Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Oil Rigs
Not looking so good. I think problems with refining capacity/distribution are much greater short/medium term problems. In any case, it'll be interesting if there are genuine local gas shortages (assuming for the moment that they'll be localized and fairly temporary).
The World According to Righties
The Right has two neat tricks which work well in tandem. The first is that anyone anywhere who is in anyway affiliated with "The Left," including people with zero economic or political power or any real influence of any kind, represents everyone on the political spectrum to the left of Zell Miller.
The second trick is that anything "bad" they just call "liberal." Serial killer? A liberal! A member of the Taliban? A liberal! Pedophile priests? Liberals! Militant extremist Islamic terrorists? Liberals!
Sean Hannity has now included the Reverend Fred Phelps as part of the "anti-war left." A guy who thinks that soldiers are killed in Iraq as God's punishment for homosexuality? A liberal!
The second trick is that anything "bad" they just call "liberal." Serial killer? A liberal! A member of the Taliban? A liberal! Pedophile priests? Liberals! Militant extremist Islamic terrorists? Liberals!
Sean Hannity has now included the Reverend Fred Phelps as part of the "anti-war left." A guy who thinks that soldiers are killed in Iraq as God's punishment for homosexuality? A liberal!
Leadership
Jeebus, even the oil companies want Americans to use a bit less gas.
If there's anything that would piss people off more than a draft would it's gas shortages.
WASHINGTON, Aug 31 (Reuters) - Americans should conserve gasoline as supplies shrink in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, but there is no need for the federal government to ration fuel at this point, a major U.S. oil industry trade group said on Wednesday.
Nine major oil refineries accounting for about 11 percent of total U.S refining capacity were shut by the powerful storm. Several pipelines are unable to ship gasoline from Gulf Coast refiners to markets
...
To help get through the supply problems, Cavaney urged American motorists "to take seriously common-sense energy conservation recommendations" and reduce driving.
The API asked the Bush administration to make promoting gasoline-saving a key part of the government's hurricane recovery plan, he said. "We hope with presidential leadership it will get that kind of attention," Cavaney said.
But Bush did not ask Americans to reduce gasoline use in a televised speech from the Rose Garden on Wednesday during which he talked about government efforts to help storm victims.
If there's anything that would piss people off more than a draft would it's gas shortages.
Places to Donate
I really have no sense of where the best place to send your money is, but here's a list.
And the Gas Lines Begin
CNN reporting long lines in Atlanta, and $4.99/gal in some stations there. Forget high prices, local supply disruptions are probably coming...
On an entirely unrelated issue, how doLouisiana Mississippi casino PR people have control of our media? I swear CNN informs us every 15 minutes that the state loses $500,00 per day when the casinos are closed as if that's the most important thing happening right now. The state's losing a hell of a lot of money on every other non-operational sector too. Reopening the casinos IS NOT THE HIGHEST PRIORITY.
On an entirely unrelated issue, how do
Gays to Blame for Hurricane
Didn't take long. The Repent America guy is a local nuisance here in Philadelphia.
Everything He Touches
Turns to shit.
I certainly hope that they turn this around, but at this point it looks like this is an absolutely colossal failure of leadership and competence at all levels of government.
I certainly hope that they turn this around, but at this point it looks like this is an absolutely colossal failure of leadership and competence at all levels of government.
Is There a Bigger Idiot Than Sullivan?
Oy:
First, the part of the "anti-war left" which Kos belongs to was opposed to the Iraq war which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Second, this comparison, no matter how valid it ends up being (and, frankly, it's looking increasingly valid), has nothing to do with "minimizing what happened on 9/11." Who does that? And, third, what's with Sullivan's whole "kos shouldn't be making digs at President Bush but he's absolutely right so I'm going to take a dig at him too."
Wanker. (via sullywatch)
BLOCK THAT ANALOGY: Kos can't help himself:
This is the greatest disaster to hit our nation in most of our lifetimes. Worse than 9-11.
It is indeed devastating. But we do not know how many have died; and we also know that this was an act of nature, not a premeditated attempt to murder innocent people. Do some on the anti-war left have to keep minimizing what happened on 9/11? And then, of course, it's impossible for Kos to mention an awful tragedy without a dig at president Bush. That said, he has a point. The photograph he mentions from yesterday does strike me as completely off-key, and a pretty terrible p.r. posture for a president in the middle of a natural catastrophe. Who on earth signed off on that one? Playing a guitar? It's the kind of image that can truly alter the perception of a president.
First, the part of the "anti-war left" which Kos belongs to was opposed to the Iraq war which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Second, this comparison, no matter how valid it ends up being (and, frankly, it's looking increasingly valid), has nothing to do with "minimizing what happened on 9/11." Who does that? And, third, what's with Sullivan's whole "kos shouldn't be making digs at President Bush but he's absolutely right so I'm going to take a dig at him too."
Wanker. (via sullywatch)
More Bell Curve
Alterman:
While some innocence on the part of critics, a category that would include the vast majority of the reading public is excusable in the book’s early reception, this caveat begins to evaporate with time as more and more of the book’s flaws became evident. At that point, support for the work begins to look much more like ideological solidarity than intellectual rigor For instance The New Republic editors’ decision to champion the book cannot be justified by the book’s scholarly value. It must therefore have appealed to its editors own beliefs about race and intelligence—beliefs, as Murray suggested previously, that they had hitherto felt uncomfortable admitting in public forums. Why else lend the magazine’s credibility as the voice of the center-left to a project riddled with racist sources and reactionary recommendations?
If The Bell Curve were actually a respectable scholarly contribution to the debate over the place of race and genetics in our society, then closing one’s eyes to its conclusions would have been a cowardly and ultimately self-defeating response. But as Mickey Kaus pointed out, the question isn't whether it is possible that some ethnic groups have, on average, higher mental abilities than others, it's whether Murray is a reliable guide when it comes to exploring this possibility.”[16] The question of whether Murray and his late co-author Richard Hernstein are themselves racists is a pointless and ultimately insoluble debate. What is unarguable, however, is the fact that they were willing employ sources infected with racist underpinnings in pursuit of arguments custom designed to appeal to racist inclinations on the part of their readers and reviewers.
Poverty
It seems to have sunk in a bit more, but it was truly amazing watching our clueless media for the first couple of days not being able to comprehend that some people just did not have the resources to evacuate.
Nice Things to Do in Philadelphia
I'd suggest skipping the Independence Hall and Liberty Bell, unless you really really feel the need. Ridiculous security and difficulty of getting tickets to the former rather ruin the experience.
You can get an early start Friday by attending the First Fridays event. Galleries stay open, many offer free food and wine.
As with much of Philadelphia, the Art Museum seems to be surprisingly underrated. It has an impressively large collection and of course you can run up the steps and pretend you're Rocky. Rodin museum is nearby.
If you get a chance, pop into the Reading Terminal Market which is near the hotel. There's also the Italian Market which is a bit farther away.
For general soaking up the city, Rittenhouse Square is probably one of the best urban parks in the country. There's lots of restaurants/retail around there for good strolling.
Alternatively, there's the Delaware Avenue end of South Street, and the general Old City vicinity.
The Marriott is close to Chinatown, providing Sunday morning Dim Sum opportunities.
You can get an early start Friday by attending the First Fridays event. Galleries stay open, many offer free food and wine.
As with much of Philadelphia, the Art Museum seems to be surprisingly underrated. It has an impressively large collection and of course you can run up the steps and pretend you're Rocky. Rodin museum is nearby.
If you get a chance, pop into the Reading Terminal Market which is near the hotel. There's also the Italian Market which is a bit farther away.
For general soaking up the city, Rittenhouse Square is probably one of the best urban parks in the country. There's lots of restaurants/retail around there for good strolling.
Alternatively, there's the Delaware Avenue end of South Street, and the general Old City vicinity.
The Marriott is close to Chinatown, providing Sunday morning Dim Sum opportunities.
Philadelphia Stuff
For those coming by Amtrak, you can either take a $5-$6 cab ride to the hotel, or hop on any of the Septa commuter trains (free with Amtrak ticket stub) which are heading towards center city. Best bet is two stops to Market East station, which is a short walk from the hotel.
People coming from the New York vicinity can also try taking New Jersey Transit to Trenton and then picking up a Septa train to Philadelphia (again, to Market East station). Takes about an hour longer, but only costs about $18 each way. Another option is one of the Chinatown bus lines. They will drop you off within walking distance of the hotel, too.
From the airport, fixed cab fee is $25. Septa trains run every half hour, again to Market East station, and costs in the neighborhood of $5. Airport shuttle will run you $8.
For Friday evening festivities, the New Wave Cafe is a bit under two miles from the hotel.
If you're so inclined, it's probably a decent opportunity for a long stroll. Otherwise, you could take the Subway (blue Market-Frankford line) from Market East to 2nd and Market and walk the rest of the way, which will cut your walk in about half. Or, just split a cab with a couple of people and it shouldn't be more than $8 total.
The Khyber is under a mile from the New Wave Cafe, and is also located right by the 2nd & Market subway stop. Certainly walkable, or for those who who are less mobile a short cab ride away. Subway or cab is probably the easiest way to return home from the Khyber, although it's certainly safe to walk if you're not alone (the late night stroll down market street isn't the sexiest, so if you want to walk it's probably worth heading down Walnut St. or Chestnut St. instead.)
more later...
People coming from the New York vicinity can also try taking New Jersey Transit to Trenton and then picking up a Septa train to Philadelphia (again, to Market East station). Takes about an hour longer, but only costs about $18 each way. Another option is one of the Chinatown bus lines. They will drop you off within walking distance of the hotel, too.
From the airport, fixed cab fee is $25. Septa trains run every half hour, again to Market East station, and costs in the neighborhood of $5. Airport shuttle will run you $8.
For Friday evening festivities, the New Wave Cafe is a bit under two miles from the hotel.
