Iran, Contras, and Political Favors
Why is anyone surprised Bush would appoint John Negroponte as ambassador to Iraq? This is the administration that back in 2002 made John Poindexter head of DARPA. (O.k., he resigned, but only after the casino plan got him laughed out.)
15 April 2004
Somebody-or-Other's Country, 'Tis of Thee
There are numerous court cases regarding the display of U.S. flags where the decision supported the free-speech rights of the defendant’s choice to do so in a manner offensive to others. But that was before homeowner associations in community developments. So, you’re 65 years old, Australian, and move into a development where the community puts in a rule about hanging out flags: only the U.S. flag may be displayed. This, of course, significantly cuts down on the blight of cute banners with colorful butterflies on them and the like. It also prevents the display of flags from other countries, even if they’re allies of the U.S. with troops in Iraq. Well, you signed your agreement to the by-laws – present and future – when you moved in. Still, there are limits to the infringements on free speech that can be countenanced, and I think Windermere Gardens Villas or Del Boca Vista Mark II or wherever has gone into ludicrous territory here. Mrs. Hogberg is not likely to take the case to court, and I don’t expect the ACLU to turn up on this one either. Maybe there’s a nice retired lawyer living next door who’ll take on the homeowners association? Florida. Go figure.
There are numerous court cases regarding the display of U.S. flags where the decision supported the free-speech rights of the defendant’s choice to do so in a manner offensive to others. But that was before homeowner associations in community developments. So, you’re 65 years old, Australian, and move into a development where the community puts in a rule about hanging out flags: only the U.S. flag may be displayed. This, of course, significantly cuts down on the blight of cute banners with colorful butterflies on them and the like. It also prevents the display of flags from other countries, even if they’re allies of the U.S. with troops in Iraq. Well, you signed your agreement to the by-laws – present and future – when you moved in. Still, there are limits to the infringements on free speech that can be countenanced, and I think Windermere Gardens Villas or Del Boca Vista Mark II or wherever has gone into ludicrous territory here. Mrs. Hogberg is not likely to take the case to court, and I don’t expect the ACLU to turn up on this one either. Maybe there’s a nice retired lawyer living next door who’ll take on the homeowners association? Florida. Go figure.
Why Rice?
George W. Bush picked Condoleezza Rice as his National Security Advisor because she can pronounce the names of foreign nations and dignitaries that he couldn’t. As for national security advice, well, she never has had any that I can tell. Even Dr. Evil himself, Henry Kissinger, would go to Nixon and give advice, not just wait to be asked. We hear the Republicans say that government has to be run like a business; we’ve been hearing that for decades. Running a business into the ground is the speciality pursued by George II (he’s a failed oil tycoon, remember, and the Texas Rangers baseball club enriched him only because his rich buddies bought him out), so we shouldn’t be surprised he can’t pick decent staff. Dr. Rice may be smart, but I don’t see the evidence.
Postcript: I’ve read the transcript of Bush’s press conference, and I can’t say I thought the press offered the grilling I’d have preferred. I know he’s the President, but couldn’t they throw some heat instead of just lobbing the softballs? I mean, asking if there’s anything he regrets or if he’d apologize . . . nobody actually expected anything from that, did they? It’s the same song and dance from Bush to the same tired old tunes the press always plays. Everybody’s willing to go in swinging in the op-ed pages, but not so much in the press room at the White House. I guess they don’t want to be retired early, but where’s the story?
George W. Bush picked Condoleezza Rice as his National Security Advisor because she can pronounce the names of foreign nations and dignitaries that he couldn’t. As for national security advice, well, she never has had any that I can tell. Even Dr. Evil himself, Henry Kissinger, would go to Nixon and give advice, not just wait to be asked. We hear the Republicans say that government has to be run like a business; we’ve been hearing that for decades. Running a business into the ground is the speciality pursued by George II (he’s a failed oil tycoon, remember, and the Texas Rangers baseball club enriched him only because his rich buddies bought him out), so we shouldn’t be surprised he can’t pick decent staff. Dr. Rice may be smart, but I don’t see the evidence.
