I find Dick Morris fun to listen to - he's witty and willing to go out on a limb. But is he right when he says that John McCain's campaign has already imploded? The Arizona Senator never even made a dent on the PJM poll, but I thought that might have had to do with the fact our readership doesn't much care for McCain-Feingold. The general public, however, is unlikely to know what McCain-Feingold even is. And yet they seem to be rejecting McCain. This could be in the area of pure instinct. People react to candidates on a primitive level that transcends issues.
Also, as Morris notes, overexposure is a big danger. Even Obama may already be overexposed. The trick to winning this endless election will be not peaking too early. Either that, or getting so far ahead everybody else just gives up. These are the dual strategies in long-distance racing and seem to apply here.
Well, not exactly. But he did say this to Kyodo News: "I think the deal violates the principle that President Bush followed during his first term in office that we don't reward bad behavior, especially by rogue states and proliferators like North Korea," [former US UN Ambassador John] Bolton said.
He was talking about the recent six-party talks agreement with the NORKS. He added: "My concern is that we had North Korea in a corner after the nuclear test and now we've helped them get out of the corner," he said, pointing to the resumption of talks between the two Koreas, the probability that Seoul will resume the flow of aid to Pyongyang stopped after the nuclear test and reports that Australia will resume diplomatic ties with the North Koreans.
Bolton, the assistant secretary for international security and nonproliferation at the State Department before his stint as U.N. ambassador, said North Korea will not give up its nuclear program voluntarily and will inevitably cheat on the agreement.
Is Bolton right? Most probably. At least past experience makes it look that way.
Well, it was fun while it lasted (having Bolton in the UN, I mean).
Al Gore must be pretty embarrassed this evening seeing the headline at the top of the Drudge Report: POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'. You almost feel sorry for the guy. He can't catch a break the day after he wins an Oscar. (Okay, it was a gift. The movie as film was tenth-rate. But he did win.)
But there's a deeper question beneath all this. Does hypocrisy count? Does it matter that Hollywood stars parade around in Priuses while keeping private planes and multiple homes that burn up who-knows-how much energy (in many cases enough to dwarf Al's)? Is it just that these people mouth off that raises our eyebrows or should they actually practice what they preach ?
Now I don't have a particularly Green Lifestyle, although I am thinking of buying a hybrid for my next car (primarily because I can't stand to stick another dollar in the Saudi gas pump) and the next time I build something I'll probably pay more attention to good window sealing (the code will probably make me do that anyway). But what's with Gore? How could he be so thoughtless and, yes, arrogant to go out there banging the drum for his film at the very time, according to public records, he increased his already sizable personal energy consumption. How embarrassing and how terrible for his cause. Maybe he doesn't really care about it at bottom - maybe it's all about him.
In the movie business you see a lot of that, a kind of narcissistic politics in which how you appear is so much more important than what you really are. It's as if there were two people - the private one bossing around the staffs while burning up more fuel than the Sultan of Brunei and the public one wagging a finger at the rest of us. Gore seems to have fit in well with these folks. In the long run, I suspect that doesn't augur well for the environment.
UPDATE: In Gore defense, the ex-veep apparently did purchase some "Green Power" chits for his manse. But I was just on the Steve Gill's Tennessee talk radio show where it was pointed out this is one of but three Gore homes - and no one seems to know how much time he even spends there. Plus... there's always the use of Gulfstreams, etc., to ferry Al to his next (well paid) global warming extravaganza. Who knows the total of his "carbon footprint" but it's probably bigger that 99.99% of humanity's. Still.. it's only hypocrisy. For the right cause, no problem. Right. Right?
Sometimes I think Joe Lieberman is the last honest man in Congress. And he's relatively diplomatic too is his lengthy oped in the WSJ, urging his colleagues to give the "surge" a chance.
Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake--assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq.
In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger--forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake, which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill--probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a scale as yet unseen in Iraq.
I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed.