If you're so inclined, it's probably a decent opportunity for a long stroll. Otherwise, you could take the Subway (blue Market-Frankford line) from Market East to 2nd and Market and walk the rest of the way, which will cut your walk in about half. Or, just split a cab with a couple of people and it shouldn't be more than $8 total.
The Khyber is under a mile from the New Wave Cafe, and is also located right by the 2nd & Market subway stop. Certainly walkable, or for those who who are less mobile a short cab ride away. Subway or cab is probably the easiest way to return home from the Khyber, although it's certainly safe to walk if you're not alone (the late night stroll down market street isn't the sexiest, so if you want to walk it's probably worth heading down Walnut St. or Chestnut St. instead.)
more later...
Inside the Mind of John Tierney
Another red-baiting chickenhawk. You'd think that modern conservatives would come up with a few new tricks. I guess they're too stupid.
Tierney must have led a rather sheltered life.
Looks like Operation Yellow Elephant has a new target: Young Tierney!:
Tierney, of the Institute of World Politics, identified five groups: ANSWER, Not in Our Name, Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice, and MoveOn.org. He said these groups "come from the Workers World Party" and are an "umbrella" for smaller groups, such as the "Communist Party of Kansas City" and the "Socialist Revolutionary Movement of the Upper Mississippi." Of the last two, he said, "I'm just making these up."
Tierney singled out Sheehan, whose son died in Iraq and who camped out at President Bush's ranch this month to protest the war. "I've never heard of a woman protesting a war in front of a leader's home in my life," he said. "I've never heard of anything quite so outrageous."
Tierney must have led a rather sheltered life.
Looks like Operation Yellow Elephant has a new target: Young Tierney!:
The author said he has "grave, grave problems with the conduct of the operation in Iraq" and wouldn't want to see his 20-year-old son go there. But he said it is "automatic" that anybody who joins a protest by one of the offending groups is supporting communists.
Eschacon
All the latest info here.
For anyone, especially local people, who for whatever reason may not be attending the more formal parts of the conference but wouldn't mind stopping in and saying hello, feel free to come to the Khyber to see Milton and the Devils Party, Friday at 9Pm. $8 cover. 56 S. 2nd street.
For anyone, especially local people, who for whatever reason may not be attending the more formal parts of the conference but wouldn't mind stopping in and saying hello, feel free to come to the Khyber to see Milton and the Devils Party, Friday at 9Pm. $8 cover. 56 S. 2nd street.
Jeebus
Iraq:
More than 600 people have been killed in a stampede of Shia pilgrims in northern Baghdad, Iraqi officials say.
The incident happened on a bridge over the Tigris River as about one million Shias marched to a shrine for an annual religious festival.
Witnesses said panic spread because of rumours that suicide bombers were in the crowd. Many victims were crushed to death or fell in the river and drowned.
Earlier, mortar rounds had been fired into the crowd, killing 16 people.
Heh-indeedy
Amanda:
Taken altogether, this is what I fear will happen: The victims of the flood will be portrayed via racist stereotypes as criminals and idiots. This will predispose the audience to disliking them. Then, after everything settles down, a few right wingers will start implying that the dead brought their own fate on themselves by being too stupid and/or criminal to evacuate. This focus will distract the pundits from discussing the real issue at hand, which is why the fuck we didn't have the resources on hand to evacuate a city that has Hurricane Target written all over it. Before you know it, it'll be a wingnut bonaza of people both gleefully indulging in the most racist tendencies while simultaneously claiming that the only reason one might end up dead in a hurricane is because one doesn't have "personal responsibility". But my guess is that the people who are dead mostly didn't have transportation out of the city. Watch the media bury the truth of what happened so fast it'll make your head spin.
Gray Lady Gets It Right For Once
Link:
People who think of that graceful city and the rest of the Mississippi Delta as tourist destinations must have been reminded, watching the rescue operations, that the real residents of this area are in the main poor and black. The only resources most of them will have to fall back on will need to come from the federal government.
Those of us in New York watch the dire pictures from Louisiana with keen memories of the time after Sept. 11, when the rest of the nation made it clear that our city was their city, and that everyone was part of the battle to restore it. New Orleans, too, is one of the places that belongs to every American's heart - even for people who have never been there.
Right now it looks as if rescuing New Orleans will be a task much more daunting than any city has faced since the San Francisco fire of 1906. It must be a mission for all of us.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Maps
It's a shame that from what I've seen in the media they don't seem to understand the importance of maps. Disaster footage is flashed randomly on the screen, devoid of any genuine geographic context. Maps appropriately scaled for the location of the footage would provide actual useful information. Otherwise, it's mostly just disaster porn.
Captions Are Fun
Two stories.
One:
Two:
(thanks to "?" in comments)
One:
A young man walks through chest deep flood water after looting a grocery store in New Orleans on Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005. Flood waters continue to rise in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina did extensive damage when it made landfall on Monday. (AP Photo/Dave Martin) Email Photo Print Photo
Two:
Two residents wade through chest-deep water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store after Hurricane Katrina came through the area in New Orleans, Louisiana.(AFP/Getty Images/Chris Graythen)
(thanks to "?" in comments)
Note to the Media
New Orleans is being destroyed. Looting, especially by those who are obtaining food, water, and other necessities, is about number 589 on the list of things which matter right now.
Trolls
Tonight at Drinking Liberally we had our first real life troll - some lovely fellow who drove by the bar where we were sitting outside and yelled "George Bush Rules!"
Pwned
Jack Cafferty just now on CNN.
Transcript doesn't do it justice. Bush just got pwned.
...you can listen here.
Cafferty: Where's President Bush? Is he still on vacation?
Blitzer: He's cut short his vacation he's coming back to Washington tomorrow.
Cafferty: Oh, that would be a good idea. He was out in San Diego I think at a Naval air station giving a speech on Japan and the war in Iraq today. Based on his approval rating, based on the latest polls, my guess is getting back to work might not be a terrible idea.
Transcript doesn't do it justice. Bush just got pwned.
...you can listen here.
Refugees
Sadly, after looking for a time yesterday that it wasn't going to be "that bad," it turns out Katrina has indeed been that bad. With large numbers of residents being told to stay away for an entire month, and the 20,000 or so who have apparently taken up shelter in the superdome, it appears that we have our own non-trivial refugee crisis.
Lots and lots of people have neither the family nor their own resources to allow them to keep their families sheltered for a significant amount of time. Many or old and/or have chronic illnesses. This is a massive disaster requiring some serious leadership.
Lots and lots of people have neither the family nor their own resources to allow them to keep their families sheltered for a significant amount of time. Many or old and/or have chronic illnesses. This is a massive disaster requiring some serious leadership.
It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.
-- Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004.
Regulating Cable
Yes, this is an awful idea. And, yes, sadly, the Democrats will likely end up being on the wrong side of it.
Please, just spend a few hundred billion on the biggest ad campaign in the history of the universe to tell parents how to use their goddamn v-chips.
Please, just spend a few hundred billion on the biggest ad campaign in the history of the universe to tell parents how to use their goddamn v-chips.
Minitru on the Hudson
Looks like the New York Times has had a wee adjustment to its style guide:
"Unconventional weapons?" Admittedly, it's a better term, but it also serves to help us forget what this war was all about in the first place...
...UPDATE: I just did a Nexis search and they've apparently been using both terms for quite some time. It's interesting really - sometimes it's an appropriate usage and sometimes it isn't. strange.
"There's a certain ferocity in motherhood," said Celeste Zappala of Philadelphia, a co-founder of Ms. Sheehan's antiwar group, Gold Star Families for Peace, and the mother of Sgt. Sherwood Baker, a national guardsman. Sergeant Baker was killed in Baghdad in April 2004 while protecting the Iraq Survey Group, which was searching for large unconventional weapons.
...
Ms. Prewitt said she voted for Mr. Bush in 2000 and initially supported the war, but turned against it after no unconventional weapons were found. "The first year I was rather numb, and then I got angry," she said.
"Unconventional weapons?" Admittedly, it's a better term, but it also serves to help us forget what this war was all about in the first place...
...UPDATE: I just did a Nexis search and they've apparently been using both terms for quite some time. It's interesting really - sometimes it's an appropriate usage and sometimes it isn't. strange.
Open Thread
No cord or cable can draw so forcibly, or bind so fast, as love can do with a single thread. --Robert Burton
Monday, August 29, 2005
Medals
Lovely lovely medals!
There should also be the Purple Cheeto award for those who, tragically, experience heart failure during their noble war against their fellow citizens.
There should also be the Purple Cheeto award for those who, tragically, experience heart failure during their noble war against their fellow citizens.
Amnesty
It's not entirely clear if "amnesty" is a pardon or if it's some double super secret thing not actually present in the Kentucky constitution...[update: real pardons]
Still, it's a bit odd. The good Gov didn't pardon, er, amnesty, or whatever, himself. Presumably all of those who had been indicted are now unable to invoke their 5th amendment rights...
Still, it's a bit odd. The good Gov didn't pardon, er, amnesty, or whatever, himself. Presumably all of those who had been indicted are now unable to invoke their 5th amendment rights...
Bye Jim
We'll sure miss you.
Murphy came within spitting distance in '04. '06 should be a win. And, she's the first of the '06 Eschaton approved candidates.
The Sixth Congressional District was carved with Gerlach, a former state senator, in mind. Its boundary lines, consequently, are as gerrymandered as a six-year-old's Etch-A-Sketch doodle. But that hasn't made things easy for him.
...
"I'm a lifelong Republican," says Mr. Ross, amid an art-deco interior where they hope to add a cafe. "But for the first time in my life, I can imagine voting Democrat." Mr. Deacon, too, has soured on Mr. Bush. Both cite frustration with the war in Iraq.
