Not gloating, not me
I've noticed an interesting message from some liberal or Democratic bloggers and talking heads over the last few days. There is a narrative that goes like this: "We should not be happy over the indictment of Scooter Libby. What Scooter did was a very bad thing for America. When bad things happen to America, we should be somber and serious. Look at my sad face; that's how somber and serious I am."
You've probably guessed that I don't agree with that assessment. I can understand that some people were made uncomfortable by the gloating and the whole Fitzmas schtick in Left Blogistan. That's their right and they don't have to participate if they don't want to. Aside from the purely partisan glee at seeing the other side take a couple of lumps (and that is a perfectly legitimate glee), we should be happy that someone is likely to pay for doing damage to America. A bad guy was caught. The system still works. They haven't managed to completely subvert justice in this country. These are things to celebrate. If we should be somber and serious, it should be because so many of Libby's co-conspirators remain unindicted and because no one was indicted for the actual crime.
You can be serious or happy as you want. As for me, I'm going to enjoy a little more tactless gloating before I get somber and serious about our remaining problems.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Carnival of the Cockroaches
Is that a cool idea, or what? The patron cockroach will never forgive me if I don't get off my butt and bang out something in praise of his poetry for every issue. Actually, I do most of my blogging while firmly planted on my butt, but you get the idea.
Is that a cool idea, or what? The patron cockroach will never forgive me if I don't get off my butt and bang out something in praise of his poetry for every issue. Actually, I do most of my blogging while firmly planted on my butt, but you get the idea.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Another meme
PZ at Pharyngula discovered this one. This one contributes to useful research (and a cool chart I hope). The Politburo Diktat is trying to track weblog lineages-who inspired whom to start blogging. Being a right wing blog, most of his responses are wingnuts. PZ thinks we need to up the moonbat representation.
My answesr are:
As per PZ's advice, I'm forwarding my answers to the very long comment thread at the Commissar's site.
PZ at Pharyngula discovered this one. This one contributes to useful research (and a cool chart I hope). The Politburo Diktat is trying to track weblog lineages-who inspired whom to start blogging. Being a right wing blog, most of his responses are wingnuts. PZ thinks we need to up the moonbat representation.
My answesr are:
- Your blogfather, or blogmother, as the case may be. Just one please - the one blog that, more than any other, inspired you to start blogging. Please don't name Instapundit, unless you are on his blogchildren list. That would be David Neiwert's Orcinus.
- Include your blog-birth-month, the month that you started blogging, if you can. March 2003.
- If you are reasonably certain that you have spawned any blog-children, mention them, too. No kids, just cats. Want to see some pictures?
- Identify your blog as Left, Right, or Other.Left, of the bleeding-heart liberal and yellow-dog Democrat variety, although I could be convinced to vote for a yellow cat now and then.
As per PZ's advice, I'm forwarding my answers to the very long comment thread at the Commissar's site.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Not clear on the concept
One of the finer moments in recent American political history happened three weeks ago when the majority of Senate Republicans joined with all of the Democrats to add a veto-proof amendment to the annual military spending bill. The amendment requires the executive branch to obey existing American laws regarding torture. Torture is illegal. It doesn't become legal during wartime or because the president makes up a bogus category of prisoners or when our soldiers do it overseas.
Still not getting the point, the Bush administration has offered a compromise, what if only the CIA does it? Can it be legal then?
Good for John McCain. As the author of the bill and a former victim of extensive torture, he gets the concept and won't be distracted by scare tactics.
The problem with torture is not that the wrong people were doing it; the problem is that it is ineffective, it is unreliable, it antagonizes our allies, it creates a negative perception of American values among populations that we are trying to win over, and it is just plain wrong--even when the CIA does it.
One of the finer moments in recent American political history happened three weeks ago when the majority of Senate Republicans joined with all of the Democrats to add a veto-proof amendment to the annual military spending bill. The amendment requires the executive branch to obey existing American laws regarding torture. Torture is illegal. It doesn't become legal during wartime or because the president makes up a bogus category of prisoners or when our soldiers do it overseas.
