Who writes this stuff?
John J. McKay is an underemployed, grumpy, and aging liberal who lives in a small house with his clever wife, two cats, and a couple thousand books. To comment on anything in archy, send him an e-mail.


Mammoth Tales progress





Who is archy?
I introduced the patron cockroach, his creator, and his definitive artist in these two early posts.
One. Two.


Other sources of archy information
John Batteiger's DonMarquis.com
Jim Ennes's DonMarquis.org








Blogs I'm reading this week
Ahistoricality
Alicublog
The American Street
Bad Tux the Snarky Penguin
Bartholomew's notes on religion
Cocktail Party Physics
Cosmic Variance
Daily Kos
Demisemiblog
Dum Luks
The Early Days of a Better Nation
Eschaton
Firedoglake
The Greenbelt
Hatewatch
Hulabaloo
John Hawk's Weblog
Michael Bérubé
Mudflats
MyDD
The Nattering Nabob
Orcinus
Pacific Views
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
The Panda's Thumb
Paperwight's Fair Shot
Peevish...I'm Just Saying
Pharyngula
Political Animal
Progressive Alaska
Progressive Gold
Rev. BigDumbChimp
Roger Ailes
Sadly, No!
ScienceBlogs
Seeing the Forest
Shakesville
Skeptico
Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
Slacktivist
Talk to Action
Talking Points Memo
TBOGG
That Would Be Me
Thinking Meat
Why Now?
Witness for the Prosecution
World O' Crap

The Liberal Coalition
archy
Bark Bark Woof Woof
Blog Around the Clock
Bloggg
Collective Sigh
Corrente (new home)
Corrente (old haunted mansion)
Dohiyi Mir
Echidne of the Snakes
First Draft
Florida Progressive Coalition Blog
Grateful Dread Radio
Iddybud Journal
The Invisible Library
Left is Right
Lefty Side of the Dial
Musing's musings
Pen-Elayne
Rational Animal
Rick's Cafe Americain
Rook's Rant
Rubber Hose
Scrutiny Hooligans
SoonerThought
Speedkill
Stupid Enough Unexplanation
WTF Is It Now??
Yellow Doggerel Democrat
You Are a Tree







ip-location

This site is certified 69% GOOD by the Gematriculator



Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]









Archives

Sunday, July 13, 2003

Biology question
Most mornings these days I wake up to the sound of crows quacking. They also make normal crow noises, but for some reason they seem to greet the dawn with quacks. I was pondering this the other day and remembered reading—more than once—that some urban birds imitate the sounds of car alarms. Every time I see this fact, it is presented as an example of evolution at work; look at the amazing adaptability of these birds. I suppose it’s interesting, but why are the birds doing it? Do they really expect Lexus’ and SUVs to answer their mating calls? Would a starling really know what to do with a Miata if one did answer? I think these birds are on the fast track to extinction.

posted by John at 4:59 PM |

Just shut up, Pat
That Pat Roberson is an annoying, self-righteous hypocrite is not news and the fact that it is not must explain the free ride he usually gets for his outrageous statements and behavior. Most of the time, reporting that he has said something offensive would be a ho-hum affair akin to saying the Israelis and Palestinians can’t agree on the final status of Jerusalem, Seattle will have a wet winter, and the White Socks didn’t make it to the World Series. None of these things happening are news; one of them not happening would be news.

If this sounds like I’m leading up to complimenting Roberson for saying something wise and reasoned, you can stop holding your breath. He hasn’t. In fact, he has reached a new level of vile and self-serving behavior. That’s quite an accomplishment for an Evangelical Protestant who excused China’s policy of forced abortions and a flag waving patriot who blamed 9/11 on the American people for annoying God.

It seems Robertson is outraged by the situation in Liberia and the reaction of our government to it. Most of us are. Liberia is a mess.

Liberia is not just part of the maelstrom of civil wars, failed states, child warriors, and genocide in West Africa; it is the source of much of that chaos. Liberia was founded by freed American slaves in the nineteenth century and has always had a special relationship with the United States (for better or worse). In 1989 Charles Taylor raised a banner of rebellion against the brutal junta that had run the country for the previous eight years. Since then, Taylor has raged across Liberia and exported his war to Sierra Leone and Guinea leading to an estimated 200,000 deaths and countless injuries and mutilations. In 1997 he managed to get himself elected president of Liberia.

Human rights groups regularly condemn Taylor as one of the most brutal dictators in Africa. He is only the second sitting president to be indicted by a war crimes tribunal (Slobodan Milosevic was the first).

On Monday, Roberson commented to the estimated one million viewers of his cable TV show The 700 Club, "So we're undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country. And how dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down.' " Charles Taylor doesn’t have many high profile supporters in this country. But then, not many people in this country have invested eight million dollars in a business partnership with Taylor.

Since April 1999, a Robertson-owned company, Freedom Gold Ltd., which lists Robertson as its president and sole director, has held the concession to mine for gold in the Bokon Jideh region of Liberia. Ten percent of the profits of the operation go to the Republic of Liberia, which till now has meant in effect Charles Taylor.

