The Republicans have caught him flip-flopping. “How can Barack Obama," asks a National Committee spokesman, "claim to have a consistent Iraq policy? It’s clear Obama is rightly trying to reverse the central premise of his campaign: his pledge to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq."
Such charges of irresolution are based on recent campaign statements and an interview with Military Times in which Obama said:
“If current trends continue and we are at a position where we continue to see reductions in violence and stabilization and...some improvements on the part of the Iraqi army and Iraqi police, then my hope would be that we could draw down in a deliberate fashion in consultation with the Iraqi government at a pace that is determined in consultation with General Petraeus and the other commanders on the ground...(T)hat is something we could begin relatively soon after inauguration. If, on the other hand, you’ve got a deteriorating situation for some reason, then that’s going to have to be taken into account.”
McCain supporters find such waffling a sign of weakness in a potential Commander-in-Chief, particularly after eight years of George W. Bush, who made firmness and determination a hallmark of his presidency. Consultation? Deliberate fashion? Deteriorating situation? Would the country be safe with such a wimp in the White House?
One thing voters can be sure of with McCain. He was whole-heartedly for invading Iraq in 2002 and has never wavered in his support of the war. He is a model of consistency.
If push comes to shove in Iran, President McCain is not likely to be "deliberating" or "consulting" before taking action. As soon as he makes good on his promise to pursue Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, he will be ready to shoot it out with all the other varmints in the Middle East.
This Obama fellow, on the other hand, might spend all his time thinking it over.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Monday, July 07, 2008
Maliki and Obama Want Timetables
Unintentionally or not, the Iraqi prime minister is siding with the Democratic candidate for president on getting American troops out of his country.
"Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty," Nouri al-Maliki is telling Arab ambassadors during an official visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.
Maliki says he is negotiating "either to have a memorandum of understanding for the departure of forces or a memorandum of understanding to set a timetable for the presence of the forces."
That makes it near-unanimous, with only George W. Bush and John McCain dissenting from what the American people, Barack Obama and now the Iraqi government want--a foreseeable end to our costly Middle East adventure.
Any day now, McCain's campaign may start telling us that our man in Baghdad is going soft on the insurgents.
"Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty," Nouri al-Maliki is telling Arab ambassadors during an official visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.
Maliki says he is negotiating "either to have a memorandum of understanding for the departure of forces or a memorandum of understanding to set a timetable for the presence of the forces."
That makes it near-unanimous, with only George W. Bush and John McCain dissenting from what the American people, Barack Obama and now the Iraqi government want--a foreseeable end to our costly Middle East adventure.
Any day now, McCain's campaign may start telling us that our man in Baghdad is going soft on the insurgents.
Naming Names: Echoes of Valerie Plame
In a piece by its Public Editor, the New York Times acquits itself of endangering the interrogator of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, by naming him while describing how he successfully extracted information through psychological means rather than "rough stuff."
The Times defense (the public's right to know, the impaired credibility of a story without the name of a key character, the decision that he would not be in any greater danger than "scores of others who have been identified in the news media for their roles in the war against Al Qaeda") bookends all the outrage over the outing of Valerie Plame as a covert operative by a vengeful Bush Administration.
Granted the huge gap in motives, what the incidents have in common is the question of protecting people who do dangerous work for all of us. Would readers have been deprived of crucial information by withholding the name of the interrogator any more than they were by being unaware of Valerie Plame's identity?
Doesn't identifying him undermine the point of the story by making it unlikely that he could continue to do what the Times obviously judged to be important work for national security?
What gives the Times the right to override the subject's fears by making its own judgment about "the potential harm in naming an honorable public servant?" (Part of the lame defense is using his nickname rather his actual given name.)
"I understand," the Public Editor concludes, "how readers can think that if there is any risk at all, a person...should never be identified. But going in that direction, especially in this age of increasing government secrecy, would leave news organizations hobbled when trying to tell the public about some of the government’s most important and controversial actions."
Incidents like this may encourage readers to wonder how serious the MSM are in their dedication to "the public's right to know" rather than their own aggrandizement and self-importance.
The Times defense (the public's right to know, the impaired credibility of a story without the name of a key character, the decision that he would not be in any greater danger than "scores of others who have been identified in the news media for their roles in the war against Al Qaeda") bookends all the outrage over the outing of Valerie Plame as a covert operative by a vengeful Bush Administration.
Granted the huge gap in motives, what the incidents have in common is the question of protecting people who do dangerous work for all of us. Would readers have been deprived of crucial information by withholding the name of the interrogator any more than they were by being unaware of Valerie Plame's identity?
Doesn't identifying him undermine the point of the story by making it unlikely that he could continue to do what the Times obviously judged to be important work for national security?
What gives the Times the right to override the subject's fears by making its own judgment about "the potential harm in naming an honorable public servant?" (Part of the lame defense is using his nickname rather his actual given name.)
"I understand," the Public Editor concludes, "how readers can think that if there is any risk at all, a person...should never be identified. But going in that direction, especially in this age of increasing government secrecy, would leave news organizations hobbled when trying to tell the public about some of the government’s most important and controversial actions."
Incidents like this may encourage readers to wonder how serious the MSM are in their dedication to "the public's right to know" rather than their own aggrandizement and self-importance.
Blowing Smoke for Freedom
In a barely disguised attempt to help elect John McCain, a non-profit group called Vets for Freedom is running TV ads to sell voters on the success of the Surge in Iraq.
