Category Archives: blogging

Kicking the Can

Posted on by

Michael Abramowitz writes at WaPo:

The long-awaited testimony this afternoon of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, once seen as a potential turning point in war policy, seemed more like an exercise of kicking the can down the road.

Wow. How … expected.

Appearing before two House committees, Petraeus confirmed that 30,000 U.S. troops could be withdrawn from Iraq by the middle of next summer, but that was hardly unexpected: Officials have been forecasting for months that the so-called surge would have to end no later than April 2008 or there would be unacceptable strains on the American military.

But Petraeus left the larger questions — what will be the future size and mission of the American “footprint” in Iraq — unanswered. He offered hints that the reductions might continue beyond next summer but said he would not be able to offer a definitive judgment until March.

“Our experience in Iraq has repeatedly shown that projecting too far into the future is not just difficult, it can be misleading and even hazardous,” Petraeus testified.

Well, so much for that. Sen. Harry Reid has released this statement:

“Today, we heard that the Bush Administration likely intends to keep at least 130,000 troops in Iraq through next summer. Our enemies around the globe gain great advantage by having the United States mired in an Iraqi civil war. Clearly, continuing to pursue the President’s flawed escalation policy until at least July 2008 is not in the national interest of the United States.

“U.S. national security requires that we truly and immediately change course in Iraq, so that America can more effectively dedicate our resources to other, more pressing challenges we face across the globe. The longer we keep over 130,000 troops in Iraq, the less incentive Iraqis have to engage in the needed political reconciliation and the longer we avoid dealing with several pressing threats to our national security: Bin Laden remains at large and his terrorist organization has rebuilt its strength to pre-9/11 levels, Afghanistan’s stability is being undermined as the Taliban and narco-traffickers grow in strength, and Iran and other countries and groups pursue the acquisition of nuclear weapons technology.”

The Senate Dems also released a fact check that’s worth a look. See also Think Progress, “FACT CHECK: Petraeus To Withdraw Troops Next Summer Because Of Broken Military, Not ‘Progress.’”

Meanwhile, the Right Blogosphere is still hyperventilating over the Moveon.org ad. Howard Fineman is on Countdown right now saying that the GOP is whipping up outrage over the ad as a way to go on offense against Democrats. They can’t go on offense against the Dems on the war, you see, so they have to grab whatever phony issue they can. All day long rightie bloggers have dutifully jacked up the pitiful victimized whining act, sometimes to genuinely hallucinatory degrees.

And, of course, not one has actually addressed the facts Moveon presents in the ad.

Macranger predicts “this is most likely the day that puplic opinion for Democrats begins a nose dive from which they will not recover before 2008.”

Every Democrat candidate for President who has taken money from Moveon.org which now have to answer to the American people. They’re not going to denounce Moveon.org or any affliliation [sic] with any other leftwing nut group. They’re bought and paid for and they know it.

Of course, this is the same guy who wrote in April 2006 that “the pure and simple fact is as I told you this is going to be a vindicating summer for supporters of the Bush Administration.”

If anything, I’d think association — they aren’t affiliated — with Moveon helps the Dems, because it might remind people that some Dems really are against the war and the Bush Administration. If Dem popularity sinks after today it won’t be because of Moveon. It’ll be because the Dems didn’t push back against the Bushies and the war hard enough.

The War on Science

Posted on by

In Salon, Steve Paulson interviews Turkish-American physicist Taner Edis, who explains why science in Muslim countries is stuck in the past. For example, “A team of Muslim scholars and scientists has spent more than a year drawing up an Islamic code of conduct for space travel.” And this is remarkable considering that, centuries ago, the Middle East was light years ahead of Europe in science.

What’s so striking about the Muslim predicament is that the Islamic world was once the unrivaled center of science and philosophy. During Europe’s Dark Ages, Baghdad, Cairo and other Middle Eastern cities were the key repositories of ancient Greek and Roman science. Muslim scholars themselves made breakthroughs in medicine, optics and mathematics. So what happened? Did strict Islamic orthodoxy crush the spirit of scientific inquiry? Why did Christian Europe, for so long a backwater of science, later launch the scientific revolution?