A similar refrain is heard just across the street, at Rusti's Beauty Supply. A bumper sticker on the window - "The Bush Promise: Survival of the Richest" - doesn't slow the flow of black women seeking hair-care products. Inside, owner Rusti Hoskins vents his views with more color than can be printed in a family newspaper. "I can't stand Bush," he says in gravelly tones. Once reliably Republican, Mr. Hoskins is now disgusted by the Iraq war.
...
"Voters here just aren't comfortable with the direction of the Republican Party," she says, citing its "reckless" record of fiscal management. Four young staffers are already hard at work for Ms. Murphy, a lawyer who, without much name recognition, lost to Gerlach by a mere 7,000 votes last year.
Murphy's campaign headquarters are in Narberth, one of the posh suburbs that stretch westward from Philadelphia along Pennsylvania's Main Line railroad. Route 30 is different in these leafy suburbs: A Maserati dealership and the manicured athletic fields of Villanova University make Coatesville seem a million miles away.
This area was once solidly Republican, but has been trending Democratic. Voters here are more politically oriented, but they're less willing to go on the record. In this Google age, many worry that colleagues will learn their partisan leanings.
Murphy came within spitting distance in '04. '06 should be a win. And, she's the first of the '06 Eschaton approved candidates.
Straw Men
I do wish we could get off this topic, honestly, but it's one which brings out the stupids in a way which drives me nuts.
In discussing the Bell Curve, supporters of it invariably trot out all kinds of straw men to argue with. Let's deal with some of them.
First: Critics of the Bell Curve believe there is no link between the gentic code of parents and the potential intellecutal abilities of their offspring.
Some critics may think that, but I'm not aware of any of them.
Second: Critics of the Bell Curve believe all differences are environmental.
Some critics may think that, but I'm not aware of any of them.
Third: Critics went after M&H because they were exploring a "taboo" subject.
The subjects they were exploring are certainly sensitive ones, for good reason, but certainly not taboo. The existence of and reasons for gender and racial differences in life outcomes have and continue to be widely studied. M&H came under fire because their work was crap and because it had clear racist content. Similarly, Larry Summers came under fire not because he broached a taboo subject, but because he broached an understandably sensitive subject in a room full of people who had actually done research on that "taboo" topic and knew that Summers was talking out of his ass.
Fourth: Critics of the Bell Curve don't believe in race.
Well, critics of the Bell Curve don't believe that the cultural concept of race has much to do with the genetic concept of population. That doesn't mean that one cannot do any studies involving race - it is, in fact, a reason why we tend to support keeping statistics which include data on race - but it does mean that one should be more than a little careful when linking discussions of population genetics with discussions of race.
Fifth: Heritability necessarily implies genetic heritability.
We "inherit" much from our parents, and only some of that is genetic. Teasing out the different sources of heritability using tests taken relativey late in life and a needlessly crude measure of socioeconomic status does is not really possible, at least not in the crude way M&H approach the subject.
Sixth: The Bell Curve says whatever it is I, as a fan of it, think it says.
Many people seem to see support for the Bell Curve as either a symbol of openmindedness or as simply a statement of belief in some personal idiosyncratic views on race and intelligence. The Bell Curve is a specific book, which used specific data, specific methodology, specific arguments, specific sources, and specific rhetoric. Criticizing The Bell Curve is criticizing the Bell Curve, not criticizing some other actual or imagined alternative study, or theory, or empirical result, or anything else.
Seventh: Critics of the Bell Curve believe "IQ tests" are meaningless or that "IQ" isn't real.
IQ tests certainly measure something. That something is in some studies correlated with life outcomes. However, in no way do IQ tests, or many other tests which frequently serve as a proxy for IQ tests, provide a quality measure of innate intelligence or reflect some sort of immutable characteristic obtained at birth or conception (part of heritability, of course, has to do with what happens in utero, and not just early childhood).
There are more, but I'm getting bored as are the rest of you. I warn people away from the bell curve because I have the education to understand the shoddy "science," though there is more there worthy of criticism than simply shoddy methodology.
Finally, I'm often curious about what Bell Curve supporters, many of whom are clearly mostly unaware of what's actually in the book, think the book has "proven." Why do they get so upset when people point out it's full of crap? Which empirical results, logical conclusions, or policy recommendations found within do they support? It's weird, because they rarely discuss it in those terms. They seem to mostly believe the book supports some particular view they have, whether or not it actually does.
In discussing the Bell Curve, supporters of it invariably trot out all kinds of straw men to argue with. Let's deal with some of them.
First: Critics of the Bell Curve believe there is no link between the gentic code of parents and the potential intellecutal abilities of their offspring.
Some critics may think that, but I'm not aware of any of them.
Second: Critics of the Bell Curve believe all differences are environmental.
Some critics may think that, but I'm not aware of any of them.
Third: Critics went after M&H because they were exploring a "taboo" subject.
The subjects they were exploring are certainly sensitive ones, for good reason, but certainly not taboo. The existence of and reasons for gender and racial differences in life outcomes have and continue to be widely studied. M&H came under fire because their work was crap and because it had clear racist content. Similarly, Larry Summers came under fire not because he broached a taboo subject, but because he broached an understandably sensitive subject in a room full of people who had actually done research on that "taboo" topic and knew that Summers was talking out of his ass.
Fourth: Critics of the Bell Curve don't believe in race.
Well, critics of the Bell Curve don't believe that the cultural concept of race has much to do with the genetic concept of population. That doesn't mean that one cannot do any studies involving race - it is, in fact, a reason why we tend to support keeping statistics which include data on race - but it does mean that one should be more than a little careful when linking discussions of population genetics with discussions of race.
Fifth: Heritability necessarily implies genetic heritability.
We "inherit" much from our parents, and only some of that is genetic. Teasing out the different sources of heritability using tests taken relativey late in life and a needlessly crude measure of socioeconomic status does is not really possible, at least not in the crude way M&H approach the subject.
Sixth: The Bell Curve says whatever it is I, as a fan of it, think it says.
Many people seem to see support for the Bell Curve as either a symbol of openmindedness or as simply a statement of belief in some personal idiosyncratic views on race and intelligence. The Bell Curve is a specific book, which used specific data, specific methodology, specific arguments, specific sources, and specific rhetoric. Criticizing The Bell Curve is criticizing the Bell Curve, not criticizing some other actual or imagined alternative study, or theory, or empirical result, or anything else.
Seventh: Critics of the Bell Curve believe "IQ tests" are meaningless or that "IQ" isn't real.
IQ tests certainly measure something. That something is in some studies correlated with life outcomes. However, in no way do IQ tests, or many other tests which frequently serve as a proxy for IQ tests, provide a quality measure of innate intelligence or reflect some sort of immutable characteristic obtained at birth or conception (part of heritability, of course, has to do with what happens in utero, and not just early childhood).
There are more, but I'm getting bored as are the rest of you. I warn people away from the bell curve because I have the education to understand the shoddy "science," though there is more there worthy of criticism than simply shoddy methodology.
Finally, I'm often curious about what Bell Curve supporters, many of whom are clearly mostly unaware of what's actually in the book, think the book has "proven." Why do they get so upset when people point out it's full of crap? Which empirical results, logical conclusions, or policy recommendations found within do they support? It's weird, because they rarely discuss it in those terms. They seem to mostly believe the book supports some particular view they have, whether or not it actually does.
Pride in the Name of Racism
The ignorance of Andrew Sullivan is shocking. A decade later, he still has no clue why the publication of racist pseudo-science reflects not a man who is "interested in the truth," but rather, as I said, a bigot, a fool, or both. Sullivan's inability to comprehend the numerous flaws in that book is a testament to the fact that one needs not know much of anything to have edited one of the nation's premier magazines.
I consider it a public service to occasionally warn people of the Bell Curve. It's a book which has managed to seduce a lot of people, and it's for their own good that they're steered away from that foolishness as quickly as possible.
Sullivan also writes regarding my criticism of his claim that they ran a piece before anyone "dared touch it":
That may be true, but the idea that there's anything courageous in publishing fraudulent racist pseudoscience which clearly had no problem being promoted and discussed throughout the media is ridiculous.
Courage would be to admit that you fucked up badly, and continue to fuck up, as you justify your promotion of racist propaganda as an interest in "truth."
Tell James Heckman, nobel prize winning University of Chicago econometrician, that his criticism of the Bell Curve was a "hysterical far-left response" to the book.
What a sad, sad, fool. What a sad, sad commentary on our media that the ranks of elite media are populated by these idiots.
I consider it a public service to occasionally warn people of the Bell Curve. It's a book which has managed to seduce a lot of people, and it's for their own good that they're steered away from that foolishness as quickly as possible.
Sullivan also writes regarding my criticism of his claim that they ran a piece before anyone "dared touch it":
He's wrong. TNR ran the only advance piece by Murray on the subject. And the cover-date for TNR is always a couple of weeks ahead of the actual published date (it keeps its shelf-life on news-stands), which may account for Atrios' error. The magazine was certainly not alone in covering the controversy. But we pioneered it. I have the scars to show for it.
That may be true, but the idea that there's anything courageous in publishing fraudulent racist pseudoscience which clearly had no problem being promoted and discussed throughout the media is ridiculous.
Courage would be to admit that you fucked up badly, and continue to fuck up, as you justify your promotion of racist propaganda as an interest in "truth."
Tell James Heckman, nobel prize winning University of Chicago econometrician, that his criticism of the Bell Curve was a "hysterical far-left response" to the book.
What a sad, sad, fool. What a sad, sad commentary on our media that the ranks of elite media are populated by these idiots.
Journamalism
We now know that Time magazine is happy to print information it knows to be false. Blogger ethics panel, convene!
The Anti-Military Anti-American Right
Lovely folks:
WASHINGTON - Since the spring, long before an angry mom named Cindy Sheehan set up camp outside President Bush's Texas ranch, anti-war activists have been holding vigils outside Walter Reed Army Medical Center on Friday nights, when many soldiers and their families venture off campus for steak dinners.