Robertson appears to be alone among Evangelicals in his enthusiasm for Taylor. Some Evangelicals are openly critical of him. Richard Land, public policy head of the Southern Baptist Convention says: "I would say that Pat Robertson is way out on his own, in a leaking life raft, on this one."

Serge Duss, of the Christian relief group World Vision, called Robertson’s portrayal of the Liberian civil war as a fight between Christians and Muslims a gross oversimplification. It’s worse than that. Taylor has been linked to Osama bin Laden. They are both believed to be part of a network that launders conflict diamonds from Sierra Leone. In addition, Taylor has been accused of sheltering bin Laden agents in the weeks following 9/11.

Robertson has a history of entering into business deals with tyrants and acting as apologists for them in the US media. In his book The Most Dangerous man in America? Pat Roberson and the Rise of the Christian Coalition, Robert Boston documents some of Robertson’s partnerships. When Robertson was in the diamond mining business with Mobutu Sese Seko he lobbied the State Department to lift a travel ban on the Zairian dictator. When he gained a cable concession in China, he suddenly understood their need for a policy of forced abortions, despite his being on record opposing the availability of voluntary abortion anywhere else on the planet.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has kept tabs on Robertson’s business dealings for years (mostly through Boston’s reporting). AU director Barry Lynn gets right to the point: “Robertson would have his viewers believe that his interest in Liberia is purely humanitarian. In fact, he’s become partners with a dictator in the hopes of making money, and now he needs to prop that man up no matter what. Robertson ought to be ashamed of himself.” Sadly, shame seems to an emotion Robertson does not know.

posted by John at 12:09 AM |

Friday, July 11, 2003

Tenet falls on his sword
This story is evolving almost faster than I can keep track. The latest is that Tenet is volunteering to say it’s all his fault for not pushing loudly enough to keep Bush from using the bovine fertilizer Niger uranium claim in the State of the Union Address. Josh Marshall, who is always ahead of me on these things, asks one of the right questions: if Tenet is to blame for not pushing hard enough, whom was he pushing against? It also presents a pretty ridiculous version of just where the buck stops; it’s actually Willy Wonka’s fault that girl got turned into a blueberry because he didn’t cry “don’t” loud enough. And it completely misses the most important question of all: just what is the proper adjectival form of Niger? It’s not “Nigerian.” Nigeric? Nigeronian? Since the inhabitants are mostly brown Muslims, I'm some must think it's Nigerstani. I'll go with Nigerois.

posted by John at 10:37 PM |

Thursday, July 10, 2003

Backed into a corner
A few links still need to be filled in, but it is becoming clear that Bush lied about the Niger uranium in his State of the Union Address. This is not me, as a liberal Democrat, interpreting things in their worst possible light. This is not a case of the President having exaggerated, or been mistaken, or misled, or out of the loop, or what have you. This is a case of the President knowingly uttering a statement to the American public that he knew at the time to be untrue.

For those of you who arrived late: Around the time of the State of the Union Address, the administration floated a story about Saddam trying to buy yellowcake (uranium ore) from crooked ministers in Niger. The document supporting this claim had been known by intelligence professionals to be a crude forgery for ten months at that point. Within a few days of the State of the Union, most people who closely followed the issue also knew that the President’s claim was nonsense. At the time, things moved too fast for the full import of that falsehood to be publicly explored. But the administration knew they had goofed up. A mere week later, when Powell went before the UN, the African uranium narrative had been dropped from the standard talking points. For months we all knew it was baloney, but the issue had no traction.

What’s new here? In the last few days it has become broadly known that not only was the information bogus, but that the White House knew it was bogus. And in casting about to find ways to avoid admitting that, they have told further verifiable lies. And in a clear sign of panic, their story has changed on an increasingly frequent basis—sometimes less than a day has passed between official versions. In just the last week the following alibis have been tried:
  • It doesn’t matter. Saddam was a bad man and now he’s gone. Woo-hoo, we’re number one!
  • The investigation of the document was done by a low level intelligence operative and never percolated up to the administration (it was done by an ambassador who was under the impression he was working directly for Cheney).
  • The President had other evidence and wasn’t referring to the Niger document (no one has suggested what that evidence might be and this story has been dropped).
  • The State of the Union Address was the work of Bush and a close circle of aids, so those who knew the truth never had an opportunity to correct it (it was finished ten days before being given and widely circulated).
  • The CIA knew it was wrong and let Bush give the speech anyway; it’s all George Tenent’s fault; George, fall on this sword (George doesn’t seem to be going along with this).
  • Although the CIA knew better, the British were fooled and Bush depended on the British for his intelligence, not on his own multi-billion-dollar intelligence agencies. It’s all Tony Blair’s Fault; Tony, fall on this sword (same as above).
  • History will vindicate us (not if I can help it).

Ironically, all of this activity is based on news that is at least three weeks old. As Josh Marshall reports, NPR disclosed that the CIA had explicitly warned Bush not to make the Niger claim in the State of the Union Address, as they could not back it up. The White House simply rephrased the claim to read: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” As long as the British really did say that, Bush could claim to be telling the “truth.” It all depends what your definition of “is” is.