Note also that Copernicus used the mathematical work of Iranian astronomers to construct his theory of the solar system.

What happened, in brief, was the European “scientific revolution.” Beginning in the 16th century, Europeans went through a shift in consciousness about how to understand and study the natural world. As a result, religion and science were separated into two entirely separate spheres of knowledge. Plus, as Edis says, this separation, with its promise of infinite new inventions and technologies, became complete just in time to plug into emerging capitalism. But in Muslim countries the critical separation of science from religion never occurred. Thus, scientific inquiry in the Middle East never matured into true science as it did in Europe.

And now, there’s Islamic creationism.

In many Muslim countries, you don’t have much creationism, but only because evolution does not appear in their textbooks in the first place. In countries that have had some exposure to conventional science education, such as Turkey, then you also have more of a public creationist reaction. In the last 20 years, we’ve seen creationism appearing in Turkey’s official science textbooks that are taught in high schools. Turkey has also witnessed a very strong popular movement for creationism that has spread to the whole Islamic world.

But before we feel pity for Middle Eastern scientists, let us consider what we’re dealing with here in the U.S. Namely, wingnuts. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Ace of Spades. Never mind that the Ace’s, um, interpretation of the article bears no resemblance whatsoever to what the article says. Wingnuts generally have reading comprehension skills roughly equivalent to that of spinach. Just take a look at this conclusion —

Hey, Christian conservatives? You want to win your creationism cases? Start bringing in Muslim creationists. And watch your liberal opponents suddenly finding it much more plausible that God — or, rather, Allah — created the earth, the animals, and humans directly.

Somewhere in there is a clue to why one cannot have a sensible conversation with an American right winger.

To his credit, the Ace is not a creationist himself. However, he dismisses global climate change as a “cult.” I’d say we’d best not point fingers at the Muslim world for being hostile to science. And we shouldn’t be too proud about logic or literacy, either.

See also: Sadly, No.

Update: Why some say we liberals should support righties in their fight to save the liberal values of the Enlightenment. No, serously.

Program Notes

Posted on by

Markos Moulitsas will be on Meet the Press today, with the DLC’s own Harold Ford. Could be fun. I’ll be in a zendo most of the morning and will miss it, but feel free to comment.

See also this op ed by Susan Gardner and Markos in yesterday’s Washington Post.

In religion news, David Neiwert reports that Rep. Bill Sali has recanted and says he didn’t mean to say that there shouldn’t be Muslims serving in Congress. David also posts more evidence that the Founding Fathers explicitly intended to include Islam in the protections of religious liberty.

Fundies are, apparently, still hollering about a Hindu prayer in Congress, because Hindus are (on the surface, anyway) polytheists. Hindu scholars might argue that Hindus were really the first monotheists, since all gods and beings are manifestations of Brahman, the One, but never mind. Once again, I give you Thomas Jefferson:

“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Now, is that so hard?

See also: Digby on the unrelenting creepiness of what fundies call “Christian love.” Logan Murphy at Crooks and Liars for more on the megachurch that canceled a memorial service for a veteran of the Gulf War when they found out the deceased was gay. Max Blumenthal on fundie proselytizing in the military.

On Our Own

Posted on by

There are a couple of items in the news today reminding us that the conservative philosophy of government is not to govern at all.

Item one, an editorial in today’s New York Times:

Over the last several years, America’s imbalances in trade and other global transactions have worsened dramatically, requiring the United States to borrow billions of dollars a day from abroad just to balance its books.

The only lasting way to fix the imbalances — and reduce that borrowing — is to increase America’s savings. But the administration has steadfastly rejected that responsible approach since it would require rolling back excessive tax cuts and engaging in government-led health care reform to rein in looming crushing costs– both, anathema to President Bush. It would also require revamping the nation’s tax incentives so that they create new savings by typical families, instead of new shelters for the existing wealth of affluent families — another nonstarter for this White House.