Everything here is eminently sensible. On the chance that Petraeus and Co. will succeed, we should not undercut them. They're there now - and no one will have the stomach for "Surge II."
Yet the Congress, as Lieberman indicates, seems to live in an alternate reality - many of them making quick jaunts to the Green Zone to pontificate on a situation about which no one could learn anything under such circumstances, at least nothing more than they could have learned on a couple of websites. It's all for show.
And speaking of show - what's with John Warner (one of the leading Senate Republican critics of the "surge") suddenly backing John McCain (one of its leading adherents) for President? Everything's only skin deep, yeah, yeah , yeah.
Of course they're dull. They're supposed to be. They're an awards ceremony, for crissakes. ... Of course they are not nearly as dull as the tedious critics above who take them seriously enough to write a full scale review of them. Nevertheless some people watched. But anyone who didn't multi-task should be as ashamed of him/herself. Even the nominees were multi-tasking, schmoozing up their next jobs, if I remember the scene from when I was nominated ages ago (1989). Also, as I recall, the parties afterwards were also deadly dull - no matter what the hyperventilating TV commentators make you want to think - though I was never invited to the vaunted Vanity Fair extravaganza, so perhaps I missed something (free drinks).
And the Oscar for the most racist film of the year goes to...
"Tom & Jerry is a Jewish Conspiracy"
What's particularly bizarre here is that Tom & Jerry is ascribed to Walt Disney who has himself been accused of anti-Semitism. Looking a the bland, accepting faces of the students in the room gives me the Willies. I wonder what some of our more "peacenik" Democratic candidates would make of this. What would they say?
Speaking of acronyms... btw... this blog was down for a few hours this morning. I forgot to pay the piper (Go Daddy). That's been rectified and the DNS apparently resolved quickly. In the US at least.
The pseudonymous Egyptian blogger Sandmonkey of Rantings of a Sandmonkey has an extremely moving article in Pajamas today about the sentencing of his fellow Egyptian blogger Abdel Kareem Soliman. Abdel Kareem (also spelled Karim) was given four years for "contempt for religion" and "insulting the president". He could easily be killed in jail by a religious fanatic, according to the Sandmonkey, if he doesn't go crazy in solitary first.
It's frustrating to read stories like this. You want to do something, but you don't know how. I quickly clicked onto the websites of Human Rights Watch and PEN (of which I was once the West Coast president), hoping they could do something, but found no references to Abdel Kareem under either spelling. Maybe I missed something. I checked Atrios and the Daily Kos as well, but nothing there either about their fellow blogger. Perhaps they are unaware of what is happening. You would think this was a situation that would transcend domestic politics - the guy's going to the slammer - but so far apparently not. Lots of stuff on Kos though about how Giuliani's numbers can't last and how he's going to implode. Sounds a little like some commenters on here.
Me, I'm more worried at the moment about Abdel Kareem. I have visited Al Azhar where he was a student until he opened his mouth and have some sense of what level of cojones that took. More than almost any of us have. And speaking of cojones, feminine division, I am just finishing Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran. I had read the first fifty pages a while back and just picked it up again. Now I can't put it down. I think it's some kind of masterpiece - one of those works like Nadezhda Mandelstam's Hope Against Hope that gives you a true glimpse of what it's like to live under totalitarianism. Interesting that they are both written by women.
Scenes from the Class Struggle in Beverly Hills - the rope line at the Obama fundraiser at the Beverly Hilton. By Roman Genn for Pajamas Media
The new Rasmussen Poll shows Rudy Giuliani "schmicing" Hillary Clinton 52% to 43% in a head-to-head of the current Republican and Democrat poll leaders. That's an extraordinary lead (and would be an electoral vote landslide), considering Rudy is running at the top of George Bush's party - and we alll know his numbers. Captain Ed agrees with his "good friend" David Geffen that this does not portend good things for Hillary. Her unfavorables are too high ever to win.