There are still some important questions to be asked and details to be filled in. Who did Ambassador Wilson report to? Where did the report go from there? Who at the White House talked to whom at the CIA? Who all at the White House was in on this discussion and the decision to use the British cop out? Who wrote the final version of that part of the State of the Union Address? When did Powell decide not to use it in his UN speech? Was there any other evidence, as Ari Fleisher claimed?

I’ve been holding back from predicting that this scandal will have legs, but it’s looking better. If it continues to build, we can expect someone to be thrown to the wolves (so far Tenet and Powell have refused to volunteer). All of the old Watergate vocabulary is coming back into play. Cover-up. Stonewalling. Plausible deniability. I do not recall at this point in time, Senator. Ahh, where’s Rosemary Woods when they need her?

posted by John at 11:23 PM |

Monday, July 07, 2003

The Louis Renault moment
The grown-ups at MSNBC sent out a press release announcing that they are shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover that Michael Savage is a gay-baiting, hate-mongering jerk. In this painful moment of disillusionment, I’m sure they can take comfort in knowing the prayers of Left Blogistan are with them as we wish them a swift recovery. Snicker snicker.

posted by John at 9:23 PM |

Sunday, July 06, 2003

Go, buy, read
I spent most of the weekend at Hogwarts. When I got back I was excited to see that my old friend David Neiwert has finally finished rewriting and editing his blog series “Rush, Newspeak and Fascism” into a convenient pamphlet form. He has put a download link at the top of his page and is asking for a five-dollar donation (on the honor system). I just got my copy and have yet to read it, but if it is anywhere near as interesting and thought provoking as the original series, it will be easily worth the price.

I have to admit that I have a special attachment to this piece. I was only vaguely aware of the whole blogosphere phenomenon until David created Orcinus. Because he is an old friend I dutifully went and checked out his site so I could say something nice about. When I got there I read what he had to say. It was excellent, but I expected that. Then I clicked on a few of his links and read what they had to say. Then I clicked on a few of their links… Well, I was hooked. Within days, David started his “Rush, Newspeak and Fascism” series. In a former life, as an academic, I had studied the varieties of fascism. Like many former academics (read: grad school drop out), I sometimes feel like my head is about to explode from all of the unused and unwanted data that I carry around. Suddenly here was an opening to blther on about the thinks I find terribly interesting. And once one fact and/or opinion found the exit sign, thousands of others were lined up waiting for their turn. The only answer, of course, was to get my own blog.

In all real fairness I suppose it wasn’t really David who is responsible for me being here; it’s Rush. If he weren’t such a big, fat idiot none this would have been made necessary. So, let’s hear it for the race-baiting, misogynistic nincompoop. I owe it all to him.

posted by John at 9:59 PM |

Saturday, July 05, 2003

A plea for sanity
Last night watching the Fourth of July celebrations it occurred to me that we are entering a certain season and that a warning is in order. Think of this as a public service announcement.

In the next few months hundreds of state and county fairs will take place, this will be followed by the football season, and even before the Superbowl, the election season will be in full gear. What do fairs, football, and elections have in common. Helium balloons. Not many people think of gaily-colored helium balloons as a threat, but they are.

Think of how a helium balloon works. The helium gas inside the balloon has a much lower density than the surrounding air down here on the surface of the earth. When you release a balloon, it rises seeking its own pressure level. It continues up through the various thinning layers of the atmosphere till it reaches a level where the pressures inside and outside the balloon (with some adjustments for the weight of the balloon) are in equilibrium. There, the balloon stops rising.

But it’s not alone. At that level—the balloonosphere—it meets up with all the tens of millions of balloons that have made the voyage before it. With each supermarket opening, political convention, and homecoming game the balloonosphere gets thicker. Soon the day will come when enough balloons are collected to create a solid canopy over us all. Then, with the warming rays of the sun cut off, the temperature will plunge. Survivalists with guns and libertarians with silver dollars will run amok in the streets. Government services will be overwhelmed and the government will collapse. Riot will turn to revolution. Neighbor will turn against neighbor. Brother will turn against brother. Civilization itself will collapse. And then in our most vulnerable hour, the penguins will make their move. For the love of God do not buy your child that balloon. Stuff them with cotton candy and take them home. Just say NO to helium balloons. The civilization you save will be your own.

We now return you to your previously scheduled political commentary.

posted by John at 11:30 PM |

Friday, July 04, 2003

Comic book morality
Joe Conason's Journal is running two great little items. I’ll give you the first one here in its totality and get to the second one later on.
"Bring 'em on"? I'm so glad that President Bush has "restored dignity" to the White House, and I have no doubt the families of servicemen and women in Iraq must feel the same way today.
No wonder some Republicans think Arnold Schwarzenegger should be running the state of California. The real question is why we don't elect an actual cartoon character to office instead of all these cheap imitations. The Hulk's movie may be mediocre, but he obviously possesses the cool temperament, precise diction and witty style of a great commander in chief.

