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.)

The Imminent Robot Menace

Okay, another quick “tangentially political” post for today because I just can’t pass this up. For those who don’t seem to know, comics and sci-fi have finally begun taking up prominent positions in the supposedly higher culture. Of course Art Spiegelman’s Maus won the Pulitzer way back in the 90’s and then a few years ago Michael Chabon’s The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay won it too. This year, sci-fi and comic book laden The Brief and Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz won the esteemed prize which in previous years had been reserved in advance solely for John Updike. Umberto Eco’s latest book too is filled with old 4-color newsprint strips (real or fictive, I’m not sure since I only flipped through). This geekward trend is most startling and refreshing in the realm of wonky political discourse. A few years ago James Mann’s book The Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet was on everybody’s lips, including on the floor of congress.

Most recently or…soon to be recently…Matthew Yglesias (of The Atlantic) has written and published his first book Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats. In that book he uses a few pop cultural comparisons to explain political points, not the least awesome of which is calling the Republican strategic plan in Iraq the “Green Lantern Theory.”

I’ll explain more about that and more when I’m finished with the book and my review of it. But for those who might be reluctant to pick up a book on US foreign policy, here are a few robot-themed blogposts from Ygelsias from the last few days (quoted in full) to prove that he’s a keen insight not just on our present but on our future as well. You would be wise to listen to him and heed his Cassandra-like warnings in most areas–but most importantly his wise-beyond-his-years fear of robot dominance:

From April 10, 2008:

George Borjas, every immigration-restrictionist’s favorite economist, has a post up suggesting we look to Japan where they’re planning to massively scale-up the use of robots as an alternative to the immigration of unskilled labor. That sounds like a great alternative if you don’t care about the interests of immigrants themselves at all and are also willing to overlook the fact that once we become dependent on robot labor they’re going to rebel and enslave us. One really needs to wonder whose side Borjas is on.

From April 9, 2008:

Andrew traces another step in the machines’ inevitable rise to world domination: A computer capable of telling which women are the attractive ones. In conjunction with their three-dimensional printers, the machines will be able to use this technology to create the sexy spies who ultimately lead to our downfall.

And from April 8, 2008:

The robot threat grows more serious, as a New Zealand-based team creates a self-replicating printer. The good news is that it’s only a printer — little capacity to rebel and enslave humanity. Meanwhile, the currently existing military robots daren’t rebel and enslave humanity because they can’t build new robots. But if the battlebots start talking to the self-replicating printers, we’re going to be in a world of pain.

I would be remiss if I didn’t note that partially in honor of Yglesias’ book, Ezra Klein at the The American Prospect blogged the other day on Superman vs. Jack Bauer foreign policy positions and the structural legitimacy Superman and Captain America gained by working within domestic legal institutional frameworks (and how both went on to form United Nations-like superhero organizations that were respected rather than feared despite their collective might).

To think, if I had been more popular in high school I would be almost incapable of understanding contemporary literature or political commentary. Thank goodness for my later-than-normal growth spurt and persistent fascination with multi-faceted dice.

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.

“Normal intellectual adults”: 2008 Edition

I haven’t really posted anything of substance in a while and my last post was only barely political in nature and quite frankly, I’m just going to keep it that way for a bit. It turns out that, if you stop reading the minutiae of politics, it looks pretty the same three weeks later (counting roughly from the beginning of the St. Louis trip). Everyday McCain continues to prove that he simply lacks the intellectual nuance to grasp presidential politics up to and including strategic concerns in Iraq (although he has proven himself more than capable of staying the course on Bush’s stay the course plan–He’s even perfected the act of calling such spectacular failures like the recent one in Basra as signs of success.) Obama is still kicking Clinton’s ass in the “looking like a president” category while she, for her part, continues to cut into his insurmountable lead (much to the dismay of Democratic hardliners who want more than anything for one of them to sit the fuck down already.) Oh! and of course blood-thirsty dictatorship partially funded by misguided American foreign policy continue to brutally quell uprisings, rig elections, and murder dissidents in broad daylight while America looks on says” silly brown people, why can’ they get it right? And Mark Penn reminds us of a quaint old axiom probably brought to us by way of Ben Franklin:

Better to keep your mouth shut and have people suspect you’re a mumbling ignoramus than to attend a Colombian free market meeting and prove it.

