as clueless as he is (although they put on airs of having deep insight on the subject of girls, naturally). In fact, Forsyth gets a lot of mileage out of that most basic truth about adolescence-the girls are usually light years ahead of the boys when it comes to the mysteries of love. Not as precious as you might think, as Forsyth is a master of low-key anarchy and understated irony. You may have trouble navigating the thick Scottish accents, but it’s worth it. Also with Clare Grogan, whom music fans may recall as lead singer of Altered Images, and Red Dwarf fans may recognize as “Kristine Kochanski”.

National Lampoon’s Animal House– “Thank you sir. May I have another?” The twisted brain trust behind the National Lampoon produced this riotously vulgar and slyly subversive ode to college frat house culture, which became a surprise box-office smash in 1978. The film kicked off a lucrative Hollywood franchise for the magazine, and (building on the groundwork that was established by M*A*S*H and Blazing Saddles) opened the floodgates for a whole new genre of raunchy, uninhibited and politically incorrect movie comedy. The film is also notable for launching the fruitful careers of director John Landis and future director Harold Ramis (who co-wrote with Doug Kenney and Chris Miller). And what a brilliant ensemble cast: Tom Hulce, Tim Matheson, Peter Riegert, Karen Allen and Kevin Bacon (all unknowns at the time) along with screen vets Donald Sutherland and John Vernon. And no, I haven’t forgotten the guy who steals the show! I’m usually not a fan of physical comedy, but for some reason, everything John Belushi does in this movie, whether it’s falling off a ladder, smashing a guitar, crushing a beer can on his forehead, or simply arching his eyebrow-puts me in complete hysterics.

Massacre at Central High– I know I’m going to get some arched eyebrows with this selection. Despite the title, this is not a “slasher” film; it’s more of a social satire/political allegory (like Lindsay Anderson’s If….). You’ve seen the setup a few times-a gang of alpha high school bullies are terrorizing and intimidating their classmates at will, until a “new kid” rolls in and changes the status quo, Yojimbo style. The film veers into Lord Of The Flies territory, with allusions to class struggle, fascist politics and what-would-happen-if-there-were-no-adults-around anarchy. Don’t get me wrong, this ain’t exactly Animal Farm; after all, the film stars Robert Carradine and Andrew “direct-to-video” Stevens, but for its budget and its genre, it’s an oddly compelling watch. Although it’s a U.S. production, director Rene Raalder (a native Hollander) brings a European sensibility that adds to the fascination. This one edges the very similar Heathers off my top ten, which loses points due to Christian Slater’s annoying pseudo-Nicholson shtick.

Rock’n’Roll High School-In the realm of guilty pleasures, this completely goofy, sunny-side up punk rock musical from the stable of legendary low-budget producer Roger Corman rates pretty high (and one suspects the creators of the film were, um, “pretty high” when they dreamed it all up ). Director Alan Arkush invokes the spirit of all those late 50s/early 60s rock’n’roll exploitation movies, substituting The Ramones for the usual clean-cut teen idols who inevitably pop up at the school dance. To this day, I’m still helplessly in love with P.J. Soles, who plays Vince Lombardi High School’s most devoted Ramones fan, Riff Randell. The great cast of B-movie troupers includes the late Paul Bartel (who directed several of his own cult classics under Corman’s tutelage) and his frequent screen partner Mary Waronov (priceless as the uptight, iron-fisted school principal). It’s kind of bittersweet to watch it now; R.I.P. Joey, Dee Dee and Johnny.

Election– I’m not the only one who vibes a disturbing “life imitating art” tableaux that morphs real-life vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin with the Republicanesque, psychotically perky, compulsively overachieving (fictional) high school presidential hopeful, Tracy Flick…

…am I? (Discuss.)

Class dismissed!

.

Populist Go the Weasels

by digby

Michael Kazin, historian and expert on American populism, has written a very interesting article about where we’ve been — and where this election may be headed.

Populism in America is nearly as old as the republic itself. Since President Andrew Jackson’s epic battle to shut down the “money power” symbolized by the Second Bank of the United States in 1833, politicians and citizen-activists have voiced their outrage about the “elites” who ignored, corrupted or betrayed the common people.

Right-wing populists typically drum up resentments based on differences of religion and cultural style. Their progressive counterparts focus on economic grievances. But the common language is promiscuous — useful to anyone who asserts that virtue resides in ordinary people and has the skills and platform to bring their would-be superiors down to earth

During the half-century since McCarthy’s remarkable rise and ignominious fall, his fellow conservatives have rarely stopped singing from the same populist hymnal.

“I had the privilege of living most of my life in my small town,” beamed Sarah Palin in her bravura speech to accept the GOP vice presidential nomination Wednesday night. It was, she explained, the kind of place inhabited by the people “who do some of the hardest work in America…who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.” She defiantly contrasted her plain-folks view of the world to that of “the permanent political establishment” and “the Washington elite.”

It may be the same old song, but cultural populism has helped Republicans win many an election and has consistently put their opponents on the defensive. Richard M. Nixon championed the values of “Middle America;” Ronald Reagan damned a tax policy that took “from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned,” and George W. Bush mocked “liberal elites” for being soft on terrorism and warm towards gay marriage.

Conservatism would never have become a large and influential movement without such language; and liberals have yet to find a way to counter it. Why?

read on…

If it were up to me we’d be hammering right now on McCain’s 7 houses and Cindy’s $300,000 outfits, if only to create some dissonance. Nobody is less of a “middle American populist” than John McCain. He’s the one who should have to answer for the criticisms coming from his own running mate.

For more on the old politics of resentment, I’ve written reams on it as well (although hardly with as much authority or erudition.) One series can be found here.

.