They've called for better health care benefits for soldiers wounded in Iraq, protested an early policy of making some soldiers buy their own meals while in care, and accused the military of purposely flying injured troops in under cover of night to downplay the volume of casualties. And they've waved signs protesting the war and the Bush administration.
Organizers say they weren't getting much media attention - even after a pro-war group began gathering to protest the vigils - and that the coverage they did get was generally positive, including a write-up in the military newspaper Stars & Stripes.
Until last week, that is. That's when an online news service with politically conservative ties released a special report suggesting the vigils were actually protests aimed at wounded soldiers - an accusation that infuriated vigil organizers, many of them family members of troops serving in Iraq and some of them veterans themselves. The Drudge Report previewed the story, and conservative television and radio hosts seized on it.
...
Friday night at Walter Reed, counterprotesters outnumbered the 20 or so vigil participants by a 3-1 margin. They waved flags, yelled at anti-war activists and hoisted signs saying such things as: "Cindy Sheehan Bride of Bin Laden."
...
Our wounded soldiers are not barter for them to use to try to push their cause!" he said. "It's very transparent what they're doing. They don't care about soldiers' health benefits. This is déjà vu, Vietnam, Jane Fonda, John Kerry, all over again."
Laura Costas of Silver Spring, Md., one of the vigil participants, said her brother served 14 months in Iraq with the Army and was injured when an explosive device hit his unarmored Humvee.
"He feels betrayed," she said. "You sign up to defend the Constitution and you get Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo."
She described a shortage among troops of modern bullet-proof vests, boots, even helmet straps. She said her brother, now home, must navigate a complex bureaucracy to deal with his hearing loss and post-traumatic stress.
"It's patent nonsense to say a member of a military family who's out here doesn't care about the troops," she said.
O'Reilly and Saddam
There's a column in the Houston Chronicle about shitty pre-war journalism. Nothing much is new for most people, but I was struck by this line:
Foreign policy genius O'Reilly didn't come up with that on his own. And, sure enough:
Sept. 13:
Sept. 14:
Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor asserted as early as Sept. 13. 2001, that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks and needed to be removed.
Foreign policy genius O'Reilly didn't come up with that on his own. And, sure enough:
Sept. 13:
O'REILLY: Well, we are aware of -- that there was sensitivity in that. Why don't we ask Ambassador Kirkpatrick to comment. I thought it was a major mistake that Saddam Hussein was not removed in that war because he has been a thorn in the world's side ever since. And I -- the evidence that we're seeing here tonight, Ms Kirkpatrick, is he very well might have had a financial hand in this terrorist attack. What do you think?
..
O'REILLY: All right. Listen, I'm with you I'm just trying to figure out if it will be effective. We tried the blockade in the -- all of that with Iraq. And it looks like this guy -- Saddam Hussein -- had a hand in this now. I mean, at least financial speaking.
...
O'REILLY: Well, we are aware of -- that there was sensitivity in that. Why don't we ask Ambassador Kirkpatrick to comment. I thought it was a major mistake that Saddam Hussein was not removed in that war because he has been a thorn in the world's side ever since. And I -- the evidence that we're seeing here tonight, Ms Kirkpatrick, is he very well might have had a financial hand in this terrorist attack. What do you think?
Sept. 14:
O'REILLY: Now, from the very beginning of this horror, I have said I believe the attack involved not just the killers, run by Osama bin Laden, but also some foreign nations. Researcher Laurie Mylroie agrees with me and joins us now from Washington. Ms. Mylroie is the author of the book, "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America." Do you have any evidence, Ms. Mylroie, that Saddam Hussein is involved in the world trade center and pentagon attacks?
...
O'REILLY: But what we didn't do and what is really going to come back to haunt us, and I'm going to have to take a short, just a very short pause to go to our affiliate stations, but I was over there on the so-called highway of death and we had a chance to knock out the Republican Guard, the only people that prop up this monster, Saddam Hussein, who I believe is involved with this World Trade Center and Pentagon bombing. I believe that you're going to find out that money from Iraq flowed in and helped this happen.
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Open Thread
Habit is a cable; we weave a thread of it each day, and at last we cannot break it. --Horace Mann
Hell
Let's hope none of this is true:
MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS...PERHAPS LONGER. AT
LEAST ONE HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL
FAILURE. ALL GABLED ROOFS WILL FAIL...LEAVING THOSE HOMES SEVERELY
DAMAGED OR DESTROYED.
THE MAJORITY OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS WILL BECOME NON FUNCTIONAL.
PARTIAL TO COMPLETE WALL AND ROOF FAILURE IS EXPECTED. ALL WOOD
FRAMED LOW RISING APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL BE DESTROYED. CONCRETE
BLOCK LOW RISE APARTMENTS WILL SUSTAIN MAJOR DAMAGE...INCLUDING SOME
WALL AND ROOF FAILURE.
HIGH RISE OFFICE AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL SWAY DANGEROUSLY...A
FEW TO THE POINT OF TOTAL COLLAPSE. ALL WINDOWS WILL BLOW OUT.
AIRBORNE DEBRIS WILL BE WIDESPREAD...AND MAY INCLUDE HEAVY ITEMS SUCH
AS HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES AND EVEN LIGHT VEHICLES. SPORT UTILITY
VEHICLES AND LIGHT TRUCKS WILL BE MOVED. THE BLOWN DEBRIS WILL CREATE
ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTION. PERSONS...PETS...AND LIVESTOCK EXPOSED TO THE
WINDS WILL FACE CERTAIN DEATH IF STRUCK.
POWER OUTAGES WILL LAST FOR WEEKS...AS MOST POWER POLES WILL BE DOWN
AND TRANSFORMERS DESTROYED. WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING
INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY
THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED. FEW
CROPS WILL REMAIN. LIVESTOCK LEFT EXPOSED TO THE WINDS WILL BE
KILLED.
National Review Memories
Ah, the nation's premier conservative magazine:
60s it grew fat on segregation, taking up the states' rights argument for allowing jim crow to die in bed. The Tribune couldn't countenance the Birmingham bombings, but William Buckley's National Review, which would champion Barry Goldwater for president the following year, was able to. "Let us gently say," it said, "the fiend who set off the bomb does not have the sympathy of the white population in the South; in fact, he set back the cause of the white people there so dramatically as to raise the question whether in fact the explosion was the act of a provocateur -- of a Communist, or of a crazed Negro." The magazine said some evidence supported this possibility.
"And let it be said," the National Review declared, "that the convulsions that go on, and are bound to continue, have resulted from revolutionary assaults on the status quo, and a contempt for the law, which are traceable to the Supreme Court's manifest contempt for the settled traditions of Constitutional practice. Certainly it now appears that Birmingham's Negroes will never be content so long as the white population is free to be free."
Fourteen months later the National Review weighed in on the murders of Goodman, Schwerner, and Cheney in Mississippi. It noted that a federal grand jury convened in Neshoba County had returned indictments against local police officers. "It is everyone's impression, including ours, that some, at least, of the Neshoba police are a crummy lot," said the magazine airily. "But we pause for reflection. Are 'violation of the Civil Rights Act' and the even more tenuous 'conspiracy to violate' going to become a catch-all charge by which the Federal Government can get its hands on nearly any citizen?"
Simple
Geeky Mom tells the politicians what they need to say:
Okay, this was a bad idea and now we're going to figure out how to get out of it.
Fun Among the Freepi
In Crawford:
Kristinn Taylor, an event organizer with FreeRepublic.com, heard about the sign and rushed up to Robinson.
“This is our rally and you can't do that here,” he said, only for Robinson to insist he was within his rights.
Camera crews rushed in and Taylor turned to face them.
“To all the media here, this sign is not representative of the crowd here today,” Taylor announced. Some of the crowd around Robinson came forward to shake his hand, while others chanted, “Idiot, go home.”
The two men then squared off and raised their voices.
“Just get outta here!” Robinson yelled, and aimed a kick at Taylor's midsection. Taylor called for security, and a young Woodway policeman quickly showed up.
“I have the right to freedom of speech,” Robinson said.
Robinson continued to protest loudly as police handcuffed him and led him away.
Class
Did Bush really just spend most of his speech, supposedly about the hurricane, talking about Iraq?
The Big Hug
Billmon had pointed this out earlier, but it's worth bringing up again. The Bush SOTU "event," drooled over by bloggers and fawning pundits was the hug that Safia Taleb al-Suhail gave to the mother of man killed in Iraq (this was back before the mothers of dead soldiers were demonized by our media). Her discontent with the current situation should, by virtue of this event, be a story worth revisiting. To put it bluntly, Suhail apparently no longer thinks that this is a noble cause.
"The Bitch in the Ditch"
Anti-war protesters: protesting the actions of their government.
Pro-war protesters (whatever that means): attacking Americans.
Pro-war protesters (whatever that means): attacking Americans.
Open Thread
No cord or cable can draw so forcibly, or bind so fast, as love can do with a single thread. --Robert Burton
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Open Thread
He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument. -- Billy Shakes
Not For Our Kind of People
Romney:
And, no, I don't think Romney's kids are obligated to do anything because of what their dad does, but he was angered by the question? Sensitive people, these chickenhawks.
(thanks to dave)
Gov. Mitt Romney, who has comforted the grieving loved ones of soldiers killed in Iraq and promoted National Guard recruitment, yesterday said he has not urged his own sons to enlist - and isn't sure whether they would.
The Herald posed the question as Romney - a potential 2008 White House contender and backer of President Bush's Iraq policy -was honored by the Massachusetts National Guard after he signed a bill extending pay for state workers on active duty.
``No, I have not urged my own children to enlist.I don't know the status of my childrens' potentially enlisting in the Guard and Reserve,`` Romney said, his voice tinged with anger.
And, no, I don't think Romney's kids are obligated to do anything because of what their dad does, but he was angered by the question? Sensitive people, these chickenhawks.