In a roundabout way Conason’s comment explains something that has bothered me about various Bushes named George. I have always hated listening to their voices. They both a tone that is at once whiney and patronizing and makes me want to shove pencils into my ears to make the bad noise stop. When I need to know what they have said, I usually wait till I can read it in print. Reading George the Elder at my leisure had the added entertainment value of playing find-the-verb. Both Georges have a tendency to use baby talk and childish clichés whenever they wander off script. This, obviously, is what George the Younger did on Wednesday.

Little George likes to use phrases that conjure a world of comic book morality. I say this as someone who dearly loves comic books and thinks that, along with jazz, blues, Hollywood, and rock & roll, they are one of the most authentic contributions of America to world art. But I am able to understand that they are not a good grounding for moral behavior in the real world. Real grown-ups don’t reduce complex problems to phases like: “dead or alive,” “evildoers,” or “bring ‘em on.”

He might resort to this sort of vocabulary because comic books are an honest reflection of the level of his moral development. But how does that fit with his pervasive secrecy and duplicity? Comic book heroes are forthright, honest, and open. Comic book heroes do not lie and trick people into wars. Comic book heroes do not pass the buck to previous administrations or imaginary Saddam loyalists. Comic book heroes do not reinvent their past, plunder the common wealth for cronies, or pander to extremists.

George Bush talks comic book morality, but he doesn’t practice comic book morality.

Postscript: Okay, okay, comic book heroes do lie and reinvent their past, but only when it’s necessary to protect their secret identities and loved ones. Only a cad would suggest endangering Ma Kent in the name of philosophical consistency.

posted by John at 4:40 PM |

Wednesday, July 02, 2003

What do you mean "we?"
This is the kind of talk that always turns me into a raving, indignant boor.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Wednesday challenged militants who have been killing and injuring U.S. forces in Iraq, saying "bring them on" because American forces were tough enough to deal with their attacks.

"There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there," Bush told reporters at the White House. "My answer is 'bring them on'. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."

During the glory days of the British Empire they poked fun at the type of politician and armchair generals who were ready to defend the empire to the last Scotsman. Today we have the good, poll-taking citizens who look at the removal of due process from the rights we can expect and sigh that we must all make sacrifices; in this context "we" means brown people, foreigners, and especially brown foreigners. It always sickens me how ready most people are to volunteer necessary sacrifices for someone else. The leader of the free world is no different. The news story is accompanied by a picture of him displaying his lipless grim determination expression. I suppose if those ungrateful Iraqis continue to pester us for self rule our Mr. Potato Head in chief might even get out his angry eyes.

posted by John at 11:27 AM |

Onion scoops us all
Once again The Onion has scooped all the competition in the infotainment industry, this time by bringing us the real poop on the convergence between Bush’s reelection and homeland defense strategies.
Bush Asks Congress For $30 Billion To Help Fight War On Criticism
WASHINGTON, DC—Citing the need to safeguard "America's most vital institutions and politicians" against potentially devastating attacks, President Bush asked Congress to sign off Monday on a $30 billion funding package to help fight the ongoing War On Criticism.

"Sadly, the threat of criticism is still with us," Bush told members of Congress during a 2 p.m. televised address. "We thought we had defeated criticism with our successes in Afghanistan and Iraq. We thought we had struck at its very heart with the broad discretionary powers of the USA Patriot Act. And we thought that the ratings victory of Fox News, America's News Channel, might signal the beginning of a lasting peace with the media. Yet, despite all this, criticism abounds."

[…]

Ashcroft said the Justice Department, working closely with the CIA and FBI, has identified more than 300 potential targets, ranging from the Bush Administration's inability to produce the weapons of mass destruction used to justify the war with Iraq to its deficit-ballooning fiscal policies.

[…]

"I doubt I could protect my ongoing Halliburton cronyism from critical strikes with just a few million dollars—especially if it was not accompanied by powerful preemptive legislation," Vice-President Dick Cheney said. "We need to build stronger anti-criticism defense shields in this country. And the time to act is now, before the media say something negative about us."

It is this kind of hard-hitting, unbiased journalism that makes The Onion my choice for important news.

posted by John at 9:01 AM |

Tuesday, July 01, 2003

Moore loses again
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a Ten Commandments monument the size of a washing machine must be removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a ruling by a federal judge who said that the 2 1/2-ton granite monument, placed there by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Moore has made his career in recent years on this issue. He first came to national prominence as a darling of the religious right in 2000 when he defied orders to remove a smaller display from his courtroom in Gadsden, Alabama. Later that year he was elected Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court on platform of little more than continuing to annoy secularists and break the law he is sworn to uphold by continuing to maintain his display.

But merely displaying them wasn’t enough for Moore. Eight months after taking office Moore had his granite monument placed in the lobby of the State Judicial Building in the debt of night. A number of Alabamans and national organizations such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State sued. Moore lost, and appealed, and has now lost again.

In its opinion today, the court rejected Moore’s assertion that government acknowledgements of religion have a long history in America. “Chief Justice Moore has pointed to no evidence that the Ten Commandments in any form were publicly displayed in any state or federal courthouse, much less that the practice of displaying them was widespread at the time the Bill of Rights was proposed and adopted,” declared the court.

