Rev. Wright: Shut Up; Sen. McCain: Keep Talkin’

In-and-out blogging today so I can get back to my for-pay work–both topics meant to annihilate any lingering doubt that I might not be totally in the tank for Democrats in 2008 (It’s sometimes hard for me to forget that I once said good things about Senator Lugar.)

Reverend Wright
Reverent Wright knows better than I do which path will best serve his flock but here’s my opinion: If he really wants to promote social justice, if he really wants to help black people in American society, then helping Obama get elected is certainly as viable a plan–if not more viable–than him finding more ways to publicize his obviously antagonizing views.

Yes, I understand, he wants to antagonize; he wants to speak The Truth to The People–such is his obligation under the doctrine of his church. But part of being a good leader is understanding that there is a good time and a bad time for all things, a season, if you will…I read that somewhere. I’m not asking that he not say “God damn America,” I’m asking that he not say it right now. Is the second week of November just too far away? Honestly, one gets the feeling (and I am that one) that this is less about spreading the doctrine of black liberation theology and a lot more about collecting speaker’s fees–striking while the iron is hot and whatnot. If the love of God on Earth is made visible through the promotion of social justice then Wright will surely burn one day for flexing his vanity and working against the efforts of the larger movement.

The New DNC Anti-McCain ad:
Some thoughtful people have chimed in on McCain’s repeated admission that he doesn’t care if we stay in Iraq “for a 100 years” or “10,000.” To some, it seems that to continue to rag on McCain for his statements is purely and illegitimately to take them out of context. To others, like TPM’s Josh Marshall, these attackers are fully in the right because they are “using the senator’s own words.” The release of the new DNC ad has reignited this debate.

I had hoped to chime in on this myself before someone else made the proper defense but Marshall did it today. Basically it might be true that most of the attacks, to a very minor degree, take McCain’s statements out of context. He did say that he didn’t care if we were in Iraq for a 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 years. But he did not mean that we would be continuing the Iraq War for that long. What McCain meant was that we would occupy Iraq indefinitely under a similar arrangement as we have with Germany or Japan and boatloads of other nations, which, given the nature and success of those arrangements, is hardly a controversial policy.

The problem, as Marshall correctly points out is that:

…there’s little reason to believe our occupation of Iraq will ever be like that. We tried this in Lebanon; the French tried this in Algeria; the British even tried it in Iraq. Western countries have a very poor history garrisoning Muslim countries in the Middle East. Iraq isn’t like Germany or Japan, not simply because of the history of the country but because both countries accepted decades-long US deployments as a counterweight to threatening neighbors. The relevant point is that McCain believes American troops should stay in Iraq permanently. His pipe dream about Iraq turning into Germany doesn’t change that.

That’s the crux here, Iraq will continue to be a deadly experiment in imperialist overreach for years into the future and will likely never transform into anything else. So the fact that McCain really hopes that our 10,000-year occupation is a peaceful one is completely irrelevant. Marshall and I both love this elegant restatement of the point from the New Yorkers‘ Rick Hertzberg:

McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal–that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we’ll stay.

So regardless of whether or not you believe that McCain meant that we would have a 100-year-long war in Iraq or not, his policy will result in one, and thus this ad and all others that accuse McCain of endorsing a 100-year war in Iraq are 100% justifiably and correct. The fact that he has deluded himself into believing that that is not the case makes him more deadly, not less. This is a case where the context hurts McCain rather than helping him. Out of context he is merely calling for 100 years of war with Iraq presumably in an effort to secure the safety of Americans. In context he’s strategically incompetent and dangerously naive about national security matters; and his incompetence and naivete will result in a 100 year long war. Vote for him at the peril of your sons and grandsons (and their kids, and their kids’ kids…at least.)

Greenwald and The New York Times

On Sunday The New York Times published an important, and long, story about retired military officers essentially bribed to act as government shills in the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Glenn Greenwald has rebuked this story on two accounts:

• The the information in the story is not new and that
• The New York Times, and other mainstream media outlets were critically complicit in the cover up that is now being exposed and the story under-emphasizes that aspect.