But what the Captain doesn't note is that Guiliani seems to be lapping the Republican field as well. If I were Rudy I'd be a bit nervous. It's waaay early. And the press will have to go after him - they will have no choice. Otherwise they won't sell newspapers. The Conventional Wisdom is that Rudy's numbers will go down after the public knows his naughty personal life. But will they? I'm skeptical that a large proportion don't know about it already. Rudy has been a hugely famous person for some time. One thing is certain, this latest poll is good for Obama. In the short run, Hillary doesn't look like a winner. She's got Geffenitis.
UPDATE: Meanwhile, things do not look so good for Gingrich, according to the maestro.
I've been trying to figure out why David Geffen was so harsh on Hillary Clinton. Whatever you can say about the music mogul, he is one shrewd character, quite savvy about the media and its ways. He's been in the public eye for thirty years or more. In all likelihood, he knew precisely what he was doing when he opened his mouth to Maureen Dowd on the eve of the first public Democratic presidential "debate." This was no accident.
So why?
Rumors are flying about. Geffen was angry that Bill pardoned the creepy Marc Rich but didn't pardon the "heroic" Leonard Peltier. (Clinton was wrong about Rich but right about Peltier, in my view.) I don't buy it. There would seemingly have to be something more personal or stronger to merit such vitriol (calling the Clintons liars on that level).
But I don't think it's personal at all. I think it has to do with something much more pragmatic to Geffen - and my wife Sheryl pointed this out. Geffen doesn't think Hillary can win.
Think about it - looking at the polls right now (yes, it's way early but still... you deal with what you've got), you see a Giuliani - Hillary head-to-head. Giuliani is winning. And the principal weakness Rudy has in a general election - his checkered private life - is completely useless to Hillary. Any comments by her and her supporters about Giuliani's marriages would elicit nothing but snorts. And they should!
Obama may be another matter. So far he seems to have a pretty good home life. He's personable in a way that Hillary isn't, which would undercut another advantage for Giuliani. Maybe I'm reading too much into this here, but Geffen made his billions picking winners (The Eagles, etc.). He's made another judgment. He may be right.
It's always amusing to read entertainment industry figures talking about lying. A Maureen Dowd column this morning has one of the richest and most powerful of all, David Geffen, slinging the following mud (or is it a laugh line): "Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it's troubling."
Whatever you think of the Clintons, that line is a masterpiece of projection from a man who made billions off other people's music. (How many lies did that take?) Nevertheless, Geffen draws blood in his attack on Hillary. The Obama-Clinton battle should be something to watch.
I don't spend a lot of time reading Variety anymore (not that I ever really did), but it was hard to miss their editor Peter Bart's column today on the Hollywood political mood, which has been referenced across the Internet. In particular, Bart writes this rather spooky paragraph:
There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.
Now it's not clear here whether Bart was in attendance or what exactly Edwards intended by his remark. Was the candidate castigating Israel for what would arguably be an act of self-defense or was he merely commenting on an obviously dangerous situation? Hard to tell in this kind of semi-gossip writing. Bart does himself no credit by going on with a follow-up paragraph about evangelical support of Israel as if this were something new. Hardly. Israel was filled with evangelical tourists when I first went there over twenty years ago. Has Bart ever gone? I don't know.
I found Bart's column depressing, creating, as it did, the vision of Hollywood as a lock-step community. Perhaps it is, but that makes artists like David Zucker, Ron Silver, even Arnold himself into non-persons.
Speaking of Arnold, Bart writes that "liberals" (whatever that means anymore) have to play catch-up with Schwarzenegger on environmental issues. I wonder if it occurs to Bart that some of us are able to separate our thinking on various subjects. I guess he wants everyone to adopt that "old time Hollywood religion." As one famous Hollywood character (Samuel Goldwyn) once said: "Include me out."
I cannot help but think that John McCain's very public and definitive early opposition to Roe v. Wade has a lot to do with Giuliani's equally early lead in the polls. "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned," [McCain] said yesterday in South Carolina, a key early primary state. (via Michael J. W. Stickings) Stickings also points out that Republicans don't like mavericks. Probably not. Neither do Democrats obviously. They ran Lieberman out of the party.