The court also soundly rejected Moore’s contention that as chief judicial officer of Alabama, he is not bound by federal court rulings, comparing it to “the same position taken by those southern governors who attempted to defy federal court orders during an earlier era.”


No doubt he will defy the order and appeal to the Supremes. It is, after all, probably what he has wanted all along. He’s taking a gamble. Despite encouragement from religious right groups that hope to get a court decision that will roll back a century or so of church-state separation, he faces a few serious hurdles. There is no guarantee that the Supremes will rule in his favor or even agree to hear the case. And there is no guarantee that the people of Alabama will endless bankroll his appeals. Alabama is just as bankrupt as everybody else this year.

I also suspect his act might be getting a little old. He began this silliness when the economy was booming and he was able to parlay this season’s celebrity into a high position. A lot has changed since then. Does he ever spend any time doing his job as a Chief Justice? Do all Chief Justices have the right to bypass the usual committees, planning boards, and permit processes to plop monuments wherever they want and entangle their states in expensive legal suits?

Of course, whether to back down might not be Moore’s decision anymore. Beyond it’s significance as a church-state issue the case has implications for the Senate battle over judicial nominations. Bill Pryor, Bush’s nominee for the 11th Federal Circuit Court, and the current Attorney General of Alabama, has been an enthusiastic champion of Moore’s case. Powerful forces in his party have interests of their own in this case. It will be interesting to see where it all goes next.

posted by John at 10:01 PM |

Thursday, June 26, 2003

Expect noise
We can expect the centrifuge spare parts and plans discovered in a Baghdad nuclear weapon scientist’s yard to go through the same sort of mutations as the mysterious trailers.

Remember how the trailers of indeterminate use went from possible mobile biological weapon labs to mobile biological weapon labs to actual biological weapons to proof of a program for making biological weapons to trailers of indeterminate use. The original claim was that Saddam had hundreds of tons of completed biological weapon-grade germs (later changed to tens of thousands of liters, because it sounded bigger and scarier). He had them on hand and was planning either to give them to al Qaida or to spray American ports using balsa radio control planes any day now!!! When this swimming pool of germs didn’t turn up the administration’s story began to evolve. Forgotten were the actual stockpiles of on-hand germs, replaced by the desire to rebuild a program to make some maybe someday later.

This weaseling would be funny, except that it seems to work on the American public. The press uncritically reports every administration claim. By the eve of war half of the public believed the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi and by the middle of this month nearly that many believed that weapons had already been found. I wonder if it’s all the same people. This can’t all be blamed on the press. A number of factors, including the economy and the sudden awareness of our vulnerability as individuals and as a country, have left us in a sort of collective shock. People yearn for certainty or at least an illusion of certainty. We so want to believe, that we will accept any lie as long as it is told boldly and with confidence.

Combined with the Bush administration’s ham-handed foreign policy, this eager credulousness has created a terrible disconnect between America and the rest of the world. The more worldly world was horrified at 9/11, but not sent into shock. They are still able to look at lies and say, “that’s a lie.” The administration has lied so often and so boldly that they have very little credibility beyond the US borders.

When some trace of a weapon or weapon program turns up in Iraq, Americans accept it as proof that everything Bush said going to war has been proved. Our erstwhile allies accept it as, at best, proof of no more than it is, a trace, and at worst, a clumsy plant.

Ironically, we will find traces of weapons and weapon programs. Saddam had healthy research and development programs in all three ABC areas (atomic, biological, chemical) before 1991, and he had parallel programs to develop or acquire delivery systems. Over the years, the Israelis and we destroyed some and the Iraqis dismantled some. Some just got old and fell apart (explosives, germs, toxins, and radioactive materials all have shelf lives). I still believe Saddam cheated as much as he could between 1991 and at least 1998, maybe later. But he would have been doing so with a constantly decreasing supply of increasingly undependable weapons.

So, now we have some photogenic centrifuge spare parts and plans. The gap between America and its best friends grows wider.

posted by John at 11:32 PM |

Wednesday, June 25, 2003

Bush is the Antichrist, part 2
This morning I went to check out some of the statistics on my site. Even though I’m no longer a new blogger according to N.Z. Bear, I still get a kick out of watching the numbers. Most of my new readers are reviewed by the same few sites (who have my deepest gratitude), but occasionally someone finds me by doing a search on something about which I have written. Today I found that someone had stumbled on me using the search terms “Bush” and “Antichrist.” When I backtracked to the original search page, I found out that I was the number-three result. Maybe I’ve found my natural constituency.

posted by John at 10:29 PM |

Tuesday, June 24, 2003

Woo-hoo, we’re number nine
The contest is over. I tied for ninth out of a field of 32, which is, as my sweet white-haired Mom would say, better than a kick in the butt with a frozen mukluk. Now that I’m no longer a new blog, I need to act my age and get to work writing penetrating and pithy political commentary to show that I deserve that place. So, Ashcroft is a fink, DeLay is a gunky-head, and the President is—well you know.

posted by John at 10:14 PM |

Saturday, June 21, 2003

Time to vote
After posting my entry for the Truth Laid Bear's New Weblog Showcase, I grabbed a few hours sleep, got up, put down some extra food and water for the cats, hopped in the car with my wife and headed down to Portland where my mother was having a rather unpleasant medical diagnostic procedure. My number-three sister flew down from Alaska and was already at the medical center with Mom. We all went out to Mom’s place and spent two days eating too much, drinking too much, and filling each other in on family gossip. I’m telling you all this by way of explaining why I haven’t written or even looked at the news for two days. My wife got first dibs on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix so I should have plenty of time to write for a day or two. When I get the book, I’m planning to vanish again.