(thanks to dave)
Sacrifice
Today Bush called for sacrifice. But his supporters won't sacrifice anything.
favorite bit:
Hilarious.
favorite bit:
- One thing you're missing the point on... there are some people..and you need to be more sensitive to it... there are some people here tonight that would like to serve our country, and would like to do it. But, for one reason or another they're unable to. You need to realize there are people out there who would do that, people right in this room. But they can't do it... you're not being sensitive to those people who do not have the opportunity to do that for one reason or another.
Hilarious.
"More Sacrifice"
By whom?
asshole
"Our efforts in Iraq and the broader Middle East will require more time, more sacrifice and continued resolve," he said.
asshole
Wanker of the Day
Andrew Sullivan:
No one else?
Courageous courageous Andy. Covering a racist polemic when everyone else was covering it too.
(thanks to reader j)
One of my proudest moments in journalism was publishing an expanded extract of a chapter from "The Bell Curve" in the New Republic before anyone else dared touch it.
No one else?
When the New Republic devoted almost an entire issue (10/31/94) to a debate ...
The Bell Curve was accorded attention totally disproportionate to the merits of the book or the novelty of its thesis. The book and its dubious claims set the agenda for discussions on such public affairs programs as Nightline (10/21/94), the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour (10/28/94), the McLaughlin Group (10/21/94), Charlie Rose (11/3/94, 11/4/94), Think Tank (10/14/94), PrimeTime Live (10/27/94) and All Things Considered (10/28/94).
In addition to the above-mentioned New Republic issue, the "controversy" made the covers of Newsweek (10/24/94) and the New York Times Magazine (10/9/94), took up nearly a full op-ed page in the Wall Street Journal (10/10/94), and garnered a near-rave review from the New York Times Book Review (10/16/94; Extra! Update, 12/94).
Courageous courageous Andy. Covering a racist polemic when everyone else was covering it too.
(thanks to reader j)
Henceforth
The network formerly known as "Nice Polite Republicans" shall be called "Noxious Pudgy Republicans," after having Jonah Goldberg on to replace Daniel Schorr.
(thanks to pseudonymous in nc)
(thanks to pseudonymous in nc)
Uncontroversial
The Bell Curve always brings lots of people out who defend aspects of the book, though they're alwas quite weird. They sort of going round and round in circles without ever being clear on which "parts" of the book are worthy of defense, or what of interest we actually learn from those parts.
The only truly "uncontroversial" part of the book which was roughly correct and roughly meaningful was the shocking result that people who do well on tests designed to measure how capable you are tend to be capable people and do well in life. I'm shocked, just shocked.
The other sort of "uncontroversial" parts are, as Brad DeLong explains, utterly meaningless and don't support their conclusions.
All of that, of course, was just laying the "intellectual foundation" for the "controversial" parts. Which, as digby described awhile back. Part 1:
and part 2:
The only truly "uncontroversial" part of the book which was roughly correct and roughly meaningful was the shocking result that people who do well on tests designed to measure how capable you are tend to be capable people and do well in life. I'm shocked, just shocked.
The other sort of "uncontroversial" parts are, as Brad DeLong explains, utterly meaningless and don't support their conclusions.
All of that, of course, was just laying the "intellectual foundation" for the "controversial" parts. Which, as digby described awhile back. Part 1:
It’s true that the authors argued with wide eyed innocence that the book merely said that there are individual and group differences in intelligence and that these differences seriously influence the organization of work in modern industrial societies and that unfortunately they are pretty darned immutable, but golly gosh kerwillikers, that doesn't mean we all can't get along.
Nothing wrong with that, right? It’s just a little reminder that each individual should be judged on their own merits, and that's a good thing.
Unfortunately, the book also said some pretty strange things, even if you accept that IQ is the best indicator of future success and that IQ is immutable, which Herrnstein and Murray do, and even if you use their thoroughly discredited logistic regression analysis that assumes no IQ socioeconomic status interaction (when in fact, IQ and SES are highly intercorrelated) concluding that low IQ causes poverty. In other words, even if you take their completely flawed and discredited analysis at face value, when you get into the book (written btw for the lay reader -- no peer review) it isn't hard to see the real agenda.
In spite of all their studied concern about the “cognitive elite” and the danger to our society of all the smart people conspiring to keep out the odd and unusual smart poor person, we find that what they are really worried about is a supposed downward pressure on the distribution of IQ in the United States, which they call “dysgenic” pressure. They believe that blacks are experiencing much more severe dysgenic pressures than whites and speculate that part of the problem may be differences in reproductive strategies among the races. They blithely mention in passing a theory that blacks have the largest genitals and the highest frequency of sexual intercourse among the three major races but reserve judgment on whether that is relevant, saying that only time will tell.
(Who can really say what effects those huge black dicks have on those lil’ chocolate gals? It’s possible that once they set eyes one of those monsters they just can’t control themselves and those inferior genes just keep on gittin passed down. Better keep them large genitals away from the white wimmin!)
They also conclude that Latino immigration is putting downward pressure on the distribution of American national intelligence. They conclude, "Putting the pieces together--higher fertility and a faster generational cycle among the less intelligent and an immigrant population that is probably somewhat below the native-born average--the case is strong that something worth worrying about is happening to the cognitive capital of the country"
Oh lordy. Those wetbacks are bringing us down.
The authors believe that low birth weight and high infant mortality are probably caused by "prenatal negligence" on the part of stupid poor women rather than inadequate availability of medical care. They also trot out some unpublished research the relation between crime and low IQ, and between civility and high IQ. (I guess this shows which side of the bell curve the average dittohead falls on.)
They argue that America's “current fertility policy” subsidizes births among stupid poor women (most of whom happen to be black and latino) and, therefore, for the good of the country, welfare should be eliminated and policies should be put in place to lower the birth rate amongst these groups.
They also believe that our immigration policy is a danger to society because it assumes an indifference to the individual characteristics of immigrant groups.
But, they believe fervently in individualism. They say it over and over again. Once you deal with the birth rate of the oversexed blacks and close the borders to the dumb Mexicans that is.
And BTW: neither author ever conducted or published any research in scientific journals (which are subject to peer review) on the genetic basis of IQ and poverty in his entire career.
and part 2:
One can surely spend a lot of time refuting this nasty book in scientific terms --- it's as a rich target for scholarly ridicule as you can think of -- but common sense will tell you what the book is really all about just by reading the acknowledgements in which the authors declare they benefited especially from Richard Lynn's work and advice, a professor of psychology at the University of Ulster whom they describe as "a leading scholar of racial and ethnic differences."
The esteemed professor Lynn, who helped the authors so much, has been quoted as saying, "What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the 'phasing out' of such peoples.... Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent."
Now, one could overlook that and assume perhaps that the authors were merely using his "work" for their(seriously flawed) statistical analysis, but since the book comes to much the same conclusions, albeit in more politically correct terms, it's clear that they were kindred spirits.
I can't speak for other liberals, but when a book uncritically uses the work of someone who advocates the "phasing out" of certain races and then goes on to use a completely flawed statistical model (that fails to take into account socioeconomic status) to prove that certain races have lower IQ's due to their genetics, then I don't think it's unfair to say that it is a political work and not a scientific one.
It's not the liberals who were being "unfair" or "afraid" by rejecting the book out of hand, it was those who pretended that Murray and Herrnstein weren't cynically using the language of science (by treating g theory as "mystical," for instance)to "prove" to their lay readers that blacks and Mexicans were "problems" (and that those problems are immutable because of their race), so no matter what the government or others try to do, they are going to remain a problem unless we get them to stop breeding and immigrating. That is what the book concludes whether anybody wants to admit it or not.
I for one don't think it is "unfair" to reject that kind of racist garbage out of hand but neither am I afraid to discuss racial differences in IQ. But, here in the United States, particularly as it pertains to African-Americans and Mexican-Americans, a genetic definition of "race" is a useless and phony construct. Murray and his ilk apparently don't care to admit that the "blood" of both of these races has been mixed with European "blood" for so many centuries that it is virtually indistinguishable from his own. Whatever differences exist between the races in this country cannot be explained by genetics alone, a fact which The Bell Curve ignores with its dishonest analysis.
As with "Creationism," Steven J. Gould and others were obligated to refute the shoddy science on which the book is based and they demolished it. But, since the book is obviously a racist political document, I find it a bit absurd that in order to be "fair" liberals in general have to argue the underlying scientific conclusions when the political agenda is right up front and clear for all to see.
It is both a work of astonishing scientific dishonesty AND a racist tract. One needn't refute it's scientific conclusions to point out its political intent.
Operation Yellow Elephant: Campus Edition
All fine patriotic college students should get involved in this noble effort.
Plan B
Amanda's right. The only reason to oppose Plan B contraception is to control women's sexuality by making sure that as much as possible for other people sex has "consequences."
Sick bastards.
Sick bastards.
Friday, August 26, 2005
Intolerance
Arthur tells us about one of the Right's favorite little rhetorical tricks. You see, calling them out on their misogyny, racism, and homophobia is just showing "intolerance." Whatever.
As for Sullivan and the Bell Curve, it is fully clear that he lacks the ability to comprehend any serious critique of the "science" of the book. But, more importantly, anyone who reads that book and doesn't see it for what it clearly is - racism dressed up in a pretty wrapper of pseudoscience - needs to have their detectors adjusted.
As for Sullivan and the Bell Curve, it is fully clear that he lacks the ability to comprehend any serious critique of the "science" of the book. But, more importantly, anyone who reads that book and doesn't see it for what it clearly is - racism dressed up in a pretty wrapper of pseudoscience - needs to have their detectors adjusted.