Frankly I don't believe most politicians when they talk about Roe. I would be curious to see where McCain stood were he to have a thirteen-year old daughter who had been raped. But that's another matter. The way our political campaigns are set up intelligent discussion is abjured in favor of pandering to the base. Witness Hillary's recent pronouncements about setting time tables in Iraq. Were she president would she actually do that? I don't know - but I suspect not. Any American president would be faced with a reality that might even shake Cindy Sheehan (well, maybe not...). We move wholesale out of Iraq and not only does Al Qaeda move in, but more importantly Iran - a soon-to-be-nuclear power run by religious fanatics - into the bargain. That would be sobering, I would think, when sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office.
This pandering to get nominated is one of the weaknesses of our two-party system and, with this long election season, it is particularly so. The abortion issue is a clear example. If McCain were to win the Republican nomination on a strong anti-Roe platform, he would have extraordinarily difficult, almost impossible, time in the general election, especially if facing a woman (Hillary). Of course, I am pro-choice, so you don't have to believe me. But even so, I am giving what I think is cold political analysis. Also I will admit that I am not very interested in social and economic issues in this election. I'm looking for a leader in the war and so far neither Hillary, nor McCain impress me.
Something "new" from Assad/ something "old" from Hillary
Alert the media, media. Syrian president Assad, just back from a visit to his Iranian sometimes buddies, said: "Through effort and co-ordination we have to enlighten public opinion about the ominous aims of the US and Zionists." Hmm... seems to me that's what they've been doing morning, noon and night for the last fifty years but... well, at least Bashar didn't have to hire a speechwriter for that one.
Meanwhile, Hillary wants us to start moving out of Iraq in 90 days. Do you think she really believes what she says? I don't. I think she's actually smarter than that and she is trapped in a sad game, caught between her own ambitions and the maneuverings of the Murtha Mafia. Not exactly a Profile in Courage.
Sheryl and I are up in Seattle again, making the short run across the Puget Sound to Bainbridge Island. But even in this idyllic environment, the world is not very far off. The Coast Guard is here with their little run-abouts, guarding the ferry on a beautiful day, the snow-capped Olympics in the background. I am trying to ignore the sad troglodytes in our Congress who seem to have little regard for their own futures or anybody else's. Have a nice Saturday.
The House of Murtha by Anne Flaherty (redacted version)
Anne Flaherty of the AP fervently kisses the feet of John Murtha in her idolatrous news reporting today"Murtha Moves to Forefront of Iraq Debate." I doubt who John Murtha really is slipped her mind (even though it isn't in the article), but I will remind her. John Murtha is a creepy, corrupt politician who escaped an Abscam indictment by testifying against his peers:
And this isn't just Sean Hannity bloviating. You can see the full version here. Murtha is pond scum. The best you can say of him is that he is the kind of pol who - knowing full well he was dealing with corrupt criminals willing to give bribes- urges those same criminals to invest in his district before bribing him. ("Don Corleone, please invest in my sister's brothel...").
Now I am certain Flaherty knows all this, because she does allude to his loss to Steyn Hoyer for Majority Leader. As many readers will recall, this is when Murtha's unfortunate past popped up again and Pelosi didn't know what to do. Shame on Flaherty for bowdlerizing this all now. This was true criminal activity, not some sexual dalliance or free trip to play golf at the Four Seasons Maui.
Of course, Murtha's extreme seaminess doesn't make him wrong about Iraq. But it does tell us the kind of man he is. That he continued to run for Congress after being so unmasked is just despicable... and that the Democrats continue to play along, even worse.
Was Groucho a member of our Congress when he sang: "Whatever it is, I'm against it...?"
It's hard to take seriously foreign policy talk in our Congress after learning, some weeks ago, that Silvestre Reyes, the Democratic nominee to head the House Intelligence Committee, couldn't tell a Shiite from a Sunni. So my suggestion to the bloviators on the floor of our Congress, debating the Iraq War with the intelligence of Margaret Dumont herself, is they should give up it all up, kick back and watch the greatest of all war movies... then maybe it will be all over and someone will tell them what a Shiite is... hopefully without a knife to their throats.