And somehow or another, this brings me to voting. I get to pick three and after pondering it all evening I’ve finally settled on:

An Unsealed Room’s Cherry-Picking on the Golan Heights for giving us “a reminder that Israelis (and Palestinians, too) are not just an ‘issue’ or a ‘cause.’ They are flesh-and-blood men, women and children trying to live their lives like anyone else.”

Across, Beyond, Through’s The Prodigal Father. He describes his blog as “Meanderings through the mind of a thirty-something minister trying to defy categorization.” Some of the categories he’s defying are humane, compassionate, and thoughtful.

Metajournalism’s Prison Privatization mostly because I like their slogan: "Where dissent meets commentary and makes dissentary."

Thanks everybody who voted, or considered voting, for me. I hope you stick around after the contest.

Postscript Mom’s fine and the cats are glad we’re back.

posted by John at 11:57 PM |

Thursday, June 19, 2003

I have no shame
Sunday will be my three-month anniversary as a blogger. Although I still feel like a novice, this milestone will make me a grizzled veteran in the eyes of N. Z. Bear. Or something like that. Since this is the last week that I’m entitled to enter “Microbes on Parade,” Bear’s new weblog showcase, I decided I should take advantage of this opportunity for free publicity and join the contest. The post below is my entry in the contest. To vote for me, you need to A) have a blog listed on Bear’s Blogosphere Ecosystem and B) link to my post from your blog (the link is http://johnmckay.blogspot.com/2003_06_15_johnmckay_archive.html#200437891). When Bear surveys the ecosystem on Sunday evening, each link will count as a vote. You’re entitled to vote for three blogs, so you should go to the contest page and see what new pleasures you can sample. As a yellow-dog Democrat I can't help but love a contest that encourages us to vote early and vote often. I’ll be posting my votes Saturday night.

This is where the lack of shame part comes in. Please vote for me. Please. Please. Please. Please. Thank you.

posted by John at 1:03 AM |

Why do they support this man?
The current administration calls itself Republican, yet it is betraying most of the traditional Republican constituencies. Everyday, the deficit plunges to new record depths on the watch of the party for whom "balanced budget amendment" was once an article of faith. Everyday, Ashcroft undermines rights and freedoms that the libertarian wing of the party once claimed were sacred. The military supports the party that sends men and women to die in wars that make us less safe while that same party slashes the education budget for their children and the VA benefits for their injuries. What about business? The Republicans have always been the party of business. Bush expects to raise $200 million for the election, most of it from prosperous business people. Surely, the party is good for them.

The party is clearly good for Halliburton and any other resource extraction company with ties to Cheney. And with wars and rumors of wars, it must be good for the fabled military-industrial complex. Right? Not always. Like most modern corporations, the industrial side of the military-industrial complex has become globalized and diversified. There is big money to be made supplying the U.S. armed forces, but that's just part of their bottom line. There is also money to be made selling burgers in Bavaria, autos in Africa, cola in Canada, and airplanes in Asia. Modern corporations need it all. This is where they are screwed.

Even before 9/11 the Bush administration had set out on a foreign policy course that was arrogant, unilateral, and offensive to some of our most important trading partners. Top members of the administration snorted contemptuously at "Old Europe" and threatened economic retaliation toward allies who refused to follow marching orders from the White House. Who needs France, Germany, and Mexico when we have the support of such military and industrial giants as Estonia, Albania, and Eritrea? It makes a good sound bite, and it's fun to thump our chests and shout "we're number one; these colors don't run," but when the pep rally is over we still have to go home and pay our bills.

This brings us to the biennial Paris Air Show, the most important weapons and aviation trade show on the planet. The deals consummated and announced here can total hundreds of billions of dollars. So naturally, the U.S. is cutting back its presence.
Lingering U.S. resentment over France's staunch opposition to the war in Iraq has led the Defense Department to scale back sharply on its participation and, according to Washington insiders, put pressure on U.S. companies not to attend. U.S. exhibitors will total 183, down from 350 at the last Paris show in 2001.

Airbus, who usually runs neck and neck with Boeing for supplying the world's airlines with planes, is outpacing Boeing five to one in orders this year (38 to 197 not counting today's Korea Air order). Each order lost is about a half billion dollars that stays out of the American economy.
U.S. defence contractor Northrop Grumman Corp said the political tension had put its plan to work with German submarine firm Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft AG to make eight submarines for Taiwan on ice. "Our ability to collaborate and cooperate in Europe has been affected by the tense state of relationships that exists," said Philip Dur, head of Northrop Grumman's ship systems unit. .

The traditional targets, Coke and McDonalds, are also hurting.