Still not getting the point, the Bush administration has offered a compromise, what if only the CIA does it? Can it be legal then?
Stepping up a confrontation with the Senate over the handling of detainees, the White House is insisting that the Central Intelligence Agency be exempted from a proposed ban on abusive treatment of suspected Qaeda militants and other terrorists.
The Senate defied a presidential veto threat nearly three weeks ago and approved, 90 to 9, an amendment to a $440 billion military spending bill that would ban the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of any detainee held by the United States government. This could bar some techniques that the C.I.A. has used in some interrogations overseas.
But in a 45-minute meeting last Thursday, Vice President Dick Cheney and the C.I.A. director, Porter J. Goss, urged Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who wrote the amendment, to support an exemption for the agency...
Mr. McCain rejected the proposed exemption, which stated that the measure "shall not apply with respect to clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States, that are carried out by an element of the United States government other than the Department of Defense and are consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and treaties to which the United States is a party, if the president determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack."
Good for John McCain. As the author of the bill and a former victim of extensive torture, he gets the concept and won't be distracted by scare tactics.
The problem with torture is not that the wrong people were doing it; the problem is that it is ineffective, it is unreliable, it antagonizes our allies, it creates a negative perception of American values among populations that we are trying to win over, and it is just plain wrong--even when the CIA does it.
Friday, October 21, 2005
When two wars aren't enough
Bush and Rice are banging the war drums over Syria.
Just to be clear, I thought the Syrian government under the senior Assad was completely reprehensible. Under the junior Assad it seems to be a bit quieter, but I have no reason to believe it is significantly better. I thought the Syrians should have been booted out of Lebanon years before they actually were. I would have been surprised if the Syrians were not involved in Hariri's assassination. And I would never, never suggest that Bush might gin up a foreign crisis just to distract from his problems at home. That would be un-presidential and wrong.
BUT, for once, could we not act the owners of the entire world demanding everyone else jump to action on our word. The UN is dealing with this at its own pace. Our making lots of noise and shoving into the leadership position is not going to help, and might hurt. If the UN acts now, they run the danger of looking like Bush's lapdog. There would have been plenty of time later to nudge them along if they had appeared to drop the matter.
Bush and Rice are banging the war drums over Syria.
President George W. Bush on Friday called on the United Nations to convene a session as soon as possible to deal with a U.N. investigative report implicating Syrian officials in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
"The report strongly suggests that the politically motivated assassination could not have taken place without Syrian involvement," Bush said after helping dedicate a new pavilion at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Southern California.
The U.N. investigative report, which Bush called "deeply disturbing," established a link between high-ranking Syrian officials and their Lebanese allies in Hariri's murder Feb. 14 in Beirut.
Earlier Friday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she was deeply troubled by the U.N. report. She said the international community must find a way to hold Syrian authorities accountable.
Just to be clear, I thought the Syrian government under the senior Assad was completely reprehensible. Under the junior Assad it seems to be a bit quieter, but I have no reason to believe it is significantly better. I thought the Syrians should have been booted out of Lebanon years before they actually were. I would have been surprised if the Syrians were not involved in Hariri's assassination. And I would never, never suggest that Bush might gin up a foreign crisis just to distract from his problems at home. That would be un-presidential and wrong.
BUT, for once, could we not act the owners of the entire world demanding everyone else jump to action on our word. The UN is dealing with this at its own pace. Our making lots of noise and shoving into the leadership position is not going to help, and might hurt. If the UN acts now, they run the danger of looking like Bush's lapdog. There would have been plenty of time later to nudge them along if they had appeared to drop the matter.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Bork hates Miers
To date, I have seen many reasons to oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, a few reasons to be neutral, and only three to support her. The first of those is that she keeps M&Ms on her desk. The second, is that she is easy to draw for editorial cartoonists. The third, is that Robert Bork hates her. As much as I like M&Ms and cartoons, annoying Robert Bork is the most important to me.