Stymied by what it won’t do, the administration has gone for a quicker fix — letting the dollar slide. A weaker dollar helps to ease the nation’s imbalances by making American exports more affordable, thus narrowing the trade deficit.

But to be truly effective, a weaker dollar must be paired with higher domestic savings. Otherwise, the need to borrow from abroad remains large, even as a weakening currency makes dollar-based debt less attractive. That’s the trap the nation is slipping into today. Among other ills, it could lead to a deterioration in American living standards as money flows abroad to pay foreign creditors, leaving less to spend at home on critical needs. Or, it could lead to abrupt spikes in interest rates as American debtors are forced to pay whatever it takes to get the loans they need.

In volatile economic times like now, leadership is crucial — and notably absent with this administration.

I’d say what we’re really dealing with is not a lack of leadership, but negative leadership. By that I mean a stubborn refusal to deal rationally with the nation’s problems accompanied by an equally stubborn refusal not to let anyone else deal with those problems, either. The Bush Administration accumulates power and won’t share it with anyone, but neither will the Bush Administration use that power to anyone’s benefit but its own.

Item two is an article in today’s Washington Post by Spencer Hsu:

A decision by the Bush administration to rewrite in secret the nation’s emergency response blueprint has angered state and local emergency officials, who worry that Washington is repeating a series of mistakes that contributed to its bungled response to Hurricane Katrina nearly two years ago.

State and local officials in charge of responding to disasters say that their input in shaping the National Response Plan was ignored in recent months by senior White House and Department of Homeland Security officials, despite calls by congressional investigators for a shared overhaul of disaster planning in the United States.

“In my 19 years in emergency management, I have never experienced a more polarized environment between state and federal government,” said Albert Ashwood, Oklahoma’s emergency management chief and president of a national association of state emergency managers.

The national plan is supposed to guide how federal, state and local governments, along with private and nonprofit groups, work together during emergencies. Critics contend that a unilateral approach by Washington produced an ill-advised response plan at the end of 2004 — an unwieldy, 427-page document that emphasized stopping terrorism at the expense of safeguarding against natural disasters. …

…Testifying before a House panel last week, Ashwood and colleagues openly questioned why the draft was revised behind closed doors. The final document was to be released June 1, at the start of this year’s hurricane season.

Federal officials, Ashwood said, appear to be trying to create a legalistic document to shield themselves from responsibility for future disasters and to shift blame to states. “It seems that the Katrina federal legacy is one of minimizing exposure for the next event and ensuring future focus is centered on state and local preparedness,” he said.

We’re approaching the second anniversary of Katrina. Soon there will be a flood of retrospective articles documenting how little has actually been done to put New Orleans and other Gulf Coast communities back on their feet. As I wrote nearly a year ago, Bush said he wanted “local folks” to make decisions about how to proceed with recovery. But along with the fact that most of the big contracts were made between the feds and their pet contractors — local talent need not apply — the Bush Administration overrode many of the decisions those “local folks” made.

A year ago The Center for America’s Future released a report (PDF) documenting the failures of the Bush Administration to respond to Katrina. The Bushies failed to prepare, they failed to respond, and they have failed to rebuild. And behind these failures was more than just sheer incompetence; it was conservative ideology. The disabling factors were rightie disdain for government, their reckless determination to privatize core functions (placing blind faith in the market without oversight or accountability) and their fondness for “pay-to-play” politics, in which money capitalism and personal gain count for more than performance. These three “beliefs,” beloved of the extreme Right, are crippling America.

As I wrote yesterday, the Right was able to “sell” this extremist agenda to America by dominating media and the nation’s political culture, freezing out any point of view but theirs. The Right claimed the center and enforced that claim with bluster and intimidation. And for a time the majority of Americans more or less went along with the Right’s agenda, mostly because that was the only agenda presented to them. Finally people are waking up, but as long as the Bushies and their cronies hang on to power, America will continue to weaken from within and without.