Pony Trifecta
Another pony for Holden:
(thanks to hesiod)
A new Gallup Poll reflects further erosion in President George W. Bush's job approval rating, continuing the slow but steady decline evident throughout the year so far. The poll -- conducted Aug. 22-25 -- puts Bush's job approval rating at 40% and his disapproval rating at 56%. Both are the most negative ratings of the Bush administration. Bush's previous low point in approval was 44% (July 25-28, 2005) and his previous high point in disapproval was 53% (June 24-26, 2005).
(thanks to hesiod)
"The Book Held Up"
As I always ask about Bell Curve proponents - bigots, fools, or both? If Andrew Sullivan truly believes that the Bell Curve "held up" as he claims, then he is a fool who is certainly not qualified to offer informed commentary on any issues of science or social science. He never responds to actual critiques of the book, but simply continues to simply stamp his feet and proudly proclaim his embrace of that racist tract and its authors, while declaring critics of their racist promotion industry as "intolerant." What can one conclude?
The Media You Have
Some people wonder why Somerby travels down memory lane so frequently. It's important work. The press we have now is the press that thought Clinton was "moral scum" for getting a blowjob and seem relatively unconcerned about being dragged into war on a lies. The complete lack of perspective by the guardians of our national discourse is made even more nauseating by their clear belief that it's all just an unimportant game. The almost sociopathic lack of empathy present in our media elite is truly frightening.
Loftus
Loftus's little Fox News "mistake" reminded me of a couple of old stories. He's a strange one.
Fun Loftus moment #1 (warning, freeper link but just for the transcript at the top)
Fun Loftus moment #2.
Fun Loftus moment #1 (warning, freeper link but just for the transcript at the top)
Fun Loftus moment #2.
Dukester Going Down
Aww:
(thanks to reader h)
Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham "demanded and received" a bribe from a Pentagon contractor who paid far above market value for the congressman's Del Mar-area home in 2003, according to court documents filed yesterday by federal prosecutors.
Without citing details, prosecutors said in the documents that Cunningham sold the house in return for his influence in Congress, where he serves on the House subcommittee that oversees Pentagon spending,
The allegation is the most specific and damaging that has been made public since a federal investigation was launched into the powerful Rancho Santa Fe Republican's dealings with defense contractors.
(thanks to reader h)
Domino Theory
Christ, are beltway pundits this stupid? Forget Vietnam, I'm old enough to remember Domino theory discussion about Latin America. It drove the Reagan administration's entire foreign policy. Uh, Nicaragua anyone?
...memories. 1983 Washington Post:
...memories. 1983 Washington Post:
Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger yesterday referred to the stakes in El Salvador's civil war in terms of global competition between the United States and Soviet Union, saying a communist victory in El Salvador could pressure the United States to pull out of Europe and Asia to defend its southern borders.
Weinberger, interviewed on "Face the Nation" (CBS, WDVM), also said that "there is no question" that with additional U.S. military aid, the Salvadoran army "can prevail" over the Marxist guerrillas.
If that happens, "we'll all be a lot safer than having another communist foothold such as Cuba right on the mainland," he added.
The defense secretary's comments came on the heels of President Reagan's request to Congress last week for an additional $110 million in military aid for El Salvador on the grounds that the conflict threatens U.S. national security.
Speaking yesterday on "Meet the Press" (NBC, WRC), Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, an announced candidate for the 1984 Democratic presidential nomination, said he would oppose further aid to El Salvador unless strict conditions are attached to it because it is not possible to "achieve democracy out of the barrel of guns."
Reagan's view that the Salvadoran conflict threatens the United States was endorsed by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John G. Tower (R-Tex.). On "This Week with David Brinkley" (ABC, WJLA), Tower said, "I think the domino theory could very well work in Central America. After all, it worked in Indochina."
Weinberger suggested several times yesterday that the Salvadoran civil war poses a threat to the United States' southern borders. "The simple fact is the El Salvadorans have chosen a government, and it is certainly very much against our interests to allow that freely choosen government to be subverted and turned into another very repressive regime that would be then much more in a position to make that kind of communist gain further north up toward Mexico and toward our own borders," he said.
"Their purpose is, as we see it," he said, "to attack the United States in . . . this incremental way, from the south, knowing that as they got closer that would mean that we would have to--or would at least have strong pressures formed--to pull ourselves out of Europe, and out of Japan and Korea, and establish some sort of a Fortress America concept, which would serve the Soviet purposes very well globally."
Even as he cast the threat in such terms, however, Weinberger ruled out more direct U.S. participation in the Salvadoran conflict. "What is essential is to solve this matter at the lowest possible level of participation and conflict by the United States," he said.
He said it is "vital" that Salvadoran troops be resupplied by the United States to match supplies received by guerrilla forces "every night" from Nicaragua, Cuba and the Soviet Union.
Weinberger said U.S. military aid to El Salvador will end when "the democratic effort that is going on in El Salvador is allowed to continue unimpeded and unhampered by adverse, communist-sponsored military activity. Now, I can't give you the hour or the day that's going to happen . . . . " But, he said, the administration "is trying to bring that day closer."
Ah, Eugenicists
I guess old racists never die. The BBC is reporting on shocking new "men smarter than women research" by one Richard Lynn.
Who's Lynn? FAIR gives us a sampling:
Who's Lynn? FAIR gives us a sampling:
What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the 'phasing out' of such peoples.... Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality.
...
Who can doubt that the Caucasoids and the Mongoloids are the only two races that have made any significant contributions to civilization?
Open Thread
He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument. -- Billy Shakes
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Tivo Fun
Yes, like all Tivo owners I get annoying with this stuff. But, the great thing about the new two way video transfers is that it lets everyone hook up a huge external drive and essentially remove any capacity limits from your Tivo. No more need to hack the Tivo box to "put in" a bigger drive if so desired.
And, yes, no one should ever watch TV because it's all bad.
And, yes, for more money and a lot of time I could build a noisy unsightly box which would be four million times better.
And, yes, Replay could do all this back in like 1648.
And, yes, no one should ever watch TV because it's all bad.
And, yes, for more money and a lot of time I could build a noisy unsightly box which would be four million times better.
And, yes, Replay could do all this back in like 1648.
The Other
I guess we're at the point in the news media that literally every person who is making news, at least someone who is nominally "on the left," must be balanced be an equal and opposite figure, even if that person has to be manufactured by the media itself. David E. has some fun with the loathsome Kurtz, who actually said:
It isn't clear what "the other side" is here, but goddamnit we will find that person. Luckily, that person won't actually have to bother going and sitting in the sun in Texas for weeks, just by virtue of Sheehan's existence that person, whoever it may be, will be given equal time, no matter how unequal they are.
The story is about a mother who lost a son in Iraq and went to Crawford to try to get the president, who keeps telling her that her son died for a noble cause, to tell her what that cause is. What's the other side of that? People who don't want to know why we're in Iraq?
KURTZ: But you also need journalists who are going to give that kind of attention to somebody from the other side.
MILBANK: I think we will see when we see it.
KURTZ: All right.
It isn't clear what "the other side" is here, but goddamnit we will find that person. Luckily, that person won't actually have to bother going and sitting in the sun in Texas for weeks, just by virtue of Sheehan's existence that person, whoever it may be, will be given equal time, no matter how unequal they are.
The story is about a mother who lost a son in Iraq and went to Crawford to try to get the president, who keeps telling her that her son died for a noble cause, to tell her what that cause is. What's the other side of that? People who don't want to know why we're in Iraq?
Last Throes
oy:
To the north, eight of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's bodyguards have been killed in an attack south of Kirkuk on a convoy of cars owned by Talabani.
Police said gunmen attacked a convoy of cars owned by the president, but Talabani wasn't in any of the vehicles. Investigators said 15 bodyguards were wounded. The cars were returning to Baghdad from Kurdistan.
Open Thread
He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument. -- Billy Shakes
Deadlines
Hard to know exactly what's going on here. On one hand they've postponed the vote on the constitution, but on the other hand we've got some people saying they don't need to actually vote on the constitution because they already approved it on Monday even though it wasn't complete.
I don't know if that bit of Calvinball is there to just try to sneak the document through (sounds like rather a bad idea) or to prevent the assembly from being dissolved, which seems to be what's required by law (not especially nice, but perhaps the practical approach is better than meeting arbitrary deadlines even if they do happen to be the law).
I don't know if that bit of Calvinball is there to just try to sneak the document through (sounds like rather a bad idea) or to prevent the assembly from being dissolved, which seems to be what's required by law (not especially nice, but perhaps the practical approach is better than meeting arbitrary deadlines even if they do happen to be the law).
Rachel in the Mornings
For those of us who are, uh, not awake at 5AM, Rachel Maddow's shows are downloadable...
Walter Reed
Um, I don't know much about this stuff but I really can't imagine why they'd want to close Walter Reed Hospital...
Santorum Makes the Baby Jesus Cry
Wow, what a liar. All this "lying and killing for Jesus" stuff must be the new Christianity. Or the new old Christianity anyway.
Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's office acknowledged yesterday that it cannot locate public statements of the senator questioning the Iraq war, despite the senator's claim last week that he has publicly expressed his concerns.
But Santorum said that doesn't mean he hasn't made the comments.
In an interview last week, he said he had publicly and privately raised questions about efforts to contain the insurgency and to limit Baathist involvement in the new Iraqi government. He made his remarks in response to a charge by his leading Democratic challenger, Robert P. Casey Jr., that Santorum has failed to "ask the tough questions" about Iraq.
Robert L. Traynham, Santorum's spokesman, said a search of Nexis, a news database, and the office's press clippings had not turned up any account of those comments. He noted, however, that the office's records are incomplete because the office is unable to record everything the senator says.
"I do a lot of interviews on TV, on radio, with print reporters who don't happen to write everything I say," Santorum said yesterday. "The fact that it hasn't turned up in print doesn't mean I haven't said it."