Starting with $1.5 million worth on national cable as well as in Michigan, Nevada, Virginia, Ohio and Colorado this week, the commercials don't mention candidates' names but end their pitch with the claim, "We changed strategy in Iraq and the surge worked. Now that’s change you can believe in.”
The enormity of this insult to our intelligence--that dying and bleeding and spending billions in an endless war that should never have been waged is "change" underscores one of the 20th century's most striking achievements: the spreading of a Big Lie through mass communications.
Ironically, "Freedom" has always been a useful word to enslave public opinion, starting with that charlatan, Edward L. Bernays, who promoted himself as the master manipulator in "an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."
In a triumph of misdirection for the tobacco industry in the 1920s, he sent models to march in a suffrage parade, telling the press they would be lighting "Torches of Freedom," which turned out to be cigarettes to promote the idea of women smoking in public.
Now, just as Bernays hid behind women's suffrage to hawk cancer, Vets for Freedom are using patriotism to sell more death and destruction in Iraq, with tactics crude enough to have sent Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham scurrying off their advisory board six weeks ago.
If he is the model of probity he has always claimed to be, John McCain will follow suit and tell Vets for Freedom to stop blowing smoke on his behalf.
Starting with $1.5 million worth on national cable as well as in Michigan, Nevada, Virginia, Ohio and Colorado this week, the commercials don't mention candidates' names but end their pitch with the claim, "We changed strategy in Iraq and the surge worked. Now that’s change you can believe in.”
The enormity of this insult to our intelligence--that dying and bleeding and spending billions in an endless war that should never have been waged is "change" underscores one of the 20th century's most striking achievements: the spreading of a Big Lie through mass communications.
Ironically, "Freedom" has always been a useful word to enslave public opinion, starting with that charlatan, Edward L. Bernays, who promoted himself as the master manipulator in "an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."
In a triumph of misdirection for the tobacco industry in the 1920s, he sent models to march in a suffrage parade, telling the press they would be lighting "Torches of Freedom," which turned out to be cigarettes to promote the idea of women smoking in public.
Now, just as Bernays hid behind women's suffrage to hawk cancer, Vets for Freedom are using patriotism to sell more death and destruction in Iraq, with tactics crude enough to have sent Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham scurrying off their advisory board six weeks ago.
If he is the model of probity he has always claimed to be, John McCain will follow suit and tell Vets for Freedom to stop blowing smoke on his behalf.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Bush's Final Bow
As the only president eligible for the Witness Protection Program, George W. Bush will start practicing his post-White House demeanor with a stealth appearance at the Republican Convention in September.
"Convention planners, the White House and the McCain campaign," the New York Times reports, "are wrestling with how to choreograph a proper send-off for Mr. Bush...while hustling him out the door in time for Mr. McCain to look like his own man."
As of now, the plan calls for a quick cameo on opening night, followed by a round of forced cheers and, in the immortal words of the Terminator turned governor, "Hasta la vista, baby."
But some Republicans think even this is too much. One California Congressman, Dana Rohrabacher, says, "I don’t think there are a lot of people who want to see him at the convention,” and suggests the Commander-in-Chief “should stay home from the Republican convention, and everybody would be better off.”
John McCain certainly might be. Someone of his age is at serious risk of physical injury from having to elude Bush's embrace while keeping a frozen smile on his face.
"Convention planners, the White House and the McCain campaign," the New York Times reports, "are wrestling with how to choreograph a proper send-off for Mr. Bush...while hustling him out the door in time for Mr. McCain to look like his own man."
As of now, the plan calls for a quick cameo on opening night, followed by a round of forced cheers and, in the immortal words of the Terminator turned governor, "Hasta la vista, baby."
But some Republicans think even this is too much. One California Congressman, Dana Rohrabacher, says, "I don’t think there are a lot of people who want to see him at the convention,” and suggests the Commander-in-Chief “should stay home from the Republican convention, and everybody would be better off.”
John McCain certainly might be. Someone of his age is at serious risk of physical injury from having to elude Bush's embrace while keeping a frozen smile on his face.
Tipping Point: Journalist-Free Journalism
As newspapers cut 1,000 jobs last week, Americans are getting their sense of the world less and less through human eyes and ears than from TV cameras abetted by well-groomed mannequins gushing over an endless flow of images.
Talking heads on cable and bloggers online parse and pick away at what the cameras see but there are fewer and fewer reporters to find out what's hidden by using such old-fashioned skills as observation, questioning and legwork.
Where is the tipping point at which "news" becomes all opinion all the time about "facts" supplied by self-interested sources?
Newspapers are drowning in red ink even as Americans depend more heavily on what they do but don't pay for the information they get from them digitally and advertisers don't cover the costs of allowing them to continue providing it.
The challenge, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, is to "reinvent their profession and their business model at the same time they are cutting back on their reporting and resources." A top news executive is quoted as saying, "It’s like changing the oil in your car while you’re driving down the freeway."
Meanwhile, Timothy Egan argues on his New York Times blog, "there’s plenty of gossip, political spin and original insight on sites like the Drudge Report or The Huffington Post--even though they are built on the backs of the wire services and other factories of honest fact-gathering. One day soon these Web info-slingers will find that you can’t produce journalism without journalists, and a search engine is no replacement for a curious reporter."
Meanwhile Rush Limbaugh gets a new $400 million contract for spouting off on one medium, while Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann (bless his splenetic soul) dominate another with their points of view.
The pay and job security are nowhere near as good in the mills that provide their raw material.
Talking heads on cable and bloggers online parse and pick away at what the cameras see but there are fewer and fewer reporters to find out what's hidden by using such old-fashioned skills as observation, questioning and legwork.