In the last post I wrote that many on the Right Blogosphere sincerely believe America is being weakened by disloyalty to the President. Speaking out against him emboldens the enemy, you know. Never mind that a citizens’ right to speak out against incompetent and mismanaged government is what makes democracy possible. I said, “Right wingers hunger and thirst for authoritarianism, because real freedom scares them witless. They’re happier with a dictator telling them what to do, and they’re too cowardly to admit it.”

Naturally, some brainwashed twit came along and said, “Do you not find anything authoritarian about the Nanny State?”

Let’s think about this, people. In Rightie World, we must not be allowed to have government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We, the People must not elect leaders who will enact government services like Social Security or Medicare or safety net provisions or universal health care. Because, say righties, using elected, representative government to fulfill the mandate of the Constitution — “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” etc. — is totalitarianism.

On the other hand, enforcing knee-jerk loyalty to the President by either law or social pressure is what will safeguard our freedoms.

Can we say, these people are flaming lunatics? I believe so.

I fear that someday Americans will find themselves living in a post-industrial backwater, and our status as the most powerful and prosperous nation on the planet will be a dim memory. Our only hope is to use the representative government established by the Constitution to restore sanity to government. But the right-wing crazies are doing their damnedest to destroy that, too.

Full Circle

Posted on by

You have to be old enough to remember the Second Red Scare to appreciate this. Or maybe not.

Lt. Gen. Ion Pacepa, a self-described “old KGB hand,” says liberals are destroying America.

Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point out the Soviet parallels. For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler–as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink. …

…Unfortunately, partisans today have taken a page from the old Soviet playbook. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, for example, Bush critics continued our mud-slinging at America’s commander in chief. One speaker, Martin O’Malley, now governor of Maryland, had earlier in the summer stated he was more worried about the actions of the Bush administration than about al Qaeda. On another occasion, retired four-star general Wesley Clark gave Michael Moore a platform to denounce the American commander in chief as a “deserter.” And visitors to the national chairman of the Democratic Party had to step across a doormat depicting the American president surrounded by the words, “Give Bush the Boot.”…

… For once, the communists got it right. It is America’s leader that counts. Let’s return to the traditions of presidents who accepted nothing short of unconditional surrender from our deadly enemies. Let’s vote next year for people who believe in America’s future, not for the ones who live in the Cold War past.

Now, let’s see if we’ve got this straight. According to Pacepa, Americans must give their leaders unquestioned allegiance, because to do otherwise weakens the nation. Questioning Dear Leader is an act of subversion. This is unlike commmunists, who deified their own ruler. Oh, wait …

Naturally, a whole bunch of right–wing blogs are linking to this with robust approval without noticing the essential un-Americanism of Pacepa’s point of view.

Once more, with feeling:

    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” President Theodore Roosevelt, 1918.

McCarthyists and Red Baiters were so afraid of being defeated by a totalitarian police state that they wanted to turn America into a totalitarian police state for protection. They always reminded me of a herd of buffalo stampeding over a cliff. No amount of reasoning could get them to see that they were a more immediate threat to America’s freedoms than the Communists were.

Bottom line: Righties hate our freedoms. Right wingers hunger and thirst for authoritarianism, because real freedom scares them witless. They’re happier with a dictator telling them what to do, and they’re too cowardly to admit it.

Update: See Comments from Left Field.

Conflict Avoiders

Posted on by

Few of us leftie bloggers have endorsed a Dem presidential candidate, and much is being made of this. Michael Scherer writes,

Even some of the netroots founding members have begun to take notice. “The bloggers are I think in many ways taking themselves out of the debate by not participating in it,” explained Jerome Armstrong, the proprietor of MyDD.com, who co-wrote a book with Moulitsas on Democratic blogging. “They are becoming sort of conflict avoiders in the primary.”