Bork is more than a man with a chin that resembles a kindly old Amish father and an incisive legal mind that resembles that of Tomas de Tourquemada. For old liberals like me, Robert Bork hold a special place in the darkest part of our hearts. Long before Ronald Reagan decided Bork was just the kind of man we neded on the Supreme Court, Bork was the Nixon lackey who carried out the The "Saturday night massacre" of October 20, 1973 when Nixon decided to fire the Watergate special prosecutor who was asking the wrong questions.
When Bork failed to get a seat on the Supreme Court, he became a martyr to the radical right. While they want to redeem his memory by putting someone in his mold on the bench, people like me want to continue to punish him by keeping anyone like him off the bench. It's not just meanness and the memory of Watergate that make us feel this way; Bork's legal philosophy is genuinely dangerous. Bork is a strong defender of the idea that there is no right of privacy--not just as a code word for abortion, he is against the idea of privacy at all. Bork, frankly, is an anti-democratic zealot.
This brings me back to Bork. He really hates Miers.
Wow. The very act of nominating Miers makes Bush a liberal. How can I resist that? It's almost too good to be true. Is it a trap? No, Bork is too splenetic to be coy. He says what he means, says it loudly, and thinks he was very clever saying it. Bork really does think Miers is a betrayal of the revolution. Does that mean we should support her? Of course not. I still think that there are many reasons to oppose her nomination.
As far as strategy is concerned, I think Democrats and liberals should sit back, make some popcorn, and let the radical conservatives savage the Republican Party. There will be plenty of time to oppose her later.
To date, I have seen many reasons to oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, a few reasons to be neutral, and only three to support her. The first of those is that she keeps M&Ms on her desk. The second, is that she is easy to draw for editorial cartoonists. The third, is that Robert Bork hates her. As much as I like M&Ms and cartoons, annoying Robert Bork is the most important to me.
Bork is more than a man with a chin that resembles a kindly old Amish father and an incisive legal mind that resembles that of Tomas de Tourquemada. For old liberals like me, Robert Bork hold a special place in the darkest part of our hearts. Long before Ronald Reagan decided Bork was just the kind of man we neded on the Supreme Court, Bork was the Nixon lackey who carried out the The "Saturday night massacre" of October 20, 1973 when Nixon decided to fire the Watergate special prosecutor who was asking the wrong questions.
When Bork failed to get a seat on the Supreme Court, he became a martyr to the radical right. While they want to redeem his memory by putting someone in his mold on the bench, people like me want to continue to punish him by keeping anyone like him off the bench. It's not just meanness and the memory of Watergate that make us feel this way; Bork's legal philosophy is genuinely dangerous. Bork is a strong defender of the idea that there is no right of privacy--not just as a code word for abortion, he is against the idea of privacy at all. Bork, frankly, is an anti-democratic zealot.
This brings me back to Bork. He really hates Miers.
With a single stroke--the nomination of Harriet Miers--the president has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and imperialistic Supreme Court, taken the heart out of a rising generation of constitutional scholars, and widened the fissures within the conservative movement. That's not a bad day's work--for liberals.
Wow. The very act of nominating Miers makes Bush a liberal. How can I resist that? It's almost too good to be true. Is it a trap? No, Bork is too splenetic to be coy. He says what he means, says it loudly, and thinks he was very clever saying it. Bork really does think Miers is a betrayal of the revolution. Does that mean we should support her? Of course not. I still think that there are many reasons to oppose her nomination.
As far as strategy is concerned, I think Democrats and liberals should sit back, make some popcorn, and let the radical conservatives savage the Republican Party. There will be plenty of time to oppose her later.
Two questions
If I have learned anything from Jonah Goldberg, it is that, as a blogger, I no longer need to do serious intellectual work; I can get my readers to do it for me. I have two questions.