A more thoughtful response than I can muster for the moment–both to this story and for Greenwald’s commentary–seems appropriate. On the one hand it seems that David Barstow’s story is important, accurate, and laudable. It is laudable both professionally and politically. It took a lot of hard work and a lot of bravery to run with this story. The Pentagon apparatus employed here is filled with the kinds of nooks and crannies that practically define the phrase “plausible deniability.” Some of those accused of being a part of the war propaganda machine were probably taken advantage of by the Pentagon–that is–they spoke what they believed to be right and true, or they spoke what they knew would be personally profitable and were therefore more than happy to accept the mantle of “defense expert” when the time came. Others were probably duped, as they claim. The fact that the Pentagon’s heavy hand put more weight on some shoulders than on others, does not reduce their role in what was essentially the anti-democratic approach toward selling the war and it was good of the Times to draw attention to what they had done (are doing).

But newspapers aren’t, as Greenwald would want, pure watchdogs on our bureaucratic masters. Watchdoggery is just one role–arguably the most important role–but still just one, and when a paper makes a claim as far, broad, and deep as this one, it needs to make sure that what is conveyed are facts and not theories. So in that regard I think the story is laudable as well. The story seems fair and part of that seeming legitimacy is the consideration that the story was given. The price we pay for consideration is time–and the story is now too late to do much but engender or exacerbate cynicism.

We also have to pay the price of undue restraint and outrage. The New York Times will not go after these base and worthless men with the vitriol that they deserve and thus much of the reading public will think that the compassionate and restrained approach is the appropriate one. They will think it’s OK to shrug our shoulders and say, “Well, what did you expect?” and walk away. Perhaps more importantly, they will forget to associate these men with the intellectual and moral depravity that allowed them to speak well of bad people, to heap accolades on uninformed policy, and to speak lightly not only of the deaths of American solders and Iraqi civilians but also on the importance of military overreach and the huge price we would pay at home–just so they, and they alone, could profit.

Greenwald himself even musters up a little bit of the old “What did you expect” throughout his piece. Greenwald cites a few instances where much of this information was already reported, sometimes even in the Times itself.

This is one of those instances where it is just very hard to argue with Greenwald and one of the reasons I think his blog is so important–but it is also indicative of one of the frustrating things about his blog. It is true that much of this ground had been covered in the Times and in other outlets as well. But it is also true that despite those previous stories nobody has been paying attention until now. At least my impression is that this story has made a bigger splash than previous efforts.

It is also true that if the Times hadn’t run this story, then in a month or two or three when Greenwald once again got a bug up his ass about so-called experts so deeply in the pockets of the war machine they’ve gone pale and eyeless who talk in favor of the war as supposedly neutral sources he would complain that the Times and others routinely refuse to cover this very important story. It’s as if the mainstream media just can’t win at all. If they don’t run a story, then they are helping cover up important information; if they do the story, it isn’t enough or it’s too late.

Greenwald demands that mainstream media sources continue to run stories that he decides are important even if there is a proven lack of public interest in them, claiming that the press kills stories that are important and interesting while they simultaneously force banalities on their readership. And to some extent he’s right when he claims that if the press continues to print an important story it will eventually force 1) people to sit up and take notice and 2) those involved to respond–both of which will make the story “important.” But it’s not like the Times can run a story with this lede:

New York City–For the fiftieth time this month the Times is running a story on how Senator Rockefeller is undermining the Fourth Amendment through his incessant kowtowing to the Bush administration. Informed sources at the nation’s “paper of record” want to know why you idiots aren’t taking the bait on this already.

Greenwald could do that, the Times can’t. So it’s hard to blame them for touting their news as “new.”

Of course, now I’m being unfair to Greenwald and increasing the the supposed condemnatory air in his post, so I will attempt to correct that. By all appearances he seems to have liked this story. He praises the excellent investigative journalism and he applauds the Times for devoting so much space to such an important story.

He seems to be adding to the story, not for the benefit of Times readers but for the benefit of his own. And what he wants to add is this: even though the Times must tell you that this is new information, it isn’t and we must be more aware, we must extend our memories, we must look outside the mainstream papers to get more substantive news. And he wants to add this: running this story now does not act as atonement for its past crimes. At the very least, Greenwald seems to say, the Times should have mentioned its role in helping the Pentagon in this message. He seems to be adding, most importantly, this: the story condemns the officials and it condemns the Pentagon, but it doesn’t fully condemn the press that allowed it to happen.