Where is the tipping point at which "news" becomes all opinion all the time about "facts" supplied by self-interested sources?
Newspapers are drowning in red ink even as Americans depend more heavily on what they do but don't pay for the information they get from them digitally and advertisers don't cover the costs of allowing them to continue providing it.
The challenge, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, is to "reinvent their profession and their business model at the same time they are cutting back on their reporting and resources." A top news executive is quoted as saying, "It’s like changing the oil in your car while you’re driving down the freeway."
Meanwhile, Timothy Egan argues on his New York Times blog, "there’s plenty of gossip, political spin and original insight on sites like the Drudge Report or The Huffington Post--even though they are built on the backs of the wire services and other factories of honest fact-gathering. One day soon these Web info-slingers will find that you can’t produce journalism without journalists, and a search engine is no replacement for a curious reporter."
Meanwhile Rush Limbaugh gets a new $400 million contract for spouting off on one medium, while Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann (bless his splenetic soul) dominate another with their points of view.
The pay and job security are nowhere near as good in the mills that provide their raw material.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Patriot Acts
In middle age, I fell in love with my country all over again during a tour of England's stately homes. The sight of all that grandeur reserved for a hereditary few to live in mansions at the expense of miserable lives for so many was a reminder of what Jefferson, Adams and the rest resisted translating to America in 1776.
Today, as we celebrate what they gave us--"a republic, if you can keep it" in Benjamin Franklin's words--with flags, parades, fireworks and speeches, it may help to remember he was answering an anxious question at the close of the Constitutional Convention, "What have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
America was not inevitable. As children, we drink in our freedoms like mother's milk and, except on the Fourth of July, may forget what it took, and still takes, to give us such nourishment.
At the age of 81, Franklin told the Convention that "when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views."
In this year of political turmoil, as men and women bring all that and more to the continuing American debate, it may help to remember how we got here and what we avoided along the way.
Today, as we celebrate what they gave us--"a republic, if you can keep it" in Benjamin Franklin's words--with flags, parades, fireworks and speeches, it may help to remember he was answering an anxious question at the close of the Constitutional Convention, "What have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
America was not inevitable. As children, we drink in our freedoms like mother's milk and, except on the Fourth of July, may forget what it took, and still takes, to give us such nourishment.
At the age of 81, Franklin told the Convention that "when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views."
In this year of political turmoil, as men and women bring all that and more to the continuing American debate, it may help to remember how we got here and what we avoided along the way.
Obama's Changing Message of Change
Today the New York Times editorializes about the "New and Not Improved" Barack Obama.
It's disheartening to see "The Audacity of Hope" beginning to morph into "The Mendacity of Change" and disappointing that Obama may be taking for granted those whose hopes he stirred and reaching out too far and too fast to those who will only see his efforts to build consensus as duplicity and weakness.
A month ago, it would have been unthinkable to write that sentence, but since wrapping up the nomination, the apostle of the New Politics has been looking like a Mr. Hyde of the old on almost an issue a day--public campaign financing, telecom immunity in the FISA bill, gun control, the death penalty for crimes not involving murder and the separation of church and state.
"We are not shocked," the Times says, "when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games."
Political purity is not the issue in all this. Many Obama admirers value, among other qualities, his open-mindedness and his not-Bush aversion to dogmaticism. But these recent rapid shifts of substance and tone raise suspicions of calculation and opportunism--of a too-clever-by-half attempt to retool his image for demographic purposes.
If so, he and his campaign advisers risk losing much of what got him to where he is now--an authenticity that this year's voters desperately want.
The campaign may want to stop worrying so much about converting Independents and liberal Republicans and concentrate on winning over and solidify his support among those Democrats who backed Hillary Clinton. They are a more natural constituency for him, if he can win and keep their trust.
In a dialogue with dissenting voters on his web site about his FISA position, Obama made a point worth keeping in mind for the long run:
"I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I’m not exempt from that. I’m certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too."
It's disheartening to see "The Audacity of Hope" beginning to morph into "The Mendacity of Change" and disappointing that Obama may be taking for granted those whose hopes he stirred and reaching out too far and too fast to those who will only see his efforts to build consensus as duplicity and weakness.
A month ago, it would have been unthinkable to write that sentence, but since wrapping up the nomination, the apostle of the New Politics has been looking like a Mr. Hyde of the old on almost an issue a day--public campaign financing, telecom immunity in the FISA bill, gun control, the death penalty for crimes not involving murder and the separation of church and state.
"We are not shocked," the Times says, "when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games."
Political purity is not the issue in all this. Many Obama admirers value, among other qualities, his open-mindedness and his not-Bush aversion to dogmaticism. But these recent rapid shifts of substance and tone raise suspicions of calculation and opportunism--of a too-clever-by-half attempt to retool his image for demographic purposes.
If so, he and his campaign advisers risk losing much of what got him to where he is now--an authenticity that this year's voters desperately want.
The campaign may want to stop worrying so much about converting Independents and liberal Republicans and concentrate on winning over and solidify his support among those Democrats who backed Hillary Clinton. They are a more natural constituency for him, if he can win and keep their trust.
In a dialogue with dissenting voters on his web site about his FISA position, Obama made a point worth keeping in mind for the long run:
"I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I’m not exempt from that. I’m certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too."
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Rush Week for the Limbaugh Fraternity
In the summer of their discontent, American conservatives can celebrate this patriotic weekend by savoring the triumphs of their icon--a cover story in the New York Times Magazine and a new contract that will pay him $400 million over the next eight years.