One for science fiction geeks:
I recently introduced Clever Wife to the idea of a ringworld. I am aware of only two authors that have used this idea so far: Larry Niven in his Ringworld series and Iain M. Banks in his novel Consider Phlebas. Does anyone know of another book, esay, or story that uses a ringworld as a setting?
Another one for kitchen geeks:
Over the last few years I have slowly stopped using all types of garlic other than fresh cloves. Clever Wife and I really like garlic. Does anyone know an easy way to clean the little holes in a garlic press? Right now I'm using either a toothpick or a sail needle to clear old pulp from the holes.
If I have learned anything from Jonah Goldberg, it is that, as a blogger, I no longer need to do serious intellectual work; I can get my readers to do it for me. I have two questions.
One for science fiction geeks:
I recently introduced Clever Wife to the idea of a ringworld. I am aware of only two authors that have used this idea so far: Larry Niven in his Ringworld series and Iain M. Banks in his novel Consider Phlebas. Does anyone know of another book, esay, or story that uses a ringworld as a setting?
Another one for kitchen geeks:
Over the last few years I have slowly stopped using all types of garlic other than fresh cloves. Clever Wife and I really like garlic. Does anyone know an easy way to clean the little holes in a garlic press? Right now I'm using either a toothpick or a sail needle to clear old pulp from the holes.
Plame grand jury still working
Jeralyn suggests that we might not have any resolution from the Plamegate grand jury till late next week. Despite the rumors that indictments might be coming down today, it makes a certain amount of sense for Fitzgerald to keep the grand jury in business until the last possible minute. If he drags out the suspense, there is always the possiblity that someone with a guilty conscience will crack and want to cut a deal.
Meanwhile, we have this to tide us over the weekend.
I can't wait to see the mugshot and I know reporters will be all over that court house trying to be the first to publish. The important question is, will Time manipulate the picture to make him darker and more sinister looking, like they did to OJ Simpson?
Jeralyn suggests that we might not have any resolution from the Plamegate grand jury till late next week. Despite the rumors that indictments might be coming down today, it makes a certain amount of sense for Fitzgerald to keep the grand jury in business until the last possible minute. If he drags out the suspense, there is always the possiblity that someone with a guilty conscience will crack and want to cut a deal.
Meanwhile, we have this to tide us over the weekend.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- A Texas court on Wednesday issued a warrant for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's arrest, and set an initial $10,000 bail as a routine step before his first court appearance on conspiracy and state money laundering charges.
Travis County court officials said DeLay was ordered to appear at the Fort Bend County, Texas, jail for booking, where he'd likely be fingerprinted and photographed. DeLay's lawyers had hoped to avoid such a spectacle.
The warrant, known as a capias, is "a matter of routine and bond will be posted," DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin said.
I can't wait to see the mugshot and I know reporters will be all over that court house trying to be the first to publish. The important question is, will Time manipulate the picture to make him darker and more sinister looking, like they did to OJ Simpson?
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Schadenfreude overdose
The last two weeks or so have been almost more fun than most of us bleeding-heart liberals and yellow-dog Democrats can handle. Bush's numbers keep falling and are now at levels that would have made Nixon wince. DeLay has been indicted and is to be fingerprinted and mug-shotted later this week. Frist is in trouble over questionable stock trades. And, everyone's favorite, it's looking more and more like the Plame smear is going to cost the administration very dearly. Every rumor brings a new giggle.
Any one of those would have been enough to make us happy, but the real gravy is that these problems are combining to create some real cracks in the conservative coalition. The Miers nomination has not satisfied the cultural right and they are not in a mood to be quiet about it. It might not be bloody civil war yet, but a few noses have been punched and egos wounded.
Today, David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, is crying because he's been given a little of the Rove treatment that is usually reserved for Democrats and John McCain.
Were the White House's ad hominem attacks on war critics unconscionably heavy-handed? Dirty, brutal politics have been a hallmark of this administration for over four years. It's been used against patriotic whistleblowers, honest political opposition, and mourning parents. Where was Keene's shock and indignation during that time?