I get the feeling while reading Greenwald that he would be satisfied with no less than absolute perfection from our mainstream media. And I suppose he should be demanding perfection; our media is our primary tool for holding government officials accountable for their actions, so its dire the system works appropriately. I also suppose by expecting and demanding perfection he will routinely be angry at the realities he is presented with. I also suppose that voices like Greenwald’s act as important restraints on the laziness and intellectual shortcomings inherent in all people, journalists not excepted. But sometimes I can’t shake the feeling that Greenwald isn’t out to make anything better; he’s just out to complain about something. It seems to me that ragging on an admittedly good piece of investigative journalism is a lot like a cop pulling over a speeder in sight of an ongoing armed robbery. It seems to me that while the Times is busy running a 7500 word on a really important story, even if imperfect, there were bigger fish to fry that day.

Boycott the Olympics? But What About My Dreams?

It is important to note right off the bat that Clinton did not call for a boycott of the Olympics. Much of the boohooing and jeering from the headline-only-reading blogizens is that Clinton is demanding that Bush take the drastic-yet-worthless move of pulling our athletes from the competition ruining their lives for nothing more than a stern fingerpointing at Hu Jintao. Unless I failed to read the story properly (check for yourself here, but when you check please read more than the misleading headline and read [for godssake] the opening sentence) she has merely stated that she thinks the president should boycott the opening ceremonies.

Many would claim that that this is just a symbolic gesture that doesn’t mean anything and will lead nowhere but to offending our growing trade partner, China..and of course ruining the Olympics (woe upon woe!). Sure, a handshake, a cold shoulder, raising your voice when angry, being late to a meeting discussing irrelevant topics are all symbolic gestures but they do indicate a certain amount of satisfaction or dissatisfaction both to the recipient of that symbol and to those who witness it. That is the stuff of diplomacy. Much of diplomacy has always been about showing up to the right parties, having your name next to the right people at the right time, shunning those that attempt to act outside the system. Diplomacy…as a distinct way of convincing people to do what you want them to do without forcing them to through brute force…is an art that pulls its power from psychology and sociology, as well as rational and intellectual appeals. Furthermore this sort of symbolic communication can be timed for the utmost efficacy.

There’s a lot of money in the Olympics. Perhaps more importantly there is a lot of prestige that comes with being granted the Olympics–prestige that is, in part, related to the Olympics mission: promoting transnational brotherhood through the power of sport. And roll your eyes if you must, but the Olympics have repeatedly proven themselves to be an important venue for stating things of importance. And country’s will go extremely far to protect the glittering image that got them awarded the Olympics to start with.

China, for example has spent billions (billions) preparing for the coming tide of visitors from all all over the world. They have tightened several laws and loosened some others.

For another example, look to Mexico in 1968. Not the black-fisted salute, although that image is important not because it happened, or because it happened at a sporting event, but because it happened at the Olympics. I’m talking about the student protests a few months before the summer Olympics games that were thought to be so embarrassing for the Mexican government that the government arranged to have the protesters massacred. A move that, while horrible and dramatic, did significantly quiet the amount of domestic protest in Mexico during the games. I’m not condoning the massacre of dissidents (what a grandly self-destructive move that would be). I’m citing it as an example of the extremes that governments will go through in an attempt to not sully their reputations at Olympic time. Turns out that student massacres are bad way to not have your reputation sullied but that is neither here nor there at the moment.

After admitting that I’m a reader of Daniel Drezner’s blog, it would probably be wrong of me to not credit him for saying first what I’m about to say. Basically Clinton’s proposal is limited in scope, designed to draw attention to China’s extreme violations of human rights (and its clear vision that there are no such things as human rights) without entering into an all-or-nothing pact that would hurt American businesses, American athletes, or our burgeoning relationship with a major world power that over the last 20 years or so has made significant improvements in the human rights area, to say nothing of their increasing importance in American foreign policy interests like the six-party talks with North Korea.

It is possible, even, as Drezner points out, to make this statement even more important by acting in conjunction with the leader’s of Germany, France, and ideally some developing nations as well. Furthermore, it is possible that Bush could use the threat of a boycott to illicit some immediate concessions from China, specifically on the Darfur front, if Bush can convince France and Germany not to go through with their possible and planned boycotts respectively.