The media universe works in mysterious ways. As an estimated 3.5 million listeners daily hang on his every word, Rush Limbaugh is not one of them. Afflicted with deafness, he is the Beethoven of political bile, creating symphonies of conservative certitude he himself can't hear.
But Limbaugh is a master of turning adversity to profit. Looking back at his headline troubles over abuse of pain killers, he now says, “I thank God for my addiction. It made me understand my shortcomings.”
According to the Times Magazine, the problem was "his inability to love himself sufficiently. 'I felt everyone who criticized me was right and I was wrong,' he confided.
"But, he says, he left his insecurities behind...'It’s not possible to offend me now,' he said. 'I won’t give people the power to do it anymore. My problem was born of immaturity and my childhood desire for acceptance. I learned in drug rehab that this was stunting and unrealistic. I was seeking acceptance from the wrong people.'”
But now, as the money and attention mount, the man who made rash judgments into an industry may be at peace with himself but he is far from happy with the lot of his faithful flock who face the distasteful choice of McCain or Obama.
But for three hours every weekday from now to November, Rush Limbaugh will have a lot to say about it.
The media universe works in mysterious ways. As an estimated 3.5 million listeners daily hang on his every word, Rush Limbaugh is not one of them. Afflicted with deafness, he is the Beethoven of political bile, creating symphonies of conservative certitude he himself can't hear.
But Limbaugh is a master of turning adversity to profit. Looking back at his headline troubles over abuse of pain killers, he now says, “I thank God for my addiction. It made me understand my shortcomings.”
According to the Times Magazine, the problem was "his inability to love himself sufficiently. 'I felt everyone who criticized me was right and I was wrong,' he confided.
"But, he says, he left his insecurities behind...'It’s not possible to offend me now,' he said. 'I won’t give people the power to do it anymore. My problem was born of immaturity and my childhood desire for acceptance. I learned in drug rehab that this was stunting and unrealistic. I was seeking acceptance from the wrong people.'”
But now, as the money and attention mount, the man who made rash judgments into an industry may be at peace with himself but he is far from happy with the lot of his faithful flock who face the distasteful choice of McCain or Obama.
But for three hours every weekday from now to November, Rush Limbaugh will have a lot to say about it.
The True Test for McCain
As a Karl Rove protégé takes charge of his faltering campaign, a character question comes up: Does John McCain have it in him to get into the mud to win ugly?
Repelled by Rovian tactics in 2000 to the point of openly considering switching parties, McCain is clearly under pressure now to sign on to smearing Obama with the kind of dirt that did him in back then and the Swiftboating of John Kerry that he deplored in 2004.
Up to now, McCain has been willing to shift positions on issues to mollify the Republican Right and win the nomination but he clearly drew a line at personal attacks on his rivals in the primaries.
Now, amid all the talk about sharpening his message, the Republican standard bearer faces a different reality: With all the baggage of the Bush years, there is very little likelihood that McCain can win this election on policy issues, no matter how adroitly he frames them, and adroit has been in short supply so far.
The only way he can hope to prevail is by turning away from his lifetime dedication to personal honor and allow his campaign to sow the kind of fear and doubt about Obama that was used against him in South Carolina eight years ago.
Can a man in his seventies change that much? Along the way, McCain may want to consider the rueful wisdom of Adlai Stevenson, who lost the presidency twice half a century ago: "The hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning."
Repelled by Rovian tactics in 2000 to the point of openly considering switching parties, McCain is clearly under pressure now to sign on to smearing Obama with the kind of dirt that did him in back then and the Swiftboating of John Kerry that he deplored in 2004.
Up to now, McCain has been willing to shift positions on issues to mollify the Republican Right and win the nomination but he clearly drew a line at personal attacks on his rivals in the primaries.
Now, amid all the talk about sharpening his message, the Republican standard bearer faces a different reality: With all the baggage of the Bush years, there is very little likelihood that McCain can win this election on policy issues, no matter how adroitly he frames them, and adroit has been in short supply so far.
The only way he can hope to prevail is by turning away from his lifetime dedication to personal honor and allow his campaign to sow the kind of fear and doubt about Obama that was used against him in South Carolina eight years ago.
Can a man in his seventies change that much? Along the way, McCain may want to consider the rueful wisdom of Adlai Stevenson, who lost the presidency twice half a century ago: "The hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning."
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Christmas in July for Lieberman Loathers
"Liberal groups," The Hill reports, "plan to deliver a petition to Capitol Hill next week calling on Democrats to oust Sen. Joe Lieberman from his committee chairmanship in the 111th Congress."
Voters don't have to wait until November to strike a blow for Homeland Security by signing online to start "Joementum" for the housecleaning work a Senate with a substantial Democratic majority will be doing next January.
It's past time for the party to declare its independence from the president of the John McCain and George W. Bush fan clubs.
Voters don't have to wait until November to strike a blow for Homeland Security by signing online to start "Joementum" for the housecleaning work a Senate with a substantial Democratic majority will be doing next January.
It's past time for the party to declare its independence from the president of the John McCain and George W. Bush fan clubs.
Waterboarding for Fun and Profit
Christopher Hitchens, who doesn't believe in God or waterboarding as torture, has just cut his list in half after undergoing an aquatic experience (it wasn't baptism) on assignment from Vanity Fair.
After airily dismissing the difference between "extreme interrogation" and "outright torture," Hitchens was challenged to see for himself and, writers being as they are, agreed to do so if the experience yielded a magazine article. He did, and it did, in the current issue under the title, "Believe Me, It's Torture."