However,

Another prominent blogger, Matt Stoller, who recently co-founded OpenLeft.com, described what was happening to progressive blogs as a temporary loss of liberal momentum. “People feel confused,” he said. “Because that’s what happens to a movement that hopes if you get Democrats elected it will solve some of our problems, and then our problems aren’t solved.” He predicted that the blogs will again find their voice on intraparty matters once it becomes clear that the current crop of presidential candidates do not sufficiently represent the liberal cause on everything from telecommunications laws to military withdrawal from Iraq.

What I don’t think Scherer sees clearly is that “netroots” bloggers are not exactly “Democratic Party” bloggers. Progressive bloggers on the whole see the Dem Party as a means — and just a potential means, at that — not an end in itself. Progressive bloggers may work for, with, and through the Party, but most of ’em are not of the Party.

I can speak only for myself, but I haven’t endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate for the simple reason that, so far, no one has stood out at THE candidate I want to support above all others. They all have pluses and minuses. Of those candidates with even a snowball’s chance in hell of being nominated, there are none I would not support over any Republican in the general election, and certainly none I would not vote for in the general election. In contrast to the clown show that is the Republican candidate field, the Dems on the whole are serious and accomplished people.

It’s just that there isn’t one among them whose nomination will cause me to melt into indescribable bliss. And, frankly, that’s OK with me. I don’t fall in love with candidates any more. I am old and jaded and have been burned too many times.

Some people are, I think, drawing a false comparison between support for Howard Dean in 2003-2004 and today. Glenn Greenwald’s new book has a section on the Dean campaign, which reminded me that as governor of Vermont, Dean was essentially a moderate, DLC-style Democrat who balanced budgets and stayed on good terms with the National Rifle Association. He became a lightning rod in 2002-3 because he “stood up and objected to the uncritical national war dance,” as Glenn says. Pretty much the rest of the party was tripping over itself to declare support for whatever Bush wanted.

But just as the Right flew into Total Demonization Mode over Dean, so too did many Netizens of the time latch on to Howard Dean as the Only Pure Candidate. I wrote in January 2004:

Is it me, or is there an unusually high level of nastiness going on between the candidates’ camps? For example, some Dean-supporting web buddies, people with whom I have had a warm virtual relationship going back several years, recently turned on me like a pack of rabid pit bulls.

And why would that be? I like Howard Dean, I think he’d make a good president, and I often defend him against the unfair smears of the pundits and other candidates. But I am tainted because I also like Wesley Clark. So, now I am brainwashed; I have been dazzled by the uniform. I am told President Clark will declare martial law and start World War III as soon as he takes the oath of office (I’ve been brainwashed?).

Democrats who complain that the Republicans are a pack of intolerant, knee-jerk partisans are turning into intolerant, knee-jerk partisans.

That part about Deaniacs accusing Clark of declaring martial law and starting World War III was no exaggeration. I stumbled into a nest of Deaniacs who actually believed that. Some people had become a tad unglued.

Both Howard Dean and Wes Clark gave excellent speeches at YKos, btw. These are both very smart guys who see our lunatic political situation with more clarity than I’ve seen from any of the candidates. Dean in particular is probably the best thing that’s happened to the Democratic Party since John — nay, Jackie — Kennedy. But, folks, none of ’em walks on water.

Even though our situation remains dire, for many of us it feels less desperate. The very fact that all but one of the official Dem presidential candidates came to our convention and performed for our approval is proof that much has changed. I think we’re all appraising the merchandise with cooler heads these days.

Scherer continues,

Last summer, when YearlyKos met in Las Vegas for its inaugural convention, such harmony was difficult to imagine. Prospective presidential candidates seemed desperate to ply bloggers with drink and attention. Wesley Clark threw a riotous party for bloggers at the Hard Rock Casino, while former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner spent around $50,000 to entertain bloggers with a John Belushi impersonator and a chocolate fondue waterfall at the top of the Stratosphere casino. At the time, all the buzz was about which candidate could win over the blogs. Even Moulitsas got caught up in the frenzy, comparing the Warner party to a “first date.”