The alternative is to do nothing and that seems to be the consensus of many. That, since we won’t change China overnight with a symbolic boycott of the opening ceremonies we might as well do nothing at all, after all, why risk offending a country that holds so much of our debt and has such strategic value as an ally and trading partner? Well, that recommendation denies how much has diplomacy goes on with China every day. China did not wake up one morning and decide to be America’s trading partner. Nor did America simply wake up one morning and decide to be China’s. That series of agreements was the result of a series of diplomatic tits for tats–China agreeing to certain policy constraints to gain access to America’s markets and America promising to, among other things, cool the hot rhetoric we have historically aimed at China. Basically, the threat of an Olympic boycott is exactly the kind of thing we have done with every reluctant ally-in-waiting. Only the effect of such a move today is amplified because of our trade relations and because of the Olympics.

To do nothing with Hu Jintao still listed as one of the top 20 human rights violators is really to condone that activity. There is no two ways about it. That is not to say that a boycott of the opening ceremonies is the only way to make a statement, there are plenty of things that can be done, and likely will be, but an opening ceremony boycott would not be the knife in China’s the back as many would like to paint it…nor would it destroy the dreams of our hard-working athletes or ruin the Olympics. As a matter of fact, I would think that a lot of the athletes participating in this year’s games are just as distraught as some of those recommending a boycott–although conflicting personal and professional interests will keep them from saying so for the moment. An acknowledgment from the president that America will participate in the games in a spirit of brotherhood through sportsmanship but does not condone the ruthlessness of the PRC might help alleviate some of the guilt that they are feeling for participating in such a grand money-making event for the Chinese dictatorship.

Greenwald v Drezner

I was going to write about this story from yesterday’s NY Times which describes the sad fate of the Sabal Palm Audubon Center which, thanks to a completely backward, short-sighted, and ultimately futile public policy will find its way to the other side of the new fence being erected along the US’s southern border. Mostly what I want to point out is that this such a pure case of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face that I almost can’t put it into words. What is the fence supposed to do? Stop illegal immigrants. Why? Because illegal immigrants are a drain on our resources and dilute the labor pool thereby lowering wages–the combined effect of which lowers our quality of life. So, to defend against this lowering of living standards it seems reasonable, somehow, to wall Americans away from a gorgeous nature preserve that exists, at least in part, to raise the quality of life of those that live near enough to enjoy it.

Furthermore, America’s inability to halt illegal immigration is falsely believed to be an infringement on its sovereignty. Well, what better way to get a handle on your sovereignty that to essentially cede your country to another country? I mean, after all, if there’s no America to immigrate to, we win! Right?

But instead I want to jump in on a little cross-blogging warfare that cropped up yesterday between two bloggers I respect immensely, Glenn Greenwald at Salon (dot com) and Tufts University professor, Daniel Drezner at his personal blog. I want to jump in not because either Greenwald or Drezner need me to defend them but because I tried to comment on Drezner’s blog yesterday and I got a weird 404 Error and if I don’t tell it to someone I might just combust.

Basically yesterday Greenwald published this where he lists various NEXIS search results that, to him, indicate that the mainstream press is more interested in covering Obama’s bowling record than the fact that John Yoo’s legal “opinion” that the president is king of America and that torture is fine and dandy became effectively US law.

In response, Daniel Drezner wrote this where he critiques Greenwald’s methodology on a variety of points and concludes that

“Greenwald might be a good blogger/columnist, but he’s not that great at social science.”

Ouch.

Apparently Megan McArdle at The Atlantic (dot com) also chimed in but I don’t care because I didn’t read her article and Greenwald (among others) is pretty good at successfully ripping her arguments to tiny little pieces. Those two spawned this response from Greenwald today.

Basically Drezner and Greenwald are talking past one another here. Drezner (rightfully) critiques Greenwald’s methodology while not addressing the more salient point of whether or not the press is overly concerned with Lewinksy rumors and under concerned with vital policy considerations at the national level. Meanwhile Greenwald chalks up Drezner’s critique of methodology as defense for an indefensible press corps.

I’m not a social scientist but I can generally see bad social science when it occurs. And Greenwald’s is clearly flawed, not just for the reasons that Drezner, which are three:

1. the news cycle hasn’t played out for all the stories yet,
2. the press runs more stories when the participants make comments on them and
3. the press (and the country) are more concerned with America’s future not it’s past.

