Xark!

Pushback in London

It didn't take people long to push back against those "report odd photographers" posters put up by the police in London...

Mellowing back to sanity

Cal Thomas and I disagree on some fairly important stuff (Thomas believes that the Bible is reason enough to uphold laws banning gay sex; I believe gay couples should have the same civil rights as straight couples), but it turns out there's some pretty important stuff on which we agree entirely:

As with religion, some people on the right have used patriotism, which should be a unifying theme, to divide Americans. My liberal friends love America as much as I do. They might disagree on some, or all, of my political and religious beliefs, but that does not make them less in love with America, much less un-American.

I don't want to put too much weight on this column (which I appreciated on several levels) or on some kind of conversion by Thomas, who has actually cautioned the right against some of its whacko excesses, like that overblown "War on Christmas" Fox gave us back in 2005. But I do think that it's a good sign that we're hearing this now. Not so much the words, even, but the tone of those words.

Dick Cheney: Not part of Executive Branch

(Cartoonist note: I didn't really get to complete this one before I went to work this morning, so this updated, final version has some differences from the one I put up earlier today-- dc)

Mooninites for morons

Attention, citizens of Boston (and over-sensitive drama queens everywhere)!

This is a mooninite. A mooninite is an advanced, absurdly arrogant and highly annoying creature from the Moon. They first appeared in an episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force in October of 2001 and have since been featured in five additional shows (they showed up again for single episodes in 2002, 2003 and 2006, and in two 2004 episodes). The original mooninites episode is still probably the show's zenith (although for me, it's a toss-up between the mooninites and The Wisdom Cube).

They are all excellent spellers, but they are not terrorists. And those alleged bomb-like packages that got Boston's panties all in a twist? This is what they looked like. Terrified yet?

Some people were -- and are -- highly upset about the fact that a couple of "hoaxsters" put these up in Boston (funny -- in nine other cities the people who put them up were called "marketers" and nobody got upset). Then again, some people really need to get over themselves. It's a stupid joke. Laugh or don't. But don't ask me to take this stuff so seriously.

We do whatever we want whenever we want, at all times. -Ignignokt, a moonite

Torture: Pragmatism and politics

The GOP's current intra-party revolt against the Bush administration -- led by presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain and his supporters in the Senate --  is telling us quite a bit about the next two years.

Bush, overburdened with global responsibilities and deprived of maneuver room, has decided that his new strategy for the Nov. 7 mid-term Congressional elections will be to sell his old ideas more forcefully. If he succeeds and the GOP retains its control of both chambers of Congress, then he is virtually assured of completing his second term without facing hard questions about his administration's conduct.

That sounds like a win to some conservatives, but to Bush's critics within the GOP, it's a temporary -- and ultimately destructive -- victory. From their perspective, retaining the House and Senate on the President's terms only delays an inevitable accounting for the mistakes of the past four years. And that could turn 2008 -- a presidential year -- into a debacle for the Republican Party.

If you're McCain, standing on a stack of favorable polling results and gazing ahead at the Presidential horizon, getting that unpleasant accounting started in January just makes sense. So while some see this as nothing more complex than a principled stand, it also adds up to an aggressively smart political move.  Like an early break-away in a critical stage of the Tour de France, McCain is out to win the 2008 nomination right now, a move that could fundamentally change a lot of assumptions within the political class.

Presidents in their final years often slump into lame duck status, but this week's defiance by McCain and three other members of the Senate Armed Forces Committee threatens to turn Bush into a potted plant. Not only is McCain positioning himself to run against Bush's record, his defiance is forcing Republican incumbents toward  a tough choice:  cast their lot with their party's leader-in-waiting, or support Bush and make ready to defend that decision to angry voters.

To clarify: This is not WWII

Time out.

This is not 1939.

President Bush is not Winston Churchill.

Our Islamist enemies are not Adolph Hitler.

Your political critics are not Neville Chamberlain.

You are not Audie Murphy, or Ike, or Ernie Pyle.

There was only one "Greatest Generation," and the rest of us don't get to play rhetorical piggyback on their story. 

This is not the eve of World War II, even though some of us clearly wish it were, conveniently forgetting the horror and devastation caused by "The Good War." Viewed across a gulf of more than 60 years, it all seems rather cinematic now -- archetypal, clean -- and our tendency to find parallels to its storylines is understandable. World War II shaped our modern military, vaulted the United States into the role of superpower and reinvented our sense of national identity and purpose. It was our defining moment in the 20th century, and we yearn for its clarity.

We miss the black-and-white moral choices of that conflict,  the obvious targets, the stand-up fights against a uniformed enemy.  We want its mantle, its righteous cause, its sense of shared sacrifice (not the actual sacrifices, mind you, but the sense of them). We want the blessings of history, the trappings of heroism.