Postcript: I’ve read the transcript of Bush’s press conference, and I can’t say I thought the press offered the grilling I’d have preferred. I know he’s the President, but couldn’t they throw some heat instead of just lobbing the softballs? I mean, asking if there’s anything he regrets or if he’d apologize . . . nobody actually expected anything from that, did they? It’s the same song and dance from Bush to the same tired old tunes the press always plays. Everybody’s willing to go in swinging in the op-ed pages, but not so much in the press room at the White House. I guess they don’t want to be retired early, but where’s the story?
14 April 2004
Innumeracy Ills
O.k., it's the English edition of a Russian newspaper online, and we all know nobody can spell on the internet. I'm sure it will be fixed sooner rather than later, but meanwhile, Mathimatically [sic] gifted people use all their brain, according to this Pravda article, while apparently newpaper editors only use the part that knows when it's lunchtime. The body of the article manages to use the correct spelling. I may not be able to balance my checkbook, but I can use a dictionary.
O.k., it's the English edition of a Russian newspaper online, and we all know nobody can spell on the internet. I'm sure it will be fixed sooner rather than later, but meanwhile, Mathimatically [sic] gifted people use all their brain, according to this Pravda article, while apparently newpaper editors only use the part that knows when it's lunchtime. The body of the article manages to use the correct spelling. I may not be able to balance my checkbook, but I can use a dictionary.
The MTA Should Have Said “Yes”
The Gothamist reveals that the IRT 2 train’s brakes produce the opening notes of “Somewhere” from West Side Story, but it turns out to be just a coincidence.
The Gothamist reveals that the IRT 2 train’s brakes produce the opening notes of “Somewhere” from West Side Story, but it turns out to be just a coincidence.
13 April 2004
April
I don't remember how I got on the list, but for Poetry Month I get a poem in my Hotmail account every day from Knopf. I don't like all of them, but that's one of those things about poetry. So what? I do like quite a lot of what comes through, even though if I don't read them right away, they will pile up and start to clog the inbox.
I don't remember how I got on the list, but for Poetry Month I get a poem in my Hotmail account every day from Knopf. I don't like all of them, but that's one of those things about poetry. So what? I do like quite a lot of what comes through, even though if I don't read them right away, they will pile up and start to clog the inbox.
Getting Busted for Becoming Your Dream
Made famous in 2000 as his “tag” was highlighted across the Harbour Bridge, and at the opening ceremonies of the Sydney Olympic Games, Arthur Stace was a sidewalk chalker, writing “Eternity,” the one word, in a distinctive script, across the city from 1930 to 1967. He endeared himself to Sydney by his art and will be remembered for decades to come, even though there is no lasting example of his work. For the entire period I lived on the Upper East Side, I was subjected to the empty platitudes and overbearing admonishments of James De La Vega, who scribbled the sidewalks of the neighborhood in chalk. Towards the end of those years, Mr. De La Vega had gallery shows in Spanish Harlem. Well, if “Become Your Dream” and crap about being wearing a suit to work making you a wage slave is art, that’s nice for him. Actually, it’s graffiti, even in chalk, when taken to extremes, and now De La Vega’s been busted well and truly for it. He’s also being called a muralist, and from the sound of things, he’s stepped up from the cheap, pop adages and bad line drawings to larger canvases and multiple colors. There’s a line between art and vandalism, and I think he’s crossed it. He says he’ll “consider refraining from painting illegally” in exchange for no jail time, but maybe he should have thought of that option sooner. Other graffitists have opted for alternative media. Graffiti philosophers, like Arthur Stace, just kept it simple and stayed out of jail.
Made famous in 2000 as his “tag” was highlighted across the Harbour Bridge, and at the opening ceremonies of the Sydney Olympic Games, Arthur Stace was a sidewalk chalker, writing “Eternity,” the one word, in a distinctive script, across the city from 1930 to 1967. He endeared himself to Sydney by his art and will be remembered for decades to come, even though there is no lasting example of his work. For the entire period I lived on the Upper East Side, I was subjected to the empty platitudes and overbearing admonishments of James De La Vega, who scribbled the sidewalks of the neighborhood in chalk. Towards the end of those years, Mr. De La Vega had gallery shows in Spanish Harlem. Well, if “Become Your Dream” and crap about being wearing a suit to work making you a wage slave is art, that’s nice for him. Actually, it’s graffiti, even in chalk, when taken to extremes, and now De La Vega’s been busted well and truly for it. He’s also being called a muralist, and from the sound of things, he’s stepped up from the cheap, pop adages and bad line drawings to larger canvases and multiple colors. There’s a line between art and vandalism, and I think he’s crossed it. He says he’ll “consider refraining from painting illegally” in exchange for no jail time, but maybe he should have thought of that option sooner. Other graffitists have opted for alternative media. Graffiti philosophers, like Arthur Stace, just kept it simple and stayed out of jail.