For those who want to read about and see a video of how far a portly 59-year-old man with phobias about drowning will go for money and attention, it's all there on the magazine's web site.
Meanwhile, any editor with an idea of how to test the existence of the Deity can be in touch with Hitchens as soon as he catches his breath.
After airily dismissing the difference between "extreme interrogation" and "outright torture," Hitchens was challenged to see for himself and, writers being as they are, agreed to do so if the experience yielded a magazine article. He did, and it did, in the current issue under the title, "Believe Me, It's Torture."
For those who want to read about and see a video of how far a portly 59-year-old man with phobias about drowning will go for money and attention, it's all there on the magazine's web site.
Meanwhile, any editor with an idea of how to test the existence of the Deity can be in touch with Hitchens as soon as he catches his breath.
Separation of Church and State, Sort Of
Barack Obama is promising Americans another faith-based presidency but asking us to trust him not to pervert it, as George W. Bush did, "to promote partisan interests."
That may take a leap of faith on the part of those drawn to Obama's new politics as an antidote to eight years of seeing Bush-Rove, to use a JFK era phrase, "pour God over everything like ketchup."
In his speech yesterday, Obama was tightrope-walking between his understanding of church-state separation, "as someone who used to teach constitutional law," and the yearnings of those "bitter" Americans who "cling to religion" as a result of their frustrations.
Declaring that "the challenges we face today--from saving our planet to ending poverty--are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama on-the-other-handed, "I’m not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits. And I’m not saying that they’re somehow better at lifting people up.
"What I’m saying is that we all have to work together-- Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim, believer and non-believer alike--to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Now, I know there are some who bristle at the notion that faith has a place in the public square. But the fact is, leaders in both parties have recognized the value of a partnership between the White House and faith-based groups."
Obama has understandably been working hard to reassure the gullible that he is not a threat to mainstream American ideals, and only the most rabid of his admirers would take issue with his doing that. But zealotry is something else.
"I came to see my faith," he said yesterday, "as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community, that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I went out and did the Lord’s work."
As a reflection of his character, that's good to know but, for those who see separation of church and state as a bedrock American principle, it has haunting echoes of George W. Bush.
That may take a leap of faith on the part of those drawn to Obama's new politics as an antidote to eight years of seeing Bush-Rove, to use a JFK era phrase, "pour God over everything like ketchup."
In his speech yesterday, Obama was tightrope-walking between his understanding of church-state separation, "as someone who used to teach constitutional law," and the yearnings of those "bitter" Americans who "cling to religion" as a result of their frustrations.
Declaring that "the challenges we face today--from saving our planet to ending poverty--are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama on-the-other-handed, "I’m not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits. And I’m not saying that they’re somehow better at lifting people up.
"What I’m saying is that we all have to work together-- Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim, believer and non-believer alike--to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Now, I know there are some who bristle at the notion that faith has a place in the public square. But the fact is, leaders in both parties have recognized the value of a partnership between the White House and faith-based groups."
Obama has understandably been working hard to reassure the gullible that he is not a threat to mainstream American ideals, and only the most rabid of his admirers would take issue with his doing that. But zealotry is something else.
"I came to see my faith," he said yesterday, "as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community, that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I went out and did the Lord’s work."
As a reflection of his character, that's good to know but, for those who see separation of church and state as a bedrock American principle, it has haunting echoes of George W. Bush.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Clay Felker
The man was a sponge. Creating and editing New York Magazine, he soaked up the zeitgeist of the late 1960s and 1970s and gave it back to readers as a heady brew of New Journalism and cultural chic. Clay Felker, who died today at 82, was one of a kind.
Between jobs as a magazine editor, I wrote for him and witnessed the workings of his restless mind and insatiable curiosity. Visits to his office were a montage of people popping up at an open door with gossip, news and rumors and his prowls through the corridors, asking everyone who passed, "What's new? What's new?"
Magazine editors are unique among journalists in that they invent their readers. Rather than covering news over which they have no control, they fill their pages with whatever interests or obsesses them and, like magnets, draw the attention of those who find the results to their taste. Felker's contemporary, Harold Hayes of Esquire, called it delivering an attitude toward the world on a regular basis.
Between them, they gave birth to the New Journalism, which mirrored a new kind of politics with a new kind of reporting. In New York, Tom Wolfe wrote about Radical Chic and Gloria Steinem profiled the man who was moving into the White House in 1968 ("When Richard Nixon is alone in a room, is there anyone there?")
Almost single-handedly, Felker made journalism a subject of popular interest. Wolfe satirized the New Yorker, and everybody reported on the New York Times. Even I got into the act with a piece titled "The New York Times Discovers Sex" while writing about literary auctions ("What Am I Bid for Lyndon Johnson?"). Ralph Ginzburg going to jail for what he published ("The Punishment for Bad Taste Is Three Years") and the melodrama surrounding the death of the Saturday Review.
Writers became celebrities, and Felker nurtured their fame but stayed out of the spotlight himself. After he lost New York to Rupert Murdoch in 1977, he moved to California and tried to duplicate his success there, but LA was too shallow for his kind of in-depth reporting and he turned to teaching journalism.
I would see him for lunch out there every so often, and he was still asking, "What's new? What's new?"
Between jobs as a magazine editor, I wrote for him and witnessed the workings of his restless mind and insatiable curiosity. Visits to his office were a montage of people popping up at an open door with gossip, news and rumors and his prowls through the corridors, asking everyone who passed, "What's new? What's new?"