Like Rudy Giuliani, I have had a checkered romantic life. (Maybe that's why I have sympathy for him.) Can't say I'm exactly proud of it, but it has provided me with fodder for fiction writing. (And some fun ... and embarrassing ... memories, I admit). But for well over a decade now I have been married to the same woman, Sheryl Longin, and those years have been the best of my life. She is my lover, best friend and all the other clichés you can add to it... including this one: Happy Valentine's Day, Sheryl! I love you!
The Austrian-made Steyr gun is a hard guy to ignore since it is armor-piercing. According to the Daily Telegraph, they were sold legally to the Iranians and now .. somehow... have wound up in the hands of the terrorists in Iraq... yet another smoking gun.
Of course, the US is to be disbelieved. Our government lied about WMDs, etc., etc., we must be lying about this.
But what if we're not? What if Iran is really and truly at war with us? What do we do? This is not so simple at the moment. Most of the European public and a large part of the American public doesn't seem to care what Iran does ... or perhaps more accurately doesn't want to think about it. The more "aware" console themselves with reports that Ahmadinejad is in eclipse. Or so they would have us think because of some elections that don't count for all that much anyway. Meanwhile, the mullahs keep building their nuclear capacity. Wasn't it Nixon who told us "Watch what I do, not what I say"? He was certainly right about that. Someone can easily say "Make my day" or even "I love you" while blowing you to smithereens with a Steyr gun.
Didn't your grandmother tell you that cheaters never prosper?
We've been having fun over at Pajamas tracking the cheaters on our weekly presidential straw poll (yes, their votes will be deducted.). We know a lot more about them then they realize. Some people are obviously goofing off at work for some big corporations, others are just goofing off. In the coming weeks, as the poll spreads to other websites, this will be more difficult for the spammers to do. Of course they'll still be able to, if they really want to waste their time. But the chances are we'll see what they're doing. If I were a candidate, I'm not sure I'd enjoy seeing support for me that is obviously bogus to all. But, as they in on the internet, YMMV.
If it's true that North Korea has agreed to disarm (and the devil will not only be in the details but in the actions themselves), this is a huge sea change in the world situation. Without the nuclear Norks, the Iranians, Syrians and Venezuelans are significantly less powerful. PJM calls this a Libya-style agreement, but it is much more than that. If ever the words "stay tuned"meant anything, this is the time.
I have long last patience for the Valerie Plame Affair, but I had to smile when I read today's coverage by Byron York in the New York Post. This whole silly exercise in taxpayer waste has turned into a kind of Boomer Opera Bouffe filled with strange memory lapses. Judith Miller, Tim Russert... hardly anyone seems to remember what they did or heard. Can't say I blame them. I have similar lapses myself. And it's going to get worse. But there is hope, at least according to this report.
Of course, this is all about whether Scooter Libby lied to a grand jury, a crime for which he may pay dearly. Which is also ironic since virtually everybody connected to this creepy affair is lying in some way or other. Joseph C. Wilson, the instigator of this nonsense, lied quite publicly on the oped page of New York Times. As for the reporters covering the case, well, the less said the better. After all, they have their livelihoods to protect. Where would they be without illegal leaks?
This tedious business has turned into a money machine for lawyers and authors. But beneath is something serious - the ongoing rivalry between the DIA and the CIA. The latter, the mammoth bureaucracy famous for missing the fall of the Soviet Union, doesn't like its competition. Who does?
For a young(ish) man, Barack Obama seems to be starting his campaign on particularly dull, one-size-fits-all note. Take a look at his YouTube video, packed full of hoary political clichés - "We begin a great journey... opens up the process... empowers ever day voters... vehicle for your hopes and dreams... "
What those hopes and dreams might be he doesn't say. Doesn't want to offend anybody, I suppose. So far the man is a monumental bore with little to say. I don't think Hillary has much to worry about. Spielberg has already switched back to her. Can Geffen be far behind? Obama is over before he started. Much more here.