Hypocrisy. Pure Hypocrisy. Once again, "marching in lock step without question or thought" is something that the administration has demanded since 9-11. Not just from the party, but from the whole country. Keene had no problem with that demand as long as he agreed with the program that people were being ordered to support. Now that he is the one being bullied around and it's all tears and "I'm going to take my ball and go home."
I have no sympathy for him at all. Frankly, I'm rather enjoying this.
Shakespeare's Sister and John Aravosis also have no sympathy for Keene. Poor baby.
The last two weeks or so have been almost more fun than most of us bleeding-heart liberals and yellow-dog Democrats can handle. Bush's numbers keep falling and are now at levels that would have made Nixon wince. DeLay has been indicted and is to be fingerprinted and mug-shotted later this week. Frist is in trouble over questionable stock trades. And, everyone's favorite, it's looking more and more like the Plame smear is going to cost the administration very dearly. Every rumor brings a new giggle.
Any one of those would have been enough to make us happy, but the real gravy is that these problems are combining to create some real cracks in the conservative coalition. The Miers nomination has not satisfied the cultural right and they are not in a mood to be quiet about it. It might not be bloody civil war yet, but a few noses have been punched and egos wounded.
Today, David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, is crying because he's been given a little of the Rove treatment that is usually reserved for Democrats and John McCain.
What is most troubling about this whole affair, however, is the way the administration has gone about trying to demonize conservatives who have raised questions about Ms. Miers. It began from day one to attack personally the motives, loyalty and judgment of anyone who questioned the wisdom of the nomination. Since then, the ad hominem attacks on Miers’s conservative critics have been unconscionably heavy-handed and will haunt the president regardless of how the nomination fight turns out.
Were the White House's ad hominem attacks on war critics unconscionably heavy-handed? Dirty, brutal politics have been a hallmark of this administration for over four years. It's been used against patriotic whistleblowers, honest political opposition, and mourning parents. Where was Keene's shock and indignation during that time?
Most conservatives have stood with Bush from the beginning. Those of us who know him like him. We’ve swallowed policies we might otherwise have objected to because we’ve believed that he and those around him are themselves conservatives trying to do the right thing against sometimes terrible odds. We’ve been there for him because we’ve considered ourselves part of his team.
No more.
From now on, this administration will find it difficult to muster support on the right without explaining why it should be forthcoming. The days of the blank check have ended because no thinking conservative really wants to be part of a team that requires marching in lock step without question or thought, even if it is headed by the president of the United States.
Hypocrisy. Pure Hypocrisy. Once again, "marching in lock step without question or thought" is something that the administration has demanded since 9-11. Not just from the party, but from the whole country. Keene had no problem with that demand as long as he agreed with the program that people were being ordered to support. Now that he is the one being bullied around and it's all tears and "I'm going to take my ball and go home."
I have no sympathy for him at all. Frankly, I'm rather enjoying this.
Shakespeare's Sister and John Aravosis also have no sympathy for Keene. Poor baby.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Yep, I'm a geek
John Scalzi has a book out for our reading pleasure, The Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies. He explains what we need to know before rushing out in a buying frenzy and grabbing a copy or three.
Thethe centerpiece of the book is The Canon: Reviews and commentary on the 50 science fiction films you have to see before you die. I'm sure you see what's coming next. Byzantium's Shores has officially converted the canon into a blog meme. According to estabished tradition, one must copy the list onto one's blog and bold those movies that one has seen. This is to be followed by a few words explaining ones geekiness or lack thereof.
The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension!