Magazine editors are unique among journalists in that they invent their readers. Rather than covering news over which they have no control, they fill their pages with whatever interests or obsesses them and, like magnets, draw the attention of those who find the results to their taste. Felker's contemporary, Harold Hayes of Esquire, called it delivering an attitude toward the world on a regular basis.
Between them, they gave birth to the New Journalism, which mirrored a new kind of politics with a new kind of reporting. In New York, Tom Wolfe wrote about Radical Chic and Gloria Steinem profiled the man who was moving into the White House in 1968 ("When Richard Nixon is alone in a room, is there anyone there?")
Almost single-handedly, Felker made journalism a subject of popular interest. Wolfe satirized the New Yorker, and everybody reported on the New York Times. Even I got into the act with a piece titled "The New York Times Discovers Sex" while writing about literary auctions ("What Am I Bid for Lyndon Johnson?"). Ralph Ginzburg going to jail for what he published ("The Punishment for Bad Taste Is Three Years") and the melodrama surrounding the death of the Saturday Review.
Writers became celebrities, and Felker nurtured their fame but stayed out of the spotlight himself. After he lost New York to Rupert Murdoch in 1977, he moved to California and tried to duplicate his success there, but LA was too shallow for his kind of in-depth reporting and he turned to teaching journalism.
I would see him for lunch out there every so often, and he was still asking, "What's new? What's new?"
Gen. Clark's Sound Bites Bite Back
The partisan bickering over Wesley Clark's perceived belittling of John McCain's war service leaves a sour aftertaste all around.
Since entering national politics in 2004, Clark has been victimized by sound bites that bite back, starting with his answers to the question of whether or not he would have voted for the 2002 resolution to invade Iraq, which led to a series of nuanced explanations that were pounced on as waffling before he finally said "no" in a presidential debate.
This Sunday, the General was making a reasonable point about McCain's lack of "executive experience" in military matters when Bob Schieffer interjected that “Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.”
Politically tone-deaf as usual, Clark responded: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”
The McCain campaign, of course, responded with mock outrage and Obama had to take a step back by saying "No one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."
Clark himself is hanging tough. Yesterday he explained:
"John McCain is running his campaign on...how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions.
"And in this area his judgment has been flawed--he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America. But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues."
Well, yes, but coming from someone who until recently was backing Hillary Clinton and who botched his own run for the White House four years ago and is now perhaps touting his own "executive experience" as a qualification for VP, it makes an issue, however false, out of McCain's strongest point and creates a distraction that Obama does not need.
That's not the height of "sound judgment."
Since entering national politics in 2004, Clark has been victimized by sound bites that bite back, starting with his answers to the question of whether or not he would have voted for the 2002 resolution to invade Iraq, which led to a series of nuanced explanations that were pounced on as waffling before he finally said "no" in a presidential debate.
This Sunday, the General was making a reasonable point about McCain's lack of "executive experience" in military matters when Bob Schieffer interjected that “Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.”
Politically tone-deaf as usual, Clark responded: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”
The McCain campaign, of course, responded with mock outrage and Obama had to take a step back by saying "No one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."
Clark himself is hanging tough. Yesterday he explained:
"John McCain is running his campaign on...how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions.
"And in this area his judgment has been flawed--he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America. But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues."
Well, yes, but coming from someone who until recently was backing Hillary Clinton and who botched his own run for the White House four years ago and is now perhaps touting his own "executive experience" as a qualification for VP, it makes an issue, however false, out of McCain's strongest point and creates a distraction that Obama does not need.
That's not the height of "sound judgment."
Monday, June 30, 2008
A No-Sweat Win for the Environment
At the start of the thirst season, the US Conference of Mayors has struck a blow for American consumers and the quality of air they breathe by agreeing to stop buying bottled water.
Recognizing that the oil used to distill water, make plastic containers and ship them over long distances rivals the energy spent and pollution caused by gas-guzzling cars, the mayors approved a resolution to redirect taxpayer dollars from bottled water to other city services.
"Cities are sending the wrong message about the quality of public water," says San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, "when we spend taxpayer dollars on water in disposable containers from a private corporation. Our public water systems are among the best in the world and demand significant and ongoing investment."
In a report on the absurdity of the situation, the Washington Post reports, "Trillions of dollars have been spent to get clean drinking water to people at virtually no cost--and it is people in precisely these countries who seem willing to pay premiums of 1,000 percent to 10,000 percent...(T)he bottled-water trade makes selling snow to Eskimos sound like a reasonable business proposition."
More than 60 mayors have reportedly canceled contracts for bottled water and, if enough Americans start tapping their own faucets and using the money they have been wasting on what they really need, both the environment and the economy will benefit.
Recognizing that the oil used to distill water, make plastic containers and ship them over long distances rivals the energy spent and pollution caused by gas-guzzling cars, the mayors approved a resolution to redirect taxpayer dollars from bottled water to other city services.
"Cities are sending the wrong message about the quality of public water," says San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, "when we spend taxpayer dollars on water in disposable containers from a private corporation. Our public water systems are among the best in the world and demand significant and ongoing investment."
In a report on the absurdity of the situation, the Washington Post reports, "Trillions of dollars have been spent to get clean drinking water to people at virtually no cost--and it is people in precisely these countries who seem willing to pay premiums of 1,000 percent to 10,000 percent...(T)he bottled-water trade makes selling snow to Eskimos sound like a reasonable business proposition."
More than 60 mayors have reportedly canceled contracts for bottled water and, if enough Americans start tapping their own faucets and using the money they have been wasting on what they really need, both the environment and the economy will benefit.