Listen up Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters and the rest of the "race politics" crowd. (And Mr. Johnny too, if he can hear from beyond the grave.) Barack Obama is not playing the tired race card. Good for him!
Drudge reports the following from a Steve Kroft interview with the candidate to air on Sixty Minutes this Sunday:
Will being African-American hold him back as a candidate? "No.... If I don't win this race it will be because of other factors --[that] I have not shown to the American people a vision for where the country needs to go that they can embrace," Obama tells Kroft.
Hannity & Colmes ran one of those snap polls last night, asking their viewers to choose between Giuliani, Romney and McCain for the Republican presidential nomination via text messaging. Rudy won in a walk (54%) with McCain coming in a disastrous third (14%), faring only slightly better than he is in the Pajamas Media poll. Nina Easton popped up to defend McCain, but I suspect his popularity stems from mainstream media folks like Nina and that his candidacy will implode.
What was more interesting was the panic on Alan Colmes' face at the obvious strength of Giuliani's candidacy. How come those Republicans weren't upset with the mayor's suspect social values, etc.? Colmes knew the truth that Dick Morris, sitting next to him, spoke out loud - the candidate the Democrats fear most is Giuliani. Indeed, in my view, he might clean their clock. In his private email (you can subsribe on his site) Morris is predicting that Giuliani and Hilary will win their respective party nominations de facto by the end of '07. That will give us a long wait before the conventions.
I always thought Tim Russert was a fatuous phony and today we have proof. I think many of us can remember when Meet the Press was a panel, not a one man show. Power corrupts, indeed.
Is it just because I disagree with some (not all) of her political views that I find Nancy Pelosi distasteful? As I watched her tonight on the Greta Van Susteren show, backing and shuffling on the why-it's-okay-for-me-to-have my-own-military-jet-issue, all I could think of was I was watching a half-bright, elitist rich lady from a tony San Francisco suburb with no real convictions, only a lust for power. Having lived most of my life in Hollywood, I admit to having a low tolerance for privileged hypocrites mouthing liberal pieties. But you would think that someone with a professed devotion to the environment would have more sense of how she appears. Whatever happened to the concept of leading by example? Frankly, the environmental area is where I would normally be most sympathetic to Pelosi's views. But being lectured by such a person is a complete turnoff. She makes me want to guzzle gas, pollute and run around in an humongous vehicle just like hers.
UPDATE: I have to admit that some of this car/plane stuff appears to have been overblown. In the car/SUV area, it's pretty clear Pelosi was just driving in an assigned vehicle. A lot (not all) of what I have written above is inconsequential and I apologize for it.
I was very pleased on several levels to read that Hillary Clinton has teamed up with Palestinian Media Watch to promote a new report on the continued anti-Israel bias of Palestinian textbooks. I think it's obvious to most of us that preaching racism in children's texts is a particularly horrifying form of child abuse - it's part of what turns people into suicide bombers.
But I'm especially glad that it is Senator Clinton, a Democratic Party liberal, speaking out for once. People can say it's just because she's running for President and courting the Jewish vote. But she's a politician. That's what she does. And the world situation makes it mandatory that people who describe themselves as liberals begin to own the gravity of the struggle as well and speak out.
Good. As most readers of this site know, I favor Rudy. At least for now. I say "for now" because anything can happen almost two years out from an election, but for me he is a strong favorite. He seems to be the only candidate in either party with the leadership experience and capabilities to handle the global crisis we are now in, a crisis which is highly unlikely to get much better in the immediate future.
And, yes, I tend to agree with him on the social issues (where I am, if anything, more liberal than he is), but that is beside the point. There are no social issues or much of anything else until we defeat the rise of Islamism. I don't know why anybody in the world would want the responsibility of being President now, but I'm relieved Giuliani wants to take a chance.