To flush out point 1, Greenwald begins his post with the fact that “in the past two weeks” several very important stories have broken and among them are Mukasey’s slip up that the Bush team failed to listen to a phone call that might have prevented 9/11¹ and the John Yoo memo. He then does a NEXIS search going back thirty days and because “Clinton and Lewinsky” gets 1,079 hits and “Yoo and torture” only gets 102 he determines that the MSM is horrible.

Let’s just start here, the MSM is horrible, but why (why oh why) if these exciting and important stories only date back 14 days, would you search back 30? Should the press have been reporting on the Mukasey/ 9-11 slip up before he made it? So “Obama and Wright” gets thirty days of hits while “Yoo and Fourth Amendment” only gets 14? Of course the numbers aren’t going match up, but they also aren’t going to give you an accurate picture of what’s going on.

And “Clinton and Lewinsky,” is a particularly misleading search² because there are at least three different stories there

1. The famous one starring the ex-president and his intern
2. the new rumors about the ex-president’s wife and the intern and
3. the shenanigans starring the ex-president’s daughter being asked about the intern.

I think that Greenwald does a pretty good job reducing Drezner’s other arguments: 2) That the press reports more on stories that those involved comment on: e.g., Obama did not give a bowling press conference and it still got 1,043 hits³while John Yoo has talked about his role in the White House and the two Yoo searches combined only yielded 118 hits; and 3) that the press is more concerned with the nation’s future and not its past.⁴

A better comparison would chart the daily hits for each story as it played out across their news cycles. The Wright story for example played out over several weeks with peaks when the story broke and again when Obama gave his widely covered speech in response. “Obama and Wright” is turning up at least two stories over the entire 30 days. Furthermore, “Obama and patriotism” (1,607 hits) is likely turning up many of the same stories since the crucial moment of Wright’s sermon was his “God damn, America” line. So the question is, when the press is covering a story to at their fullest, how much did they cover it–not how much did they cover it since some arbitrary date in the past.

In any case, even with better methodology I think Greenwald would still be able to prove his point. The numbers are so far apart that it is fairly clear that if one were to measure them in the way I suggest the petty stories are still going to come out the clear coverage winners. And there is no reason that “Obama and bowling” should be getting over 1,000 hits. It simply doesn’t matter at all. Or, if “Obama and bowling” is going to get over 1000 hits then “Yoo and torture” should be as well. It’s a more important story. And so, while Drezner may be accurate in his charge that Greenwald could have done a better analysis, it does not follow necessarily follow that Greenwald’s conclusion is false.

Greenwald, for his part, is here a victim of the same poor thinking he so often (rightfully) points out in others. He is forever defending his comments from attacks. I honestly couldn’t begin counting the number of times he has felt compelled to add an update or a new post that says something to the effect of “Just because I defended X in this instance doesn’t mean I support X for president or think that X’s party is handling this situation appropriately. I just meant what I said, that X is being reasonable and taking the right approach.”

Drezner is right, at least on point 1, that Greenwald’s methodology was poor. Drezner could have, as I did, point out more ways that Greenwald’s methodology was poor. Even if Drezner’s analysis itself was incorrect on points 2 and 3, a critique of Greewald’s social science does not amount to a defense of the press. It is simply what Drezner said it was, a critique of Greenwald’s approach. And Greenwald should know that.

1. They didn’t; Mukasey is just a liar and a fear-monger

2. And I know Greenwald knows it because he’s mentioned all three of them on his blog

3. “Obama and Wright” to prove Drezner’s point got over 3,000…although I repeat, the counting was unfair. The Wright story is getting two more weeks of NEXIS hits than the bowling story and is arguably more important.

4. Even though the president who wanted that Yoo memo is still in office and the country is poised to elect a guy who is unlikely to roll back the “president is king” part of the opinion even if he rebukes the “torture is good” part.

Absolut Incite

I can only assume that in the marketing department of Pernod Ricard, owners of Absolut Vodka, they figure that no Americans read Quien Magazine where this ad originally appeared.

Honestly, I’m not sure what logic made them think that infuriating what has to be one of their largest markets would be a good idea. What’s even more stupid is that the Right Wing Blogosphere is lit up as each blogger races to lay the blame on “the liberal media” or to associate various Hispanic campaign advisers with the ad concept.