This isn't that.

It's been said that the longer an argument goes, the likelihood that somebody will invoke Hitler approaches zero. Considering that we've been fighting the War on Terror longer than our grandparents fought the Axis, I suppose this current obsession with WWII was inevitable. But we need to resist it.

"Refighting the last war" is a classic military blunder, an occupational hazard for generals. It's worth remembering that this is also true for armchair generals.  Success demands that we recognize the reality now, and confront it with tools that match the job.

Comparisons of our current troubles to those of 1939 are comforting to some and profitable to others. But the blessings of history will be on those who see things as they are, not as they once were.

We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you

Justice Department attorneys said in their legal brief that the legality of the president's actions could only be properly judged by understanding "the specific threat facing the nation and the particular actions taken by the president to meet that threat."

"That understanding is not possible without revealing to the very adversaries we are trying to defeat what we know about them and how we are proceeding to stop them," they wrote.

The Associated Press: White House Invokes Privilege in Spy Cases, May 27, 2006

 

A psychological enigma

NYU journalism professor and PressThink founder Jay Rosen dipped into his own comment section Saturday to leave this remarkable summary of our current state of political and rhetorical affairs. I reproduce it here with only minimal editing:

Maybe some people think that it's not all that important for the stated reasons to go to war (Saddam has WMD, Saddam is in bed with al-Qaeda)  and the clinching reason ("we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud") to be the actual reasons, or even to be true at all.

If it doesn't matter because the war is just and necessary, then I could see how all this furor over the rationale for going to war seems absurd and highly unfair (A variant on this theory: it doesn't matter because Bush went to war with (a) wink, and most Americans saw the wink and understood that he had many excellent reasons and picked the one that would shut the U.N. up, or sound the best to potential allies, and quiet the press, etc.).

That part I can grasp.  I don't agree with it; but I can grasp it.

What I can't grasp is why, if you hold this view, you then fight tooth and claw against the growing pile of evidence that the books were cooked and the intelligence slanted and the nuclear threat turbo-hyped and the decision to go war was a foregone conclusion from 2002 on.

In the realpolitik world where it doesn't matter what the stated reasons were because the cause is just and the deed necessary, it is precisely Bush's willingness to do such things (and take the heat) that would mark him as a leader fit for the times, tough enough for an era of global terrorism. Here's a man who does what it takes. He finds a way. He doesn't let the cumbersome formalities of reason-giving, of building a case before the eyes of the world, become an obstacle to doing what's right, what's necessary, and what's in American interests.

This should be a point of pride among Bush supporters. Instead (as this thread shows) they are being driven crazy by every piece of evidence that comes out showing that, as expected, the stated reasons were not the actual reasons, the intel was slanted to fit a pre-determined conclusion, the facts were fixed around the policy, and the decision was made to go to war regardless of all the formalities.

Why do they refuse pride and pick hand-to-hand combat over every fact emerging? I don't know the answer, but my suspicion is that the ultimate reasons are not political but psychological, or let's say they lie within the realm of political psychology. (And here I speak not of individuals but tendencies in the 35-40 percent of the body politic still with the President.)

In their view, Bush is "guilty" only of doing what's necessary for the country, even if that means breaking the rules and customs of our democracy, cooking the books, and bullshitting the world. But while his supporters admire him, a true leader, for taking on that guilt, (which they don't see as real guilt) they accept none of it for themselves. Their innocence has to remain undisturbed.  Perfect, in fact.

This, of course, is impossible.

Posted by: Jay Rosen  at April 15, 2006 08:50 PM | Permalink

I'd say that pretty much sums up my thinking on the matter, only with far greater eloquence.

E-mails from the new "Know-Nothings"

When American nativism first crawled out of the sewer in the 19th century, its targets weren't always so easy to spot: fellow Europeans who had the disqualifying characteristic of having arrived after the "real Americans" who had been born here (often to immigrant parents). Their approach to the problem? Violence, discrimination and bad government policies. With their penchant for thuggery, the group took on the name of its standard response when confronted with evidence of crimes: members would say they "knew nothing."

Today's "know-nothing nativists" aren't the violent brawlers their ideological forebears were. But if you want to see the racist mindset behind the moderate media face of the anti-immigration movement, consider these e-mails that I've received in the past week (I wound up on some interesting mailing lists after subscribing to multiple conservative newsletters)...

THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS' POEM
I cross ocean,
poor and broke,
Take bus,
see employment folk.

Nice man treat me
good in there,
Say I need to
see welfare.

Welfare say,
"You come no more,
We send cash
right to your door."

Welfare checks,
they make you wealthy,
Medicaid it keep
you healthy!