Of course I'm singing the traditional theme song of the party out of power. It's called "Where's the Outrage (Why Can't They See What These People Are Doing)?" But just because it's the traditional whine, doesn't mean it's not a valid question. Why should business support a candidate who is bad for business? Will they act out of habit and pay to loose customers, or will they consider their best interests and try to stop the decline?

posted by John at 12:41 AM |

Wednesday, June 18, 2003

Where’s my matching funds?
In yesterday’s White House press briefing with the inimitable Ari Fleisher we had this exchange:
Q And also in the last, 2000 and coming up, the President will accept federal funds in the general election.

MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.

Q Is there any dash of hypocrisy in that he doesn't contribute to that fund when he files his tax returns?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, interestingly, we talked before about taxpayer-financed elections, and while for the congressional races, Senate races and House races, and for overwhelming majority of the funds that go to presidential races is voluntary, there is that check on the tax reforms. And the best I remember this from IRS data is something like only 12 percent, or down to 8 percent of the American people check that box. So I think the President is in pretty good company with a number of American people who do not check that box.

We have to give Ari credit for thinking on his feet, even if what he says is completely silly or an outright lie. Of course, the 88 or 92 percent of the American public that do not give to that fund, also don’t collect from it. This behavior is morally akin to the multimillionaire who never worked a day in his life because he inherited his wealth (thanks Bush’s to “relief” from the “death tax”), turning 65 and demanding, “where’s my social security, dammit?!”

In case you think this is an unfair analogy, let’s listen to Mr. Fleischer a bit further:
Q Why would he take the money, then?
MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, he's not taking the money for the primary campaign; he will take it for the general.
Q Does he prefer a privately-financed system altogether?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think he signed into law the system that he supports.

In other words he likes the system just as it is: millionaire frat boys get to become president without even spending three lousy dollars of their own money.

posted by John at 10:27 PM |

Tuesday, June 17, 2003

Bush is a revisionist historian
By now you’ve all seen this quote.
ELIZABETH, N.J. (Reuters) - President Bush countered those questioning his justification for the invasion of Iraq on Monday, dismissing "revisionist historians" and saying Washington acted to counter a persistent threat.

"Now there are some who would like to rewrite history; revisionist historians is what I like to call them," Bush said in a speech to New Jersey business leaders.

Referring to the ousted Iraqi president, Bush said, "Saddam Hussein as a threat to America and the free world in '91, in '98, in 2003. He continually ignored the demands of the free world, so the United States and friends and allies acted."

I’m interested in those dates he mentions. Let’s see, ’91 was daddy Bush and friends and allies justly acting to stop the Saddamist threat and ’03 was junior Bush and friends and allies justly acting to stop the Saddamist threat. Now what was ’98? That must have been Clinton doing something. He couldn’t have been wagging-the-dog to distract the public from his impeachment woes—only a revisionist cad would suggest such a thing. He must have been justly acting, with friends and allies of course, to stop the Saddamist threat. I never realized that Bush was such an admirer of Clinton’s foreign policy or that he saw himself as carrying on the same policies.

posted by John at 9:33 PM |

Monday, June 16, 2003

Wild speculation
A couple weeks ago I promised that when I got back to my thoughts on the coming election I would comment on possible divisions among the Republicans. This isn’t that piece, but it does have me thinking in that direction. Last night, Gen. Wesley Clark appeared on Meet the Press and set the whole news junkie world atwitter with his admission that he is considering a run for the White House. While his entry would certainly make the whole campaign more interesting, the detail that really sent my imagination flying was his comment that both parties have expressed an interest in him.
MR. RUSSERT: So if you did run for president, you would run as a Democrat?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I haven’t said that. I haven’t made any official moves. But this is a two-party country. There’s no successful third party bids. And, you know, it’s just—that’s the way it is. And I am concerned about many things in the country, not only foreign policy but domestic as well.
MR. RUSSERT: So you would run as a Democrat?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I haven’t come out and said that point blank. I mean, I think that’s another step that would have to be taken.

MR. RUSSERT: But you wouldn’t challenge George Bush in the Republican primaries?

GEN. CLARK: I haven’t considered that, no.

MR. RUSSERT: So it would be in the Democratic primary?

GEN. CLARK: You’re leading the witness here. I mean, that’s a step that I’ll have to work through along with everything else. You know, I’ve been non-partisan. I’ve got—I’m a centrist on most of these issues, and I’ve got people after me from both sides of the aisle. That are—a lot of Republicans have talked to me and they’ve said, “Look, we’re very concerned about where the country is. We’re moving into—not only have we done a war that’s essentially an elective war that’s put us in trouble afterwards, in an indefinite commitment”—and by the way I don’t hear—they don’t hear the strong voices out there about mission creep and exit strategy that dominated the 1990s dialogue. But a lot of Republicans have come to me and said, you know, “What does this mean?” And they’ve said, “On the other hand, we always believed that we should be the party of fiscal responsibility. And where are we going with the tax cuts? What does this mean for the future of the country?” So I’m getting, you know, interest from both sides, really and just haven’t moved past that.