Poor Mark Warner spent all that money on the Las Vegas party and got nothing to show for it. The infamous YKos 2006 Warner bash even drew criticism from the hair-shirt purist crowd on the Left, who seemed to think a few free drinks amounts to corruption. So no parties paid for by candidates this year (thanks loads, hair-shirt purist chumps).

A year later, it is hard to see how any single Democratic candidate emerges before the primary as the prohibitive choice of liberal bloggers. Instead the various campaigns are fighting a battle of margins. Not a single candidate or campaign threw a party at this year’s conference. “There is just not critical mass moving to one candidate right now,” said Joe Trippi, the former Dean campaign manager who is now overseeing the Edwards campaign. “Every campaign has been competing like crazy for every inch they can get on the Internet and the blogosphere.”

Yes. And this is good. If they want our support, what’s wrong with making them work a bit to get it? In the 2004 campaign cycle we complained that the Democratic Party thought we bloggers were just a bunch of web ATM machines, and if they coughed the Boilerplate Bullshit at us we’d respond with buckets of cash. Now, I assure you — Joe Biden excepted — they are at least a bit more respectful.

Travels

Posted on by

I’m still in Chicago, but just about packed up. As soon as I’ve finished posting this, I’ll stuff the laptop into my backpack and check out of the hotel.

This was an outstanding convention overall, albeit a tad frayed about the edges. This year’s convention was larger than last year’s. The convention center here is beautiful, but panels were spread out over a huge area, which scattered us all a bit. A smaller percentage of the panelists were bloggers, which I think was not a good trend.

Lots of grumbling about FISA and lobbyists, which I’ll post about when I get home.

Still, there’s a lot of spirit and strength of purpose here. I’m very glad I came.

Wingnuts Shout Down Troops

Posted on by

There’s a video of Wesley Clark’s Friday morning keynote speech here. It’s not streaming smoothly for me right now, but maybe it’ll work for you. If the video is watchable it is very much worth watching.

I call it to your attention not just because it was an excellent speech, but because it was a very pro-military speech, and conference attendees — and most of the 1,500 or so people attending the conference were present — cheered and applauded lustily whenever Gen. Clark praised the troops serving in Iraq.

After Gen. Clark’s keynote, he and Jon Soltz of Vote Vets remained to moderate a panel called “The Military and Progressives: Are They Really That Different?” I would have stayed for it but that was at the same time as my religion panel (which went well, btw).

Apparently a veteran in the audience stood up and argued that the surge was working, which seems to have drawn some reaction. LGF headline: “Serviceman shouted down at Yearly Kos.” Yes, once again, we lefties hate the military.

Actually, in his speech Gen. Clark said it was “working” in a purely limited sense, meaning that whatever parts of Iraq are patrolled by U.S. troops do tend to settle down. The problem with that is, of course, that the insurgent/terrorists just move somewhere else, since there aren’t enough troops to be everywhere. And the surge is having no impact on Iraq’s political situation, which was the point of it.

The irony is that if you want to see real anti-troops hysteria, you can’t beat the righties themselves. They went after Scott Beauchamp like a school of piranha. Robert Farley at Lawyers, Guns and Money wrote,

…virtually the whole of the right blogosphere erupted in a torrent of the most vile abuse and intimidation against Scott Thomas Beauchamp, based at first on the assertion that he didn’t exist, second on the assertion that he could not be part of the military, and third on the assertion that, even if he were in the military, he must have made it all up. …

… It’s very simple, people. A TNR diarist wrote about a series of events. Righties freaked out, insisting that the stories couldn’t possibly be true. Lefties didn’t assert that it was true, but insisted that it could be factual. Battle ensues. It turns out that the story is, apart from an irrelevant detail, true. Righties claim victory based on that detail, and those who gave credence to the most brutal and idiotic attacks declare the affair over, without bothering to wonder how they got taken in by people who are obviously con artists, and stupid ones at that. TNR diarist, incidentally, is successfully intimidated and effectively silenced.

That last part was, of course, the point. Scott Beauchamp has been shouted down.