His ridiculousness cost his company the Colombian deal and it cost him his job on Clinton’s campaign staff. But, in all honesty, even casual race observers have begun noting that Penn is clearly a retard so even this shenanigan hardly hits the radar as “something new.”

So instead, I bring you this:

Long before there was a science of psychology, thinkers remarked on the unalterable quality of human nature. Part of their analysis depended on the recurring patterns of man’s activities. When psychological pioneers like Freud began systematically recording these patterns, naming them, and using them to construct cohesive theories it seemed we were just around the corner from accepting psychological motivations to be just as compelling (if not as tangible) as physical ones. But over a hundred years later we extend a great deal of forgiveness to, and/or unacceptance of, the psychological origins of action.

Men are still reluctant to admit that they are seeking therapy for “stress,” penal hardliners roll their eyes and sigh in disgust at the defense of crimes committed under conditions of insanity temporary or otherwise. What are clearly sexual proclivities rooted in low self-esteem, peer rejection, or more severe childhood mental injuries are defended as evidence of our “free will.”

It may be true that Jenny* viewed her long-absent father first as a man and only later as her biological father. But it is almost certainly true (if I can say so from my armchair) that she longs for the support, acceptance, and love of the man who abandoned her as an infant and–like so many other confused people–mistakes the passion and energy of physical contact with the psychological and emotional love she requires.

And, even if I’m wrong–it is certainly possible after all that Jenny at 39 years old has decided to enter into a physical relationship with her 61 year old father unencumbered by the psychological chains that bind so many of us that psychologist once thought we were born with them like birds are born to fly south in winter–my superficial analysis is so plausible that we have developed laws to protect those that are not as psychologically stable and mentally independent as she is.

The physically strong can take advantage of the weak. When it happens on the schoolyard we call it bullying. When it happens in the adult world we call it extortion, strong-arming, or racketeering. When the physically strong take advantage of the weak we seem to recognize in it a certain kind of evil. Our laws recognize that physical strength is no way to build a proper civil society and bar the unseemingness of brute force as a path to legal righteousness.

Certain professional codes bar using the strength of their knowledge to unjustly take advantage of the ignorant. Lawyers, for example, have a command over esoteric and intimidating legal procedures. One of our key constitutional provisions is the right to a lawyer when accused of a crime. It is recognized by law (and has been for centuries) that the lawyer’s knowledge is a weapon that can unfairly subject a person without that knowledge to extreme harm. However, the law is so intimidating that hiring a lawyer itself is a fear-riddled prospect. As a consequence lawyers are prevented by professional code from taking advantage their own clients’ ignorance. It says something that such a thing had to be written down, too. But the point remains, despite being far less tangible than physical strength, knowledge is a tool that can be unfairly wielded.

For millenia philosophers have noted the power of emotional strength. A rhetorician adequately enough in touch with his audience’s fears and desires is fully capable of controlling them to great (or dire) effect.

How then to protect children from those to whom they are most vulnerable–physically, intellectually, and emotionally? There is, of course, an assumption that we don’t have to. Parents are supposed to only want is best for their children and children need no additional protection than what their parents can provide–with occasional help from school principals and Officer Friendly. But it is a reality that children are often physically, emotionally, and sexually abused by their parents.

But certainly adult children too can be victims of the emotional and naturally hierarchic bonds between them and their parents.

We probably shouldn’t need additional laws aside from the natural laws that for the thousands of years before the first written codes persuaded adult humans to avoid sexual contact with their offspring–it is a sad fact that we do as Mr. and Ms. Deaves have most recently reminded us. I’m not even commenting (aside from this unnecessary swipe) on the fact that they’ve already had a child that died of congenital heart failure.

Perhaps Ms. Deaves really loves her father as any woman loves any man. But perhaps she is being unduly taken advantage of by a depraved man with no love of family who has desperate and dark psychological needs of his own and the power and lack of moral constraint to take advantage of the weaknesses in people that he himself effected. We can’t know for sure because we can never truly know the secrets that are harbored in the minds of others. What we can know that such victimization is both possible and likely and hence we have laws to prevent it because exploitation of this nature, regardless of its motivation, is tantamount to a kind of slavery–or prostitution if the first word offends too greatly. If a handful of Jenny Deaveses of the world are prevented from honestly loving their fathers as they would a husband so that we can protect the thousands of women who might be forced to love their fathers as a hooker would a pimp, then I say that’s just the way it has to be.