Rolling, Rolling, Rolling
Another expatriate blogger in Sydney appears. Enjoyable content, scary bunny face.
Another expatriate blogger in Sydney appears. Enjoyable content, scary bunny face.
Nobel Oblige
Every year, when the Nobel prize for literature is awarded, I make an attempt at gathering up one or more significant works by the winner and acquainting myself with the reason the prize committee made their selection. The prizes are a long way off this year, but last year’s winner, J. M. Coetzee, was one writer I felt myself already sufficiently familiar with not to go out and buy the latest books. I did, however, during my late period of unemployment, go back to Waiting for the Barbarians, one of his early works, because it’s a great favorite of mine and one I hadn’t been back to since it came out in the ‘80s. Around this time, M. had been saying she’d like to read the most recent volume, Elizabeth Costello, which I located at a second-hand shop during my job hunting peregrinations. She really, really like it, so we also located a copy of Disgrace and have borrowed a copy of Boyhood, Coetzee’s memoir of growing up in South Africa. I’ve only gotten through Disgrace, but our copy of Elizabeth Costello should be coming home soon, so once I finish Patrick White’s The Vivisector (he’s the Australian Nobelist, by the way), I’ll get on to it. Coetzee’s prose is deceptive. He reminds me of Hemingway in the spareness of his style, but he wears his heart on his sleeve, too, without making a great point of it. I’d say his writing is some of the most Human I’ve read in a long time. He lets you make your own judgments without withholding his own and in a tempered, natural language. He’s living in Adelaide now. I would welcome a chance to hear him speak, although he doesn’t apparently do that often.
Every year, when the Nobel prize for literature is awarded, I make an attempt at gathering up one or more significant works by the winner and acquainting myself with the reason the prize committee made their selection. The prizes are a long way off this year, but last year’s winner, J. M. Coetzee, was one writer I felt myself already sufficiently familiar with not to go out and buy the latest books. I did, however, during my late period of unemployment, go back to Waiting for the Barbarians, one of his early works, because it’s a great favorite of mine and one I hadn’t been back to since it came out in the ‘80s. Around this time, M. had been saying she’d like to read the most recent volume, Elizabeth Costello, which I located at a second-hand shop during my job hunting peregrinations. She really, really like it, so we also located a copy of Disgrace and have borrowed a copy of Boyhood, Coetzee’s memoir of growing up in South Africa. I’ve only gotten through Disgrace, but our copy of Elizabeth Costello should be coming home soon, so once I finish Patrick White’s The Vivisector (he’s the Australian Nobelist, by the way), I’ll get on to it. Coetzee’s prose is deceptive. He reminds me of Hemingway in the spareness of his style, but he wears his heart on his sleeve, too, without making a great point of it. I’d say his writing is some of the most Human I’ve read in a long time. He lets you make your own judgments without withholding his own and in a tempered, natural language. He’s living in Adelaide now. I would welcome a chance to hear him speak, although he doesn’t apparently do that often.
Third Party Politics
Since the days of John Anderson, I’ve been attracted to the possibility of voting for someone outside the Democratic or Republican parties. To be accurate, that’s really just the Democrats, because I’ve never been seriously interested in voting Republican, but we can leave that aside for now. What have I gotten, other than Anderson, to vote for: Ross Perot, Steve Forbes, and Ralph Nader. One’s a nut, one’s a Republican in tax-reformist clothing, and the other is a wild man running on a sufficiently strong political base as to marginally disrupt voting patterns, but with that margin being enough to potentially derail an effective opposition to the present regime. I’m in full agreement with Dr. Dean’s editorial statement in the NY Times, including his statement that voting for Nader means “a vote for a candidate who has no realistic shot of winning the White House.” Despite Nader’s Presidential bid in 2000, one which left him with an insufficient margin for his party to receive matching funds this year, I do still believe a Third Party might become viable someday in the United States. It’s happened elsewhere, although it’s proved difficult to sustain. The Democrats here in Australia, for example, and the Greens, are both forces to be reckoned with both locally and nationally. I still recall when the Greens became a potent force in (West) Germany. Running for President, however, is not the best means to achieving political presence on the necessary scale. To adapt the old ecologicalist adage: act locally, think nationally. Building up a political base from which to launch a Presidential campaign is a necessary first step. Once enough of an effective presence has been established in State and local legislatures, Congress is inevitable, and the White House can be effectively pursued. I’d happily vote for alternative candidates (so long as I can agree to the platform they run on) especially if I believe they can make the changes they promise.