Akira
Alien
Aliens
Alphaville
Back to the Future
Blade Runner
Brazil
Bride of Frankenstein
Brother from Another Planet
A Clockwork Orange
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Contact
The Damned
Destination Moon
The Day The Earth Stood Still
Delicatessen
Escape From New York
ET: The Extraterrestrial
Flash Gordon: Space Soldiers (serial)
The Fly (1985 version)
Forbidden Planet
Ghost in the Shell
Gojira/Godzilla
The Incredibles
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956 version)
Jurassic Park
Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior
The Matrix
Metropolis
On the Beach
Planet of the Apes (1968 version)
Robocop
Sleeper
Solaris (1972 version)
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
The Stepford Wives
Superman
Terminator 2: Judgement Day
The Thing from Another World
Things to Come
Tron
12 Monkeys
28 Days Later
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
2001: A Space Odyssey
La Voyage Dans la Lune
War of the Worlds (1953 version)
What's interesting (or maybe not) is how closely my list mirrors PZ Myers' list. It was probably inevitable that I would be a science fiction geek. I grew up during the space race. i read comic books during long car trips with my family. When I was ready to graduate from comics to paperbacks, there was David Neiwert ready to loan me his Doc Savages. I hit the age when I was old enough and had enough money to go to the movies by myself right at the beginning of the 1968-78 golden age of science fiction movies. I'm just surprised that there is anyone my age who isn't a science fiction geek.
It's also a tradition that any list of this sort be met with cries of outrage over its omissions. Here's my contribution: Good lord man! How could you have left off King Kong?!? Even if you don't feel that the giant beast genre deserves inclusion (it does and Godzilla isn't sufficient representation), King Kong deserves recognition for Willis O'Brien's dinosaur modelwork.
John Scalzi has a book out for our reading pleasure, The Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies. He explains what we need to know before rushing out in a buying frenzy and grabbing a copy or three.
As you might expect from the title, the book is a guide to science fiction film, from the very first SF film in 1902, to this summer's biggest science fiction extravaganzas. That's 103 years of science fiction film in 325 pages, including the index (lovingly indexed, I'll note, by the super-competent and generally awesome Susan Marie Groppi). But -- of course -- it does some scene setting as well, putting SF films into context.
Thethe centerpiece of the book is The Canon: Reviews and commentary on the 50 science fiction films you have to see before you die. I'm sure you see what's coming next. Byzantium's Shores has officially converted the canon into a blog meme. According to estabished tradition, one must copy the list onto one's blog and bold those movies that one has seen. This is to be followed by a few words explaining ones geekiness or lack thereof.
The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension!
Akira
Alien
Aliens
Alphaville
Back to the Future
Blade Runner
Brazil
Bride of Frankenstein
Brother from Another Planet
A Clockwork Orange
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Contact
The Damned
Destination Moon
The Day The Earth Stood Still
Delicatessen
Escape From New York
ET: The Extraterrestrial
Flash Gordon: Space Soldiers (serial)
The Fly (1985 version)
Forbidden Planet
Ghost in the Shell
Gojira/Godzilla
The Incredibles
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956 version)
Jurassic Park
Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior
The Matrix
Metropolis
On the Beach
Planet of the Apes (1968 version)
Robocop
Sleeper
Solaris (1972 version)
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
The Stepford Wives
Superman
Terminator 2: Judgement Day
The Thing from Another World
Things to Come
Tron
12 Monkeys
28 Days Later
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
2001: A Space Odyssey
La Voyage Dans la Lune
War of the Worlds (1953 version)
What's interesting (or maybe not) is how closely my list mirrors PZ Myers' list. It was probably inevitable that I would be a science fiction geek. I grew up during the space race. i read comic books during long car trips with my family. When I was ready to graduate from comics to paperbacks, there was David Neiwert ready to loan me his Doc Savages. I hit the age when I was old enough and had enough money to go to the movies by myself right at the beginning of the 1968-78 golden age of science fiction movies. I'm just surprised that there is anyone my age who isn't a science fiction geek.
It's also a tradition that any list of this sort be met with cries of outrage over its omissions. Here's my contribution: Good lord man! How could you have left off King Kong?!? Even if you don't feel that the giant beast genre deserves inclusion (it does and Godzilla isn't sufficient representation), King Kong deserves recognition for Willis O'Brien's dinosaur modelwork.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