By and by,
I got plenty money,
Thanks to you,
American dummy.

Write to friends
in motherland,
Tell them 'come
fast as you can.'
 
They come in turbans
and Ford trucks,
I buy big house
with welfare bucks

They come here,
we live together,
More welfare checks,
it gets better!
 
Fourteen families,
they moving in,
But neighbor's patience
wearing thin.

Finally, white guy
moves away,
Now I buy his house,
and then I say,
"Find more aliens
for house to rent."
And in the yard
I put a tent.
 
Send for family
they just trash,
But they, too,
draw the welfare cash!

Everything is
very good,
And soon we
own the neighborhood.
We have hobby
it's called breeding,
Welfare pay
for baby feeding.

Kids need dentist?
Wife need pills?
We get free!
We got no bills!
American crazy!
He pay all year,
To keep welfare
running here.

We think America darn good place!
Too darn good for the white man race.
If they no like us, they can scram,
Got lots of room in Pakistan.

SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW!

Low, wide right and foul

Vice President Dick Cheney threw out the ceremonial first pitch at today's home opener for the Washington Nationals, but the crowd of 25,000 didn't stick to the FOX News script. They booed him loud. They booed him long (watch the Quicktime video via ThinkProgress).

How did FOX handle this incoming-reality crisis, this bit of Heartland kitsch theater gone awry? Well, first they turned off the audio. Then their talking head made sure not to mention to crowd's surly response -- at all.

Let's put that in context. It would be like Cheney going to a photo-op at Yellowstone and being mauled by a grizzly, and the FOX New guy just nervously talking about the administration's brilliant environmental record.

Fortunately for us, the FOX producers turned up the audio in anticipation of the cheer that usually accompanies a typical ceremonial pitch -- only there was no cheer this time. Just loud derision.

What's a FOX media lackey to do? Apparently, the solution is to praise the veep's throw, which started shy of the mound and still didn't make it all the way to the plate:

Let's take a look here. There's the vice president, tossing out the pitch. Not a bad pitch. Seemed like it was over the plate. A little low. A bit of a bounce before it hit the catcher's mitt. Pretty good for the vice president. And of course wearing his Nationals' jacket. Folks in Washington, DC, thrilled finally to have a baseball team back in the nation's capital...

As someone going by the handle War4Sale commented at Think Progress this afternoon: "19% Approval rating!!! Cheney is now less popular than herpes."

Ah yes. Listen to that sound. When a politician can't do a photo-op at a ballpark without being publicly humiliated, something has changed. And it's about time, if you asked me.

When in the course of 'Human Events'...

This morning my subscription to The Conservative Voice e-mail newsletter brought this advertisement for "Human Events," and -- boy-howdy! -- it's personally signed by Ann Coulter herself!

Not familiar with the publication? Don't ask me -- let Ann describe it to you in her own (well, allegedly her own) words!

HUMAN EVENTS (which you can get at a big discount with a free best-selling book) is written and edited by gutsy people who will rescue you from the sticky tar pit of political correctness that passes for contemporary reporting... not girlie-boy editors afraid of sticking to their guns!...

Every time I wince at the brazen lies of Democratic leaders or their surrogates in the press, it occurs to me that America will never run short of natural gas...

FACT: Democrats are caught up in the Abramoff lobbying scandal too...

FACT: The Iraq war is consuming far less of the US GDP than other wars in the past...

FACT: A national survey found that Democratic professors outnumber Republican professors 3 to 1 in economics, 28 to 1 in sociology, and 30 to 1 in anthropology...

There's so much at stake today. America is at war and liberals just don't get it. Never has it been more important for you to get the truth -- and not the P.C. pabulum that filters through the establishment media.

When PC propagandists assure us that jihadist terror doesn't reflect "true," "peaceful" Islam, they're not only wrong, they're dangerous -- because in doing so they lull America into letting its guard down. And not only do self-appointed "experts" get Islam itself wrong -- they have also replaced the truth about Christian Europe and the Crusades with an all-pervasive historical fantasy that is designed to make you ashamed of your own culture and heritage -- and thus less determined to defend it. But now there's a remedy: In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), Robert Spencer reveals all the disturbing facts about Islam and its murderous hostility to the West that other books ignore, softpedal -- or simply lie about.

What an utterly amazing document.

Urgency. Danger! You're gutsy -- they're cowards! They're educated -- but you're smarter! We just want the truth -- but they've all got an agenda!

And here's what I find illuminating -- the "experts" out there aren't just wrong... they have deliberately "replaced the truth" with an "all-pervasive historical fantasy." And what's the goal of this vast conspiracy? It's "designed to make you ashamed of your own culture and heritage -- and thus less determined to defend it."