It goes without saying, of course, clearly, obviously, that no candidate for president, past or present has ever advocated reversing the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Dana Perino’s Just a Girl

No time for the bloggy today, no time to tell you all the uninteresting facts I learned about Jacksonville, Florida, no time to tell you about the uninteresting beers I drank at River City Brewing near Jackson Landing. So, today, I just give you this awesome quote from White House Press Secretary Dana Perino.

I seem to be in the minority on this, and I probably shouldn’t mentioned it, but for a White House that no longer cares about its personal image, but rather is hoping to keep its political Tourettes in check until November to help out flyboy McCain, I thought that Perino was a good choice. She has a relaxed personal charm completely lacking in the previous appointees, she has a tempered and refined manner of speech, her tone is moderate and crisp, one might say genuinely pleasant. And she has a professional iron shirt that reporters must find infuriating. Nevertheless, I’m not sure what must have been going through her mind when she said this:

Some of the terms I just don’t know, I haven’t grown up knowing. The type of missiles that are out there: patriots and scuds and cruise missiles and tomahawk missiles. And I think that men just by osmosis understand all of these things, and they’re things that I really have to work at — to know the difference between a carrier and a destroyer, and what it means when one of those is being launched to a certain area.

Brava!

Of course, you gotta love that Wikipedia which contains this gem:

In 2007, Perino appeared on the radio quiz show Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me! known for, in an amusing fashion, embarrassing the guests. Perino told a self-deprecating, humorous anecdote about how she had to ask her husband about the Cuban Missile Crisis after it came up in a press briefing.

Heheh. She could have just watched Kevin Cosnter’s docudramathon, Thirteen Days.

Bush’s Dictator Dance Card is Full to Bursting

Last Thursday I ranted against President Bush’s admonishment of Barack Obama over whether the latter, as president, should have sit-down talks with North Korea, Cuba, or Iran. What I said specifically was that Bush was a pandering, hypocritical ass, or words to that effect. Without getting into the rightness or wrongness of sitting down with the world’s dictators I offer this.

Each year various publications rank the world’s worst dictators and with little variation those lists match up one to the other. About 70 countries are ruled by dictators. The day before I posted about Bush lecturing Obama on proper US foreign policy standards, I showed a picture of George Bush playing dress-up with number 20 on the 2007 list, Vladimir Putin, the rabidly anti-deomcratic president of Russia (soon to be anti-democratic prime minister after his self-appointed successor is “elected.”)

Following is George Bush standing next to, smiling, and–in one instance–apparently frolicking with various members of other leaders from the top 20 of 2007’s worst dictators list. Numbered for your convenience.

For the record Castro doesn’t even make the top 20.

With so many dance partners our lame duck leader is sure to get a little tired…but don’t worry, he has C. Rice to dance when he don’t want to.

President Pot, There’s a Mr. Kettle on the Phone for You

In a press conference this morning Bush had this to say to Obama who has had the gall to mention he might have sit-downs with Cuba and Iran.

“I have these wives of these dissidents come and see me,” he said. “And their stories are just unbelievably sad. It just goes to show how, you know, how repressive China has the Castro brothers have been when you listen to the truth about what they say. And the idea of embracing a leader who has done this without any attempt on his part to, you know, release prisoners and free their society, would be counterproductive and send the wrong signal.”

I struck through China, but I could just as easily have listed most of the leaders that Bush recently met with in the Middle East and anybody he’s ever talked to in Africa. Seriously, Bush (BUSH!?) is going to lecture Obama on how best to export human rights?–The guy that had his Justice Department release a memo stating that, despite norms of international law, the United States government did not have to obey the Geneva Conventions or the International Agreement on Human Rights? The guy that issued a signing statement maintaining that the executive branch retains the power to torture prisoners in contravention of US law? The guy that illegally wiretapped its own citizens? The guy that had (at least) two US citizens imprisoned without knowing why and denied them access to legal counsel for years? That President Bush is going to go in front of people and lecture on human rights?

For his own immorality and that of his friends, Bush should probably just keep his mouth shut on this issue for the next eleven months; he hanged the only person he had the moral authority to lecture on this topic.

Quick Notes

Three quick notes and then it’s back to work for me:

Fidel Castro stepped down!!!