It's worth remembering in all the Global Warming screeching that the US Senate voted 95-0 against the Kyoto Protocol. If you look down the list at the link, you'll find some of our most liberal Senators (Feingold, Wellstone, Durbin, etc.) opposed it, no matter what they say now.
They did this for a reason. Looked at closely, Kyoto - which excludes the two most populous nations on Earth, China and India, because their economies are just "developing" - actually, although covertly, promotes Global Warming. The Chinese know this. Look at their reaction today to the latest global warming utterances from the UN. And the Chinese, naturally enough, are signatories to the Protocol - a document which is pretty close to unenforceable anyway. Why not sign?
If you are genuinely concerned with global warming - and I think all of us should be in an intelligent scientific way - start finding solutions that are less political and more technological. Kyoto is a propaganda item.
Contentions - the new blog of Commentary Magazine - has rapidly become one of the most interesting stops for informed, well, commentary on the Internet. They have an impressive array of participants (VDH when he's not over at Pajamas, Max Boot, etc.).
In the last few days they have been discussing the flap over an American Jewish Committee pamphlet by Alvin Rosenfeld ("Progressive" Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism), which drew some attention from the New York Times. Rosenfeld's essay concerns what he believes to be a mounting assault on Israel by Jews on the Left. (Judt, etc.) The Times piece, interestingly, characterizes the AJC as "conservative." How times have changed. (Or perhaps the author is simply illiterate.)
Ruth Wisse sums things up well in her post at Contentions: Jews, "Progressives" and The New York Times. (The quotes around progressives may be bring a smile to readers of this blog. The lyrics to "Which Side Are You On" have been turned on their heads for many of us.) Here's Wisse's conclusion:
Similarly, real existing anti-Semitism seems to interest the Times far less than does the drama of Jew-against-Jew in which the Times gets to name aggressors and victims. In this offhand, underhanded manner the paper's editors and reporters abet the anti-Semitic lie that the existence of Israel "explains" the misery and rage of the people yelling for its destruction and for the destruction of all Jews everywhere.
UPDATE: I now see that the NYT's website has "corrected" its characterization of the AJC as "conservative." From my POV, their initial blind characterization - do they actually have editors? - is yet another indication that the NYT is, in essence, reactionary.
MORE: You can download the Rosenfeld essay as a PDF at the AJC link above. Just search on the title. You must sign up at the site, however.
Good cops and bad cops in Iran and the enviornment
Ahmadinejad, considered the Iranian bad cop, is said to be in (partial) eclipse these days. I don't know if those rumors are true, but I suspect they don't matter that much. The Iranian president seems to be doing his job and, more importantly, their nuclear program continues whether hardliners or "traditional conservatives" are running the show. A recent article in the NYT Magazine, apparently endorsing the Ahmadinejad-in-trouble line, curiously didn't mention that nation's nukes at all. Perhaps, like Chirac, they wanted to assure us that all is well and that even if the Iranians obtain nuclear weapons they wouldn't use them. The mullahs are reasonable folks, we are to assume, and all this Twelfth Imam talk is just a side show. The writer of the NYT piece, Laura Secor, went her merry hijab-clad way across Iran (no Fallaci she), taking down notes from mullahs and regurgitating them as if the vevak and taqqiya did not exist.
Well, believe what you will. The message we are being fed now is that we shouldn't worry so much about Iran and pay attention to what's really important - global warming. Indeed, it probably is, to some degree or another. But it strikes me that both sides - right and left - are open to accusations of lack of seriousness at the present moment. There is an opportunity to come together over energy independence, which would cut in both directions at once, but not nearly enough people are seizing it. Some right wingers look upon the sanctity of "free markets" with as much religious devotion as Al Gore appears to regard the sanctity of the environment. Enough of this new form of idol worship. What we need is pragmatism and cold hard facts - facts about the environment and facts about Iran. Neither are easy to get.
February 28, 2007
The Austrian-made Steyr gun is a hard guy to ignore since it is armor-piercing. According to the