The Way We Live Now
Beyond the headlines, we occasionally get "soft" news about how the post-9/11 world really is, as we do today in disturbing narratives about the unseen wars in Iran and Pakistan--patterns of secrets and lies that Americans and their representatives in Washington either don't know or want to talk about publicly.
In the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh details a new "major escalation of covert operations against Iran...designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership" as part of a literal tug of war in the White House and Congress on how to deal with the nuclear threat from Tehran.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports "a secret plan to make it easer for the Pentagon’s Special Operations forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda," a plan that exists only on paper as a result of Washington indecision and in-fighting.
Until the Bush Administration departs next January, it will be easy enough to blame all this dangerous confusion on their certified bunglers, but how well will successors of either party in a country that prides itself on government transparency be equipped to navigate this shadowy world of shifting alliances among violent splinter groups?
In Iran, the M.E.K., which has been on the State Department’s terrorist list for a decade, is receiving arms and intelligence, from the US, a Pentagon consultant tells Hersh, even though "its leaders are thought to have been lining their pockets for years" and "it is almost useless for the purposes the Administration intends.”
In Pakistan, after being swindled by Pervez Musharraf for years, the US wants to be more aggressive in going after terrorists there but, according to the Times, "With Qaeda operatives now described in intelligence reports as deeply entrenched in the tribal areas and immersed in the civilian population, there is also a view among some military and CIA officials that the opportunity for decisive American action against the militants may have been lost."
Meanwhile, Hersh tells CNN, Congress has authorized up to $400 million to fund the secret campaign in Iran, which involves US special operations troops and Iranian dissidents.
As the Bush Administration tries to throw "Hail Mary" passes before it leaves the field and the candidates confidently promise new approaches to dealing with terrorism, there is a sinking feeling that this is the way we are going to be living for a long, long time.
In the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh details a new "major escalation of covert operations against Iran...designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership" as part of a literal tug of war in the White House and Congress on how to deal with the nuclear threat from Tehran.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports "a secret plan to make it easer for the Pentagon’s Special Operations forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda," a plan that exists only on paper as a result of Washington indecision and in-fighting.
Until the Bush Administration departs next January, it will be easy enough to blame all this dangerous confusion on their certified bunglers, but how well will successors of either party in a country that prides itself on government transparency be equipped to navigate this shadowy world of shifting alliances among violent splinter groups?
In Iran, the M.E.K., which has been on the State Department’s terrorist list for a decade, is receiving arms and intelligence, from the US, a Pentagon consultant tells Hersh, even though "its leaders are thought to have been lining their pockets for years" and "it is almost useless for the purposes the Administration intends.”
In Pakistan, after being swindled by Pervez Musharraf for years, the US wants to be more aggressive in going after terrorists there but, according to the Times, "With Qaeda operatives now described in intelligence reports as deeply entrenched in the tribal areas and immersed in the civilian population, there is also a view among some military and CIA officials that the opportunity for decisive American action against the militants may have been lost."
Meanwhile, Hersh tells CNN, Congress has authorized up to $400 million to fund the secret campaign in Iran, which involves US special operations troops and Iranian dissidents.
As the Bush Administration tries to throw "Hail Mary" passes before it leaves the field and the candidates confidently promise new approaches to dealing with terrorism, there is a sinking feeling that this is the way we are going to be living for a long, long time.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Mission Unaccomplished
"OK, we're in Baghdad, what next?"
Before the invasion, an Army commander asked that question and never got an answer, according to a new 700-page study by the Army itself based on 200 interviews by military historians with active or recently retired officers on what went wrong in Iraq after the man in a flight jacket stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier to declare victory.
In what amounts to the non-Rumsfeld story of the disaster, we finally get first-hand accounts of the making of a quagmire, and it is not a pretty picture.
“The Army, as the service primarily responsible for ground operations, should have insisted on better Phase IV [postwar] planning and preparations through its voice on the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” the study notes. “The military means employed were sufficient to destroy the Saddam regime; they were not sufficient to replace it with the type of nation-state the United States wished to see in its place."
The Bush Administration, the Pentagon and its Iraq commander, Gen. Tommy Franks were plentifully supplied with wishes but short of methods to realize them. Disregarding one proposal that called for 300,000 soldiers to secure postwar Iraq, they deployed half as many and were in a rush to reduce even that number during “an abbreviated period of stability operations."
“In line with the prewar planning and general euphoria at the rapid crumbling of the Saddam regime," the report says, "Franks continued to plan for a very limited role for U.S. ground forces in Iraq.”
Behind all this was the genius of Defense Secretary Don Rumseld who kept smugly assuring Americans that it would all be fine. "As you know," he told the troops, "you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want."
Meanwhile, we now learn, the Army itself was finding out otherwise. Maybe when Rumsfeld gets around to publishing his memoirs, he'll tell them how they got it all wrong.
Before the invasion, an Army commander asked that question and never got an answer, according to a new 700-page study by the Army itself based on 200 interviews by military historians with active or recently retired officers on what went wrong in Iraq after the man in a flight jacket stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier to declare victory.
In what amounts to the non-Rumsfeld story of the disaster, we finally get first-hand accounts of the making of a quagmire, and it is not a pretty picture.
“The Army, as the service primarily responsible for ground operations, should have insisted on better Phase IV [postwar] planning and preparations through its voice on the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” the study notes. “The military means employed were sufficient to destroy the Saddam regime; they were not sufficient to replace it with the type of nation-state the United States wished to see in its place."