Since the days of John Anderson, I’ve been attracted to the possibility of voting for someone outside the Democratic or Republican parties. To be accurate, that’s really just the Democrats, because I’ve never been seriously interested in voting Republican, but we can leave that aside for now. What have I gotten, other than Anderson, to vote for: Ross Perot, Steve Forbes, and Ralph Nader. One’s a nut, one’s a Republican in tax-reformist clothing, and the other is a wild man running on a sufficiently strong political base as to marginally disrupt voting patterns, but with that margin being enough to potentially derail an effective opposition to the present regime. I’m in full agreement with Dr. Dean’s editorial statement in the NY Times, including his statement that voting for Nader means “a vote for a candidate who has no realistic shot of winning the White House.” Despite Nader’s Presidential bid in 2000, one which left him with an insufficient margin for his party to receive matching funds this year, I do still believe a Third Party might become viable someday in the United States. It’s happened elsewhere, although it’s proved difficult to sustain. The Democrats here in Australia, for example, and the Greens, are both forces to be reckoned with both locally and nationally. I still recall when the Greens became a potent force in (West) Germany. Running for President, however, is not the best means to achieving political presence on the necessary scale. To adapt the old ecologicalist adage: act locally, think nationally. Building up a political base from which to launch a Presidential campaign is a necessary first step. Once enough of an effective presence has been established in State and local legislatures, Congress is inevitable, and the White House can be effectively pursued. I’d happily vote for alternative candidates (so long as I can agree to the platform they run on) especially if I believe they can make the changes they promise.
Republicanism
In 1999 Australia declined to pursue becoming a Republic. The debate’s back on, in large part due to Mark Latham, and this time things might turn out differently. Parliamentary politics are a bit alien to me, and I can’t say I like the idea of an appointed President. The present method of electing MPs, which utilizes the application of “preferences” strikes me as entirely workable. It’s one of the systems we heard about in the States in 2000, when George II usurped the White House, as a method for eliminating the Electoral College. Direct election of a chief executive is problematic in the States and in Australia because of population distribution, giving the preference to the eastern states in both countries. O.k., California, too. But only in the U.S. The preferences system or an Electoral College would balance this, and would allow the executive more potential for independent action over politicized appointment via Parliament. In any event, there’s no benefit to Australia to remain tied to England, especially now that the Governor General appears more and more to be a figurehead, one not even cutting a lot of ribbons these days. The most important thing the present committee can do this time is to try to assure that the process is not driven by John Howard’s rhetoric. He is a clever man and sidestepped the issue last time by recasting the referendum to the advantage of his agenda. Give the power to the people this time, and I think the outcome might be different.
In 1999 Australia declined to pursue becoming a Republic. The debate’s back on, in large part due to Mark Latham, and this time things might turn out differently. Parliamentary politics are a bit alien to me, and I can’t say I like the idea of an appointed President. The present method of electing MPs, which utilizes the application of “preferences” strikes me as entirely workable. It’s one of the systems we heard about in the States in 2000, when George II usurped the White House, as a method for eliminating the Electoral College. Direct election of a chief executive is problematic in the States and in Australia because of population distribution, giving the preference to the eastern states in both countries. O.k., California, too. But only in the U.S. The preferences system or an Electoral College would balance this, and would allow the executive more potential for independent action over politicized appointment via Parliament. In any event, there’s no benefit to Australia to remain tied to England, especially now that the Governor General appears more and more to be a figurehead, one not even cutting a lot of ribbons these days. The most important thing the present committee can do this time is to try to assure that the process is not driven by John Howard’s rhetoric. He is a clever man and sidestepped the issue last time by recasting the referendum to the advantage of his agenda. Give the power to the people this time, and I think the outcome might be different.