Let me go on record as saying, I don’t think Clark or anyone else will be making a meaningful challenge to Bush in the Republican primaries. That’s too bad. I think a primary challenge from Clark would be good for the Democrats and good for the country.

Obviously, my main reason for saying I think it would be good for the country is that I think the Bush administration has been an unmitigated disaster and anything helps boot them out is a good thing. With that admission out of the way, let me go on to say that I think a serious primary challenge to Bush would improve the tenor of political discourse in this country. Over the last decade a popular perception has emerged that partisan sniping is at intolerable levels and that it is preventing us from properly addressing serious pressing issues. There is a lot of truth in this (though historically speaking, we’ve survived worse). A bad side effect of this belief is that people are inclined to dismiss any criticism from across the aisle as just politics and therefore not sincere.

The Bush administration has many problems that need to be dealt with. Their erosion of civil liberties in the name of national security has degraded the bill of rights. Their faith in endless tax-cuts in place of meaningful economic policies are saddling us with unprecedented deficits. Their preference for telegenic gestures over real work has made the country less secure not more so. All of these actions betray ore constituencies of the Republican Party. Debate spurred by an internal challenge is likely to be more substantive than debate from without. It is also likely to make those who would blindly follow him, as the only Republican game in town, stop and consider whether he really is the best representative of their wishes.

The advantages to the Democrats of a serious primary challenge to Bush are more obvious. It would be good to get Bush to spend some of his astronomical war chest before the general campaign. It would be good to bruise him up a little before the fall. It would be good not to have a fellow Democrat accusing all of the candidates of being weak on defense.

As I said, I don’t think this is at all likely, but it does give a warm feeling to think about it.

posted by John at 10:06 PM |

Sunday, June 15, 2003

Why Archy?
When I was still at the “maybe I should blog” stage, I wondered what I would call my blog if I had one. Looking at the other blogs, I tried out some of the common types of titles. The practical and descriptive: John’s Blog. The cryptic phrase: “…and he slowly sank into the oatmeal, never to heard from again.” Pretending to be edgy by using the word “rant:” Ranting Ranter’s Rants. A pun based on my name: Fresh from the John. None of them really worked. I liked my friend David Niewert’s use of the killer whale as a totem and title for his blog: Orcinus. I have a strong attachment to northern megafauna and thought a polar bear, arctic wolf, or moose would look great on a blog. However looking deep into my soul, I decided my personal totem is more along the lines of ursus theodorus pui, the bear of very little brain. Finally, I decided to call it “archy.”

Archy is not an alter-ego. I don’t claim to be Archy; my own name is there on the upper left of the page. Archy was a correspondent who sent his peculiar views on the state of the world in the teens and twenties of the last century to Don Marquis, the editor at the Evening Sun in New York. Marquis, desperate for material to fill his daily column, the Sun Dial, was glad to print anything Archy left for him. Archy is my patron saint. Or rather, he is my patron cockroach.

Marquis tells how he discovered Archy using his typewriter one morning:
We came into our room earlier than usual in the morning, and discovered a gigantic cockroach jumping about on the keys. He did not see us, and we watched him. He would climb painfully upon the framework of the machine and cast himself with all his force upon a key, head downward, and his weight and the impact of the blow were just sufficient to operate the machine, one slow letter after another. He could not work the capital letters, and he had a great deal of difficulty operating the mechanism that shifts the paper so that a fresh line may be started. We never saw a cockroach work so hard or perspire so freely in all our lives before. After about an hour of this frightfully difficult literary labor he fell to the floor exhausted, and we saw him creep feebly into a nest of the poems which are always there in profusion.

Archy, we were told was the spirit of a vers libre poet who had passed over into the body of a cockroach. He proclaimed, “expression is the need of my soul.” He had always been a writer and had one been a drinking buddy of old Bill Shakespeare. His politics were progressive and he opposed prohibition (“prohibition makes you want to cry into your beer and denies you the beer to cry into”). He introduces Marquis’ readers to a whole host of characters they would not have encountered at their job or in their church, including Freddy the Rat, Warty Bliggins, Pete the Parrot, and, most importantly, the free-spirited cat, Mehitabel. Marquis published three collections of the Sun Dial columns by and about Archy. Two more have been published since. The earliest collection, Archy and Mehitabel, has been more or less constantly in print since 1927.

Archy had many fans among the intelligentsia. I’ll let one of them, E. B. White, have the last word.
The details of his creative life make him blood brother to writing men. He cast himself with all I his force upon a key, head downward. So do we all. And when he was through his, labors, he fell to the floor, spent. He was vain (so are we all), hungry, saw things from the under side, and was continually bringing up the matter of whether he should be paid for his work. He was bold, disrespectful, possessed of the revolutionary spirit (he organized the Worms Turnverein), was never subservient to the boss yet always trying to wheedle food out of him, always getting right to the heart of the matter. And he was contemptuous of those persons who were absorbed in the mere technical details of his writing. "The question is whether the stuff is literature or not."


posted by John at 5:53 PM |

Copyright 2003-2009 John J. McKay. Use what you want, but give credit where credit is due.
Powered by Blogger Pro™ Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com