Wow. The whole of history and current events boiled down to one basic psychodrama: when confronted with evidence that challenges their beliefs, these conservatives feel ashamed. And some people simply can't handle shame. They can't accept the notion that what they believed to be noble and true was less than perfectly thus -- and so, consequently, those who speak these heresies must be the problem.

Sometimes I think that the first step toward peace is learning to take ourselves a little less seriously.

In a word: Truthiness

Charleston's own Stephen Colbert introduces the word "truthiness" (later named "Word of the Year" for 2005) on the Oct. 17th inaugural episode of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report:

I will speak to you in plain, simple English. And that brings us to tonight's word: "truthiness." Now I'm sure some of the "word police," the "wordanistas" over at Webster's are gonna say, "Hey, that's not a word." Well, anyone who knows me knows I'm no fan of dictionaries or reference books.

I don't trust books. They're all fact, no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. 'Cause face it, folks; we are a divided nation. Not between Democrats and Republicans, or conservatives and liberals, or tops and bottoms.

No, we are divided between those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart.

Consider Harriet Miers. If you "think" about Harriet Miers, of course her nomination's absurd. But the president didn't say he "thought" about his selection. He said this:

(video clip of President Bush:) "I know her heart."

Notice he didn't say anything about her brain? He didn't have to. He "feels" the truth about Harriet Miers.

And what about Iraq? If you "think" about it, maybe there are a few missing pieces to the rationale for war. But doesn't taking Saddam out "feel" like the right thing?

And here's Colbert, talking out-of-character to The Onion A.V. Club:

Truthiness is tearing apart our country, and I don't mean the argument over who came up with the word...

It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the president because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country.

I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true? ...

Truthiness is "What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true." It's not only that I feel  it to be true. There's not only an emotional quality, but there's a selfish quality.

As Kurt Vonnegut Jr. would say: "And so on." (Thanks to Wikipedia for the Truthiness entry... soldier photos are of Jessica Lynch -- rescued Iraq war POW -- and Pat Tillman, a former NFL player who was killed in Afghanistan by friendly fire. Both were the subjects of blatantly dishonest yet widely reported "truthiness.").

When generals whine

Via Americablog:

Guess what? America's top military leaders don't like WaPo cartoonist Tom Toles. In particular, they don't like the Jan. 29 Toles cartoon below. Now guess what they did about it.

Yep. You guessed it. Our Joint Chiefs of Staff took time out from their busy schedules to write a letter to The Washington Post complaining about Toles' "reprehensible" cartoon.

Don't like something in America? Well, fine, speak your mind! But understand that -- as you speak -- your mind is revealed. To put it bluntly, the group-mind revealed by their Jan. 31 letter -- signed by each of the chiefs -- is not pretty.

First off, the Chiefs just don't get it -- or they pretend they don't get it. Either option is unflattering.

Second, the the rhetoric employed in their assault on Mr. Toles is exactly the kind of achingly over-martyred, self-righteous victim-speak that we here at Xark (well, more specifically, ME) have come to despise. The result is a stunning triumph in the ever-burgeoning field of 21st century totalitarian kitsch. It's time that we started holding our government officials accountable for this kind of devisive, politically calculated culture-war bullshit.

In truth, I would have respected their letter if the Chiefs had said "Look, we've seen combat, and we've visited people who've had their legs blown off, and we're sensitive to images like this. No matter what Mr. Toles point was, we don't like this image." Fine. Point taken.

But that's not what they wrote. After some boilerplate about the nobility and sacrifice of our service members, the Chiefs opined:

Where do we get such men and women? From the cities, and the farmlands of this great Nation -- they serve to be part of something greater than themselves. While you or some of your readers may not agree with the war or its conduct, we believe you owe the men and women and their families who so selflessly serve our country the decency to not make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices.

Note to the Joint Chiefs: Tom Toles didn't "make light" of anyone's sacrifices. Nobody laughs at such things. This isn't Toles poking fun at mangled soldiers -- it's Toles poking our military leadership (specifically, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld) in the eye for not doing right by those soldiers in the first place. And the truth hurts.

The Chiefs aren't responding to Toles -- they're changing the subject. But here's the bottom line: The act of pointing out what's wrong in your country isn't "reprehensible." It's patriotic. If you disagree, disagree, but cut the aggrieved victim act, boys. It's behavior unbecoming of an officer when generals whine.

Full text of the letter after the jump.

Dan's Wednesday links, etc. (2.1)

STATE OF THE ONION: Did you watch Bush last night? We didn't -- went out and supported the US economy by purchasing a sofa instead. For coverage of the event, I turned, as always, to America's No. 1 weekly news source: My ass.

Just kidding. I pulled up The Onion and read its lead story:  "President Creates Cabinet Level Position to Coordinate Scandals."