Infeasible
I'm not quite sure if anyone else has made this point this before, but in any case it's surely correct. The Shinseki recommendation that we needed more troops to do the job in Iraq, the idea seized on by the liberal "if they only did my pet invasion right!" hawks and certain presidential candiates whose names began with the letter K and were two syllables long, could not have actually been a serious recommendation for how to do the war right. It was, as Yglesias points out, just a way of making the point that the war plan just was not feasible given current troop strength.
He wasn't ousted because he told them their war would cost a bit more, he was ousted because he told them it was impossible absent a draft.
He wasn't ousted because he told them their war would cost a bit more, he was ousted because he told them it was impossible absent a draft.
Truth
Taking "two sides" and giving them equal weight is not "being objective," especially since the Flying Spaghetti Monster was not given equal time. The Right has spent 30 years building the ultimate shit-flinging machine, and the press happily obliges it by giving a "fair hearing" to anything they come up with.
Wankers.
Wankers.
Journamalism
Epidemic? Maybe if we all get our shots we could cut down on the number of missing white women.
Tivo Takes Over the World
New Tivo update lets you stream video (mpeg-2) files from your computer to your Tivo/TV. Works fine over a wireless connection.
Note to Pundits
There are certainly a large number of stories about homeland security measures impacting peoples' lives in ridiculous and even horrendous fashions. I suggest finding some of them, instead of talking about how the tranquility of your island vacation was disturbed.
Open Thread
Habit is a cable; we weave a thread of it each day, and at last we cannot break it. --Horace Mann
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Just Kill Me
Gadflyer:
(via mydd.com)
At the end of a long and mostly innocuous article in the New Yorker about the ups and downs of NBC's Today show, Ken Auletta relates a "late lunch" he had with Katie Couric. Couric was "worried" that hard news didn't appeal to viewers. During a brief chicken-and-egg discussion between Auletta and Couric ("are we giving people what they want?" "Or are people watching what we give them?"). Couric then forthrightly declared, "I always felt it was our responsibility as journalists to explore issues and talk about subjects and have serious stories that people need to know about to be informed citizens." Admirably put, I thought. Then Couric recounted a story of which she was especially "proud," a "terrific story" that was "honest and very well produced."
In this year of endless blood flowing in Iraq, of Rovegate, of the ongoing venality of an administration with almost no constraint on its dishonesty, what was the story in question? You guessed it – Couric's exclusive interview with Jennifer Wilbanks, aka, the "runaway bride."
(via mydd.com)
Popular Presidents
Cenk points out that Clinton's approval rating on the day of impeachment was precisely twice that which George Bush received in the recent Harris ARG poll.
I remember at the time how the press, weeping and moaning that the public just didn't understand how evil Bill Clinton was, kept harping on the fact that his favorability rating was much lower. And, indeed, it was lower than his job approval rating. At the height of impeachment, Clinton had favorability ratings in the 50s still higher than Bush's.
But, people like Bush and didn't like Clinton. Must Not Stop Repeating That.
I remember at the time how the press, weeping and moaning that the public just didn't understand how evil Bill Clinton was, kept harping on the fact that his favorability rating was much lower. And, indeed, it was lower than his job approval rating. At the height of impeachment, Clinton had favorability ratings in the 50s still higher than Bush's.
But, people like Bush and didn't like Clinton. Must Not Stop Repeating That.
"Any Means Necessary"
Getting a wee bit scary.
NEW YORK The American Legion, which has 2.7 million members, has declared war on antiwar protestors, and the media could be next. Speaking at its national convention in Honolulu, the group's national commander called for an end to all “public protests” and “media events” against the war, constitutional protections be damned.
"The American Legion will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples," Thomas Cadmus, national commander, told delegates at the group's national convention in Honolulu.
The delegates vowed to use whatever means necessary to "ensure the united backing of the American people to support our troops and the global war on terrorism."
The Press and Clinton
Somerby takes a look at Harris's take. Summary:
In our view, this explanation is so bad that it achieves instant hall-of-fame status. Remember, according to Harris, Clinton was savaged by a string of “scandals” which all turned out to be more more-or-less bunk. Beyond that, Clinton was being tormented by trivial stories about his clothes, his friendships and his haircuts—stories which also turned out to be wrong in important instances. Meanwhile, a gang of crackpots were spreading vile stories fueled by a “lurid strain of hatred”—and the press corps failed to confront or challenge them. And why was all this going on? Because Clinton wasn’t cool, like JFK—and because the press had been soured by Vietnam, which happened twenty years before! Alas! As often happens when the press corps pretends to explain its own odd behavior, we receive an utterly strange explanation. The press corps felt disdain for Clinton because of lame jokes that he told!
Until the Rapture Comes
I don't know if there's anything that can nullify the agreement - such as if Pat Robertson starts raping goats on the air - but ABC bought into a deal which requires them to run the 700 Club free as long as Robertson wishes. They can't easily jettison him.
Open Thread
Habit is a cable; we weave a thread of it each day, and at last we cannot break it. --Horace Mann
"Why Are There Still Monkeys?"
And, more importantly, why are people dumber than monkeys allowed discuss evolution on CNN?
Bye Bye Divorce
And if you disagree you hate Christians.
Actually, I quite like it when people go after divorce under the banner of Christianity. There's certainly a lot more basis for that in the Bible than going after gay people or abortion.
Actually, I quite like it when people go after divorce under the banner of Christianity. There's certainly a lot more basis for that in the Bible than going after gay people or abortion.
What People Care About
When something like this happens:
what isn't really answered is, why? What possible reason would the Bush administration have for wanting to downplay this kind of thing? What motivates them to want to cover up this information? The data isn't about anything the administration has direct control over - like the FBI - it's just evidence of disparate treatment by police officers.
The things they care about...
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 - The Bush administration is replacing the director of a small but critical branch of the Justice Department, months after he complained that senior political officials at the department were seeking to play down newly compiled data on the aggressive police treatment of black and Hispanic drivers.
The demotion of the official, Lawrence A. Greenfeld, whom President Bush named in 2001 to lead the Bureau of Justice Statistics, caps more than three years of simmering tensions over charges of political interference at the agency. And it has stirred anger and tumult among many Justice Department statisticians, who say their independence in analyzing important law enforcement data has been compromised.
Officials at the White House and the Justice Department said no political pressure had been exerted over the statistics branch. But they declined to discuss the job status of Mr. Greenfeld, who told his staff several weeks ago that he had been asked to move on after 23 years of generally high marks as a statistician and supervisor at the agency. Mr. Greenfeld, who was initially threatened with dismissal and the possible loss of some pension benefits, is expected to leave the agency soon for a lesser position at another agency.
what isn't really answered is, why? What possible reason would the Bush administration have for wanting to downplay this kind of thing? What motivates them to want to cover up this information? The data isn't about anything the administration has direct control over - like the FBI - it's just evidence of disparate treatment by police officers.
The things they care about...
Another Pony for Holden
40:
ROCHESTER, N.Y., Aug. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- President Bush's job approval
ratings are at their lowest point of his presidency as only 40 percent of U.S.
adults have a favorable opinion of his job performance, while 58 percent have
a negative opinion. This is a decline from just two months ago in June when
the president's ratings were 45 percent positive and 55 percent negative. Much
of this decline can be tied to the public's opinion on important issues. The
war has climbed to the top of the most important issues list and the economy
is now the second most important issue.
These are some of the results of a new Harris Poll of 1,217 U.S. adults
surveyed by telephone by Harris Interactive(R) between August 9 and 16, 2005.
...
In looking at the ratings of individual leaders in Congress, they hold
pretty steady from June. Both Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House
Majority Leader Tom DeLay have positive ratings of 28 percent, but more than
half of adults (54%) give a negative rating to DeLay as compared to the 49
percent negative rating for Frist. The Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert,
has a 26 percent positive rating and 46 percent negative rating, and Senate
Minority Leader Harry Reid is at 24 percent positive and 47 percent negative.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Radical Clerics
NBC started their Robertson piece with "This was no extremist cleric issuing a death threat. This was Christian Minister Pat Robertson..."
Watch the clip here.
So, it's a non-extremist cleric issuing a death threat. What do the extremist Christian clerics do?
Watch the clip here.
So, it's a non-extremist cleric issuing a death threat. What do the extremist Christian clerics do?
An American Patriot
Caption:
Bill Moyer, 73, wears a "Bullshit Protector" flap over his ear while President George W. Bush addresses the Veterans of Foreign Wars. (AP Photo/Douglas C. Pizac)
(thanks to reader A)
The Filter
This lends support to the notion that they just tell junior what he wants to hear:
Condi said so! Nyah!
Q Does the administration's goal -- I'll ask you about the Iraqi constitution. You said you're confident that it will honor the rights of women.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q If it's rooted in Islam, as it seems it will be, is that still -- is there still the possibility of honoring the rights of women?
THE PRESIDENT: I talked to Condi, and there is not -- as I understand it, the way the constitution is written is that women have got rights, inherent rights recognized in the constitution, and that the constitution talks about not "the religion," but "a religion." Twenty-five percent of the assembly is going to be women, which is a -- is embedded in the constitution.
Condi said so! Nyah!
Finally
We've waited a long time for this, but finally the time has arrived. Ann Coulter brings hating New York back into the mainstream, and not a moment too soon. I was getting tired of having the rest of the country pretend they gave a shit.
The hate America Right, proudly on display...
The hate America Right, proudly on display...
Anti-War Extremists
It appears that Norah O'Donnell and her husband are prime candidates for Operation Yellow Elephant. O'Donnell says people who oppose the war, and those at Camp Casey, are "extremists."
What a lovely couple. Prime fighting age, too. Just barely over thirty.
What a lovely couple. Prime fighting age, too. Just barely over thirty.
Trouble in Wingnuttia
Senators criticize Robertson:
Aug. 23 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Senators Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota and Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, said a call by U.S. televangelist Pat Robertson for the U.S. government to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was ``irresponsible'' and ``incredibly stupid.''