The Bush Administration, the Pentagon and its Iraq commander, Gen. Tommy Franks were plentifully supplied with wishes but short of methods to realize them. Disregarding one proposal that called for 300,000 soldiers to secure postwar Iraq, they deployed half as many and were in a rush to reduce even that number during “an abbreviated period of stability operations."
“In line with the prewar planning and general euphoria at the rapid crumbling of the Saddam regime," the report says, "Franks continued to plan for a very limited role for U.S. ground forces in Iraq.”
Behind all this was the genius of Defense Secretary Don Rumseld who kept smugly assuring Americans that it would all be fine. "As you know," he told the troops, "you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want."
Meanwhile, we now learn, the Army itself was finding out otherwise. Maybe when Rumsfeld gets around to publishing his memoirs, he'll tell them how they got it all wrong.
The Incredibly Shrinking Former President
Day by day, Bill Clinton is inducing more nostalgia for Ronald Reagan, whose post-presidency was a dignified retreat into Alzheimer's and public silence.
As Hillary and Barack do their reconciliation dance in New Hampshire, here is the former Leader of the Free World having a temper tantrum in London, telling friends that Obama will "have to kiss my ass" to get his support for the campaign.
This charming image evokes memories of previous anatomical inappropriateness on the part of the man for whom bands used to play "Hail to the Chief" but is now, in the words of Maureen Dowd, "in a self-pitying meltdown about not being Elvis anymore, trying to shake down Obama for more--more apologies for perceived snubs and more help paying off the $22 million Clinton debt."
Even Joe Klein, who must have thought he was telling the worst about the pre-presidential Clinton in "Primary Colors," seems taken aback.
"It's time for him to get over it," Klein says "or go off and do his charitable work. He knows the rules of the road. What's going on now is kind of strange. I think his behavior is really, really shocking."
In the 2000 campaign, Al Gore was criticized for keeping Bill Clinton in the closet. At the rate the former President's stature is shrinking these days, Barack Obama would be well-advised to try to keep him out of the continent.
As Hillary and Barack do their reconciliation dance in New Hampshire, here is the former Leader of the Free World having a temper tantrum in London, telling friends that Obama will "have to kiss my ass" to get his support for the campaign.
This charming image evokes memories of previous anatomical inappropriateness on the part of the man for whom bands used to play "Hail to the Chief" but is now, in the words of Maureen Dowd, "in a self-pitying meltdown about not being Elvis anymore, trying to shake down Obama for more--more apologies for perceived snubs and more help paying off the $22 million Clinton debt."
Even Joe Klein, who must have thought he was telling the worst about the pre-presidential Clinton in "Primary Colors," seems taken aback.
"It's time for him to get over it," Klein says "or go off and do his charitable work. He knows the rules of the road. What's going on now is kind of strange. I think his behavior is really, really shocking."
In the 2000 campaign, Al Gore was criticized for keeping Bill Clinton in the closet. At the rate the former President's stature is shrinking these days, Barack Obama would be well-advised to try to keep him out of the continent.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
A Personal Farewell to Arms
Just before I turned 19, my country put a rifle in my hands and taught me how to use it. As an inexperienced city boy, I eventually learned how to unbolt it, release the barrel from the stock and remove the metal innards. Putting it back together was torture but, after a while, my hands took over even as my mind went blank.
Toward the end of basic training, as recruits sat on khaki blankets in a large hall, a sergeant ordered us to take apart our rifles and reassemble them in one minute--with our eyes closed.
As he counted down, I managed to pull out and put together a few pieces, but time was almost gone and I could hear disapproving footsteps and I knew the non-commissioned officers were shaking their heads. Sitting up, the wooden rifle stock between my legs, I fumbled to fit the barrel to it and slam home the bolt.
Just at the count of sixty, it all came together and I felt an overwhelming whoosh inside my thighs. At the age of 19, I was having my first conscious orgasm in carnal knowledge of a Garand M-1 rifle.
Three years later, after carrying my new friend through France, Germany and Austria without shooting anyone face to face, I turned it in but brought home a souvenir pistol taken from a German officer.
It remained on a closet shelf, wrapped and unloaded, for years until my children were old enough to start showing curiosity about it.
Forty years ago, I used my Army training to disassemble the weapon and then take a long walk through Manhattan streets, dropping parts of it into a dozen garbage bins more than a mile apart.
Somehow I've managed to keep my family safe without firearms ever since.
Toward the end of basic training, as recruits sat on khaki blankets in a large hall, a sergeant ordered us to take apart our rifles and reassemble them in one minute--with our eyes closed.
As he counted down, I managed to pull out and put together a few pieces, but time was almost gone and I could hear disapproving footsteps and I knew the non-commissioned officers were shaking their heads. Sitting up, the wooden rifle stock between my legs, I fumbled to fit the barrel to it and slam home the bolt.
Just at the count of sixty, it all came together and I felt an overwhelming whoosh inside my thighs. At the age of 19, I was having my first conscious orgasm in carnal knowledge of a Garand M-1 rifle.
Three years later, after carrying my new friend through France, Germany and Austria without shooting anyone face to face, I turned it in but brought home a souvenir pistol taken from a German officer.
It remained on a closet shelf, wrapped and unloaded, for years until my children were old enough to start showing curiosity about it.
Forty years ago, I used my Army training to disassemble the weapon and then take a long walk through Manhattan streets, dropping parts of it into a dozen garbage bins more than a mile apart.
Somehow I've managed to keep my family safe without firearms ever since.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)