Roads and Tolls
Holiday weekends are renowned for traffic fatalities, although this year’s Pascal period ended up at about half last year’s rate. Listening to the news reports of the “hoons” speeding through Parramatta at twice the posted limit and similar depredations on the traffic laws, it strikes me as no wonder that Mad Max and the Road Warrior were made here.
Holiday weekends are renowned for traffic fatalities, although this year’s Pascal period ended up at about half last year’s rate. Listening to the news reports of the “hoons” speeding through Parramatta at twice the posted limit and similar depredations on the traffic laws, it strikes me as no wonder that Mad Max and the Road Warrior were made here.
11 April 2004
Spot-on
M. and I attended a screening of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, the latest Charlie Kaufman screenplay project, in advance of the general release, and recommend it highly, as we do all the Kaufman movies. How telling is it that Kaufman's screenplay makes it his project regardless of the actors, the director, or the producers? Nothing is wasted here, including the use of Lacuna Inc. as the name of the company delivering the technology that makes the story possible; a nice touch, and almost thrown away, like a notice board in the Simpsons. The plot drives towards deeply layered understanding of human relationships. M. put it that we saw played out the fundamental truth that often what we like best about another person is precisely what drives us mad, too. As for Jim Carrey, I was surprised at how good he was as a serious actor in The Truman Show, mostly because I've never liked his comedy, but if that film had been written by Kaufman, it would have been a stroke-inducing revelation. Carrey delivers a heart-felt and nuanced performance that stands right up there with the best performances we've seen, including Bill Murray in Lost in Translation. Someday Kaufman will slip up and a mediocre piece will result, but it's going to be a long time before that happens.
Addendum: we also saw a preview for the Coen brother's upcoming remake of The Lady Killers, the old Alec Guiness movie, and even with Tom Hanks and a deep South setting, it looks like it ought to be a lot of fun. A Coen Bros. remake? A big step for them, and one I'll make a point of attending.
M. and I attended a screening of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, the latest Charlie Kaufman screenplay project, in advance of the general release, and recommend it highly, as we do all the Kaufman movies. How telling is it that Kaufman's screenplay makes it his project regardless of the actors, the director, or the producers? Nothing is wasted here, including the use of Lacuna Inc. as the name of the company delivering the technology that makes the story possible; a nice touch, and almost thrown away, like a notice board in the Simpsons. The plot drives towards deeply layered understanding of human relationships. M. put it that we saw played out the fundamental truth that often what we like best about another person is precisely what drives us mad, too. As for Jim Carrey, I was surprised at how good he was as a serious actor in The Truman Show, mostly because I've never liked his comedy, but if that film had been written by Kaufman, it would have been a stroke-inducing revelation. Carrey delivers a heart-felt and nuanced performance that stands right up there with the best performances we've seen, including Bill Murray in Lost in Translation. Someday Kaufman will slip up and a mediocre piece will result, but it's going to be a long time before that happens.
Addendum: we also saw a preview for the Coen brother's upcoming remake of The Lady Killers, the old Alec Guiness movie, and even with Tom Hanks and a deep South setting, it looks like it ought to be a lot of fun. A Coen Bros. remake? A big step for them, and one I'll make a point of attending.
09 April 2004
Noteriety or the Lack Thereof
Congratulations to Boswell (as she's known [except if you saw her real name on t.v. last night]), and The Swanker, who were featured to one degree on another on last night's Mondo Thingo, a program devoted to tracking the latest trends (even months or years after they've been trendy). Also prominently featuring Tim Blair, whose content I don't follow closely, it was nice to see some new acquaintances on the tube. So who's coming on the 21st? (And if the big guns out of the U.S. could be used, why not a humble little ex-pat in Sydney? N.b. to self: get better content.)
Congratulations to Boswell (as she's known [except if you saw her real name on t.v. last night]), and The Swanker, who were featured to one degree on another on last night's Mondo Thingo, a program devoted to tracking the latest trends (even months or years after they've been trendy). Also prominently featuring Tim Blair, whose content I don't follow closely, it was nice to see some new acquaintances on the tube. So who's coming on the 21st? (And if the big guns out of the U.S. could be used, why not a humble little ex-pat in Sydney? N.b. to self: get better content.)
08 April 2004
Competition
A Yank in