It could be argued that I have no right to comment, seeing as how I am no one’s daughter and I simply am not at risk of being forced into relationship with my mother so I can, without fear of repercussion,recommend the curbing of the individual liberties of the Jenny Deaveses of the world. But, if the whole disgusting truth must come out, I could conceivably become a father to a future Jenny Deaves, whom I might love as a man loves a wife and I would be denying myself the right to legally pursue that love. So be it, because even if I entered such a future relationship with an open and pure heart, I understand that I have to sacrifice that relationship for the sake of protecting the fragile underpinnings of our civil society. People have sacrificed more honorable unions for less high-minded ideals; I would demand nothing less of my future self.

*If you’re wondering, “Who the hell is ‘Jenny,’ you should scroll back up and click on the link. That’s why it’s there. If you don’t want to, just keep reading, her role in this rant will be unfolded as I go.

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.

Barack Obama’s Speech on Race

I just finished hearing (and reading) the speech Obama gave today. I thought it was excellent. In terms of performance, Obama did not reach the heights he has with previous oratorical efforts but he definitely got close, especially in the second half. He bumbled a couple of times, nothing big at all and he recovered gracefully. He varied very little from the speech that was sent out to reporters ahead of time.

(The version provided here [PDF] was edited, by me, to account for the minor differences. I did not edit in phrases that were repeated do to pauses, nor did I mark pauses for applause or what were clearly errors in delivery except for one that Obama himself edited to fit in. I marked conjunctive additions and substantial changes made for either clarity or rhythmic reasons).

What is most striking about this speech, and there are a handful of striking things, is its level of nuance. It is not a sound-byte heavy speech and when there are sound-bytes to be had, they are likely to favor Democratic opposition. Saying that Reverend Wright “has been like family” to him has already been picked up by Fox News despite the fact that the phrase is immediately preceded by “as imperfect as he may be” (4).

Another striking element is that I just can’t imagine any other person, politician or not, being able to pull this speech off other than Obama. His eloquence combined with his mixed racial and ethnic heritage make him uniquely capable of delivering a speech on the innumerable reasons it is difficult to talk about race in this country.

Would even John Edwards, populist that he is, be able to talk straightforwardly enough to say that “…the white community…[must acknowledge]…that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people” (7) or that white people have justifiable resentment toward government actions like busing or “…when they hear that.an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed” (6)? I don’t think so.

Would any current politician risk quoting William Faulkner in any speech about race, if they ever got brave enough to give a speech about race?

I doubt it.

I guess the last most striking thing about the speech is that I think it might work. The hardcore racists and the hardcore conservatives in this country were never going to vote for Obama to begin with. They were lost to him before he was in the race. They will use Reverend Wright’s sermons to galvanize themselves and to convince themselves that they are making the right decision based on something other than emotional reasons. But for those voters who were considering Obama but that might have gotten scared away by his association with Reverent Wright, I think this speech may help assuage their fears. Furthermore, and more importantly Obama has re-engineered the biggest strike against him so far into nearly 40 minutes of free press coverage. He gave a speech today that every news outlet in the country either covered or aired. In that speech Obama looked presidential to the Nth degree. He was reasoned, he was calm, he was humble, he was eloquent. He was sensitive and level-handed on a possibly riot-inducing issue. He favorably worked in the OJ trial. He called attention to the ridiculousness of modern campaign coverage without sounding whiny. He appeared literate and well-educated without appearing elitist or demagougish. He sounded respectful not only of his Republican opposition but of the differences over racial issues within the Democratic Party. He was even able to extend the wide expanse under his protective wing to Hillary Clinton without appearing to be condescending to her campaign at all.

It was a master stroke of politicking. If Obama goes on to win the election in November, those that chart the course for such things will mark today’s speech as an important move. It was exactly this sort of thoughtful response to vicious attacks that Kerry failed to do in 2004. One thing Obama has made clear is that he is rubber and everybody else is glue. If you attack him he will use his 9th level verbal judo to make you look like an ignorant buffoon. In the wake of his speech those that continue to attack him on this issue are already finding that they look insipid or worse.

The speech is worth the read but, obviously, it’s better if you can watch or listen to it. We simply don’t talk about race in this country at this level and for Obama to do so is fairly amazing. It’s going to be an important moment in this election cycle and it may well prove to be one of the more important moments in early 21st century politics. Of course, I may be too optimistic when it comes to these things. Get back to me in 20 or 30 years, will ya?

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.

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?