The senators, visiting Brazil to meet with government and business leaders, spoke with reporters today in Rio de Janeiro.
``It was an incredibly stupid statement and has no reflection on reality,'' said Coleman, the chairman of the Senate's Foreign Relations subcommittee on the western hemisphere. ``I met with President Chavez on my last visit a couple of months ago and he related that concern to me, about how the U.S. was out to assassinate him. I told him not to lose any sleep about it.''
Open Thread
No cord or cable can draw so forcibly, or bind so fast, as love can do with a single thread. --Robert Burton
Radical Cleric Robertson
The amazing thing about what Robertson said isn't that he suggested assassinating a head of state would be a good idea. It's what the alleged infraction by this head of state which makes him deserving of execution is. Robertson isn't accusing him of being a tyrant, or of killing his own people, or of violations of human rights (the rights of Christian people in Pat's world), or genocide, or anything else which might normally inspire people to condemn a foreign leader to death. Nope, here is, to Pat Robertson, the capital crime of Hugo Chavez:
He's got oil, and if he won't give it to us we'll just have to kill him.
Refreshing honesty, in a way.
You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.
He's got oil, and if he won't give it to us we'll just have to kill him.
Refreshing honesty, in a way.
Shorter Eugene Volokh
Why do all these homosexuals keep sucking my cock?
...I've unearthed the first draft of Volokh's post here.
...I've unearthed the first draft of Volokh's post here.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Thanks for the Credit
An interesting thing about working with Media Matters is seeing when media outlets do and don't credit our stuff. I'm actually fairly sympathetic to when things aren't properly credited - on TV, especially, there isn't really time - but frequently it's fairly clear that our stuff gets used in venues when it should be, such as this AP story on radical cleric Robertson.
I've never been annoyed when stuff is ripped off from the blog, but MMFA has done all the things it needs to do to "get respect," so to speak.
I've never been annoyed when stuff is ripped off from the blog, but MMFA has done all the things it needs to do to "get respect," so to speak.
Smarter Economists Please
Max has a bit of fun with everyone's favorite freakeconomist regarding peak oil. This kind of stuff I don't really get. A bit of half-assed econ-101 level graphic analysis combined with a wee bit of common sense (adjustment to equilibrium is not instantaneous, once you hit capacity temporary local supply disruptions are to be expected, price shocks can be tremendous and, well, shocking at least over a not very short short run, etc... )can get you a long way to understanding what the issues. In fact, I think I did something along those lines, which is roughly right, here.
On Race
At best Judge Roberts is a pampered white guy who had quite a bit of snarky contempt for anyone who wasn't and had little empathy for anyone outside his social circle, at worst, well, he's quite a lot worse than that.
2-4-6-8 Who Should We Assassinate?
Radical Cleric Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of Hugo Chavez.
It's the Christian thing to do, after all.
It's the Christian thing to do, after all.
The Anti-American Right
The lovable folks at Move America Forward have launched a "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy" anti-Cindy Sheehan nationwide tour. Of course, Cindy Sheehan has never claimed to speak for all Americans or, really, to speak for anyone but herself. People are quite free to disagree with her, and as far as I know she hasn't suggested otherwise.
So, speak up against the president of the United States and a well-funded right wing group will... speak out against you.
The first set of pro-war rallies, back in 2002, were the same. They weren't pro-war or "pro-American" rallies, they were explicitly anti-American. The "supporters" carried signs expressing hatred for their fellow Americans (Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon, etc...) for daring to disagree with them.
They're only happy when they can have a personal enemy, the weaker the better the little cowards.
So, speak up against the president of the United States and a well-funded right wing group will... speak out against you.
The first set of pro-war rallies, back in 2002, were the same. They weren't pro-war or "pro-American" rallies, they were explicitly anti-American. The "supporters" carried signs expressing hatred for their fellow Americans (Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon, etc...) for daring to disagree with them.
They're only happy when they can have a personal enemy, the weaker the better the little cowards.
Ummm...?
Okay, I cried foul before and was wrong but now I think I'm crying foul legitimately. CNN's claiming (and I think it's true but Blitzer keeps confusing things) that they have a "draft" of the constitution which satisfies the Iraq transitional law, and they haven't voted to push the deadline ahead, but they will vote on a final completed version in 3 days.
This is silly. The law requires clearly requires "the draft" to be completed by the assembly by the deadline, not "a draft." That is, "the draft" which is to be voted on by referendum on October 15.
Given the proper votes the assembly can extend the deadline, but let's not pretend they met it with a "fake draft."
This is silly. The law requires clearly requires "the draft" to be completed by the assembly by the deadline, not "a draft." That is, "the draft" which is to be voted on by referendum on October 15.
Given the proper votes the assembly can extend the deadline, but let's not pretend they met it with a "fake draft."
Policy and Posture
Yglesias says there are genuine policy differences about Iraq in the party and we should therefore welcome a genuine argument about that. Fair enough, to the extent that it's true. But, look there are two issues here, even though they tend to be confused.
The first issue is whether the Iraq war, and supporting it, was a good idea. We'll allow some wiggle room for hindsight conversions, as in "if I knew then what I know now..." but basically that question is still out there. War supporters don't want to come back to that issue, preferring to brush it under the table in favor of debating the "what we should do now" question. But, as a matter of political posture, the only way for the Democrats to be the "anti-Republicans" on the Iraq war is in fact to take the position that the war was a bad idea. I actually can't fathom why unity on this matter is so hard to achieve, other than the fact that the Democratic political industrial complex which supported the war can't admit error.
Then there is the genuine "what should we do now" policy issue, about which I acknowledge there can be legimitate differences of opinion. There are very few people who have a genuine extreme opinion, at least publicly. "Get out now" doesn't really mean "get out now" - impossible to do with 130,000 troops - it means "there's an emphasis on getting out fast" because of some combination of not wanting more troops to die and believing that getting out fast is actually a better way to achieve a secure and stable Iraq because our presence there is actually a large part of the problem. "Stay the course" doesn't mean "sit in Iraq until the end of time" (leaving off the table The Military Bases Which Must Not Be Named), it means "we shouldn't pull out too soon as our presence there is necessary for achieving stability in Iraq so we can't leave until we do."
The Democrats may not want to be the "Iraq was a bad idea" party. But, frankly, that's the only real coherent political posture available to them. And, while bloggers and pundits and everyone else can figure out where on the spectrum between "get out now" and "stay the course" they actually sit, it's largely a pointless policy debate. Given the complexity of the situation, the only real policy position is "put competent people in charge." We didn't manage to do that in '04, and I don't imagine that the "we should've gone to war but then not fuck it up" posture will work any better in '06 and '08. Given the rising anti-war sentiment in this country it will certainly do worse.
"Get out now" and "stay the course" are also postures. In fact, they're really more postures than policies. I'll admit to having some sympathy for the idea that the "stay the course" posture is the best politically, even though I think the "get out now" policy is best (recognizing that there really is no conflict between having one as policy as one as posture). I'm not sure of that. But, either way the only real way to be "not Republicans" on Iraq is to think the whole adventure was a bad idea.
Yglesias points out that Hackett has both a "bad idea" posture and a "stay the course" posture. Maybe this is a winning combination. But, it isn't really a serious policy discussion. I don't think there is one. The basic issue with Iraq is "get out as soon as possible" and the only thing we really disagree on is the meaning of "possible." As for political posture? Maybe Hackett has the right combination. Maybe he doesn't.
The first issue is whether the Iraq war, and supporting it, was a good idea. We'll allow some wiggle room for hindsight conversions, as in "if I knew then what I know now..." but basically that question is still out there. War supporters don't want to come back to that issue, preferring to brush it under the table in favor of debating the "what we should do now" question. But, as a matter of political posture, the only way for the Democrats to be the "anti-Republicans" on the Iraq war is in fact to take the position that the war was a bad idea. I actually can't fathom why unity on this matter is so hard to achieve, other than the fact that the Democratic political industrial complex which supported the war can't admit error.
Then there is the genuine "what should we do now" policy issue, about which I acknowledge there can be legimitate differences of opinion. There are very few people who have a genuine extreme opinion, at least publicly. "Get out now" doesn't really mean "get out now" - impossible to do with 130,000 troops - it means "there's an emphasis on getting out fast" because of some combination of not wanting more troops to die and believing that getting out fast is actually a better way to achieve a secure and stable Iraq because our presence there is actually a large part of the problem. "Stay the course" doesn't mean "sit in Iraq until the end of time" (leaving off the table The Military Bases Which Must Not Be Named), it means "we shouldn't pull out too soon as our presence there is necessary for achieving stability in Iraq so we can't leave until we do."
The Democrats may not want to be the "Iraq was a bad idea" party. But, frankly, that's the only real coherent political posture available to them. And, while bloggers and pundits and everyone else can figure out where on the spectrum between "get out now" and "stay the course" they actually sit, it's largely a pointless policy debate. Given the complexity of the situation, the only real policy position is "put competent people in charge." We didn't manage to do that in '04, and I don't imagine that the "we should've gone to war but then not fuck it up" posture will work any better in '06 and '08. Given the rising anti-war sentiment in this country it will certainly do worse.
"Get out now" and "stay the course" are also postures. In fact, they're really more postures than policies. I'll admit to having some sympathy for the idea that the "stay the course" posture is the best politically, even though I think the "get out now" policy is best (recognizing that there really is no conflict between having one as policy as one as posture). I'm not sure of that. But, either way the only real way to be "not Republicans" on Iraq is to think the whole adventure was a bad idea.
Yglesias points out that Hackett has both a "bad idea" posture and a "stay the course" posture. Maybe this is a winning combination. But, it isn't really a serious policy discussion. I don't think there is one. The basic issue with Iraq is "get out as soon as possible" and the only thing we really disagree on is the meaning of "possible." As for political posture? Maybe Hackett has the right combination. Maybe he doesn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)