1) This won’t change anything. Nothing in Cuba will improve under the leadership of el hermano del capitan, Raul. In a few years when he steps down we can revisit “the future of Cuba.”

2) Why is it important to comment on how many American presidents Castro “outlasted?” I assume it’s because Kennedy and Co. back in the day actively tried to assassinate the Great Carribean Beard but was assassinated himself instead. But, aside from that disgusting irony, we elect our leaders in as close to a real democracy as you’ll find in this hemisphere. It’s not a compliment or an amazement that he “outlasted” so many. It’s a tribute to American democracy and an indictment of Castro’s level and type of control that he’s the world’s longest living dictator. After the fall of communism, Castro was a sitting duck. It is a tribute to American restraint that his islita hasn’t been overrun in the intervening 16-ish years, especially in the Bush-era of flippantly enacted wars of choice.

Michelle Obama is finally proud of her country.

In a speech the yesterday the candidate’s wife said that she was proud of her country for the “first time in her adult life.” This is Michelle Obama’s second slip of the tongue that got under people’s skin. Some people have attempted to apologize for her by saying that she should have said “enthusiastic” rather than “proud.” Others have condemned her outright and have listed various things they think she should be proud of, and that since she wasn’t “proud” of them, they imply, she must in some way actively despise those things.

I’m not going to condemn her or apologize for her. I’m sure that in the great tradition of Don Imus, Pete Rose, and various hypocrite politicians she will find a way to nearly apologize for this herself without admitting she did anything wrong.

What I want to ask is: Who are all these people that think it’s OK to tell anyone what they have to be “proud” of? You can think positively on something without being proud of it. The fact that I do not love strawberries is not to say that I think they are a despicable fruit. What if she was happy when Carol Mosley Braun took office, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg? What if she was relieved that America “won the Cold War?” What if the nation’s reaction to “hope” and its enthusiastic acceptance of the man she loves is the first time she’s been “proud” of the country? Even if she meant it, which I doubt, it doesn’t automatically put her in the “Blame America First Club” if she had different positive emotional responses to America’s other successes since she turned 18.

And other critics are saying “Now we can see how the Obama’s really see themselves. They think that the whole of history has moved them to lead the country and that all other acts are shameful.” (I paraphrase.) Well….SURPRISE! A politician thinks he is the best person both capable and willing to lead the country. This fundamental hubris, pride, or lack of humility (however you want to spell it) is what led him to become a politician to start with. So, yes, Obama thinks he’s the best. And the woman that married him probably thinks he’s pretty awesome too. I know I think my girlfriend is pretty great.

One person, having done the math, says that Michele Obama’s “adult life” began in 1982. Who has been president since 1982? Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. What could she have meant by her statement? Well, she certainly can’t have liked three of the four, y’know…for being politicians with opposite ideas of and approaches to governance. And the fourth, Clinton, well, his last name is really similar to a current candidate that Barack is running against. So, y’know, there’s that. I guess what she may have meant that, when it comes to selecting its leader, America is about to make the best decision it has made in the last 26 years or so.

Also….who cares? It’s not like Michele Obama is going to write a bill that we all have to love her husband as much as she does, to the point of honoring his election to the exclusion of the collapse of communism or whatever else you might be proud of.

Does this mean that Obama’s “free pass” with the press is over?

Obama apparently plagiarizes speeches.

Which, of course is exactly the kind of non-story the press doesn’t need to be thinking much about but is and therefore might be more evidence that Obama’s honeymoon with the press is over. From here on out we can hopefully expect to see magnified every stumble, mumble, and burp. Hopefully this new trend will stomp the gusto out of any reporter still thinking that he (or she) should be covering what our next president will actually do.

It is interesting, btw, that because of the “McCain isn’t really a conservative” stuff, I have seen more MSM press coverage on McCain’s past votes and overall political philosophy than I’ve seen of any president or presidential nominee ever from both the left and the right. It’s been great.

I Will Miss You All

Aware that America’s ability to defend itself against terrorism would soon be weakened, House Democrats vainly attempted to extend the Protect America Act. Their valiant efforts to protect this city on a hill was thwarted by one man, President George W. Bush, who petulantly demanded that House Republicans vote against the extension, which they cravenly did. The very important Protect America Act will expire tonight. God help us all.

I just have one question: When will Bush and his hawkish cronies in Congress start taking this War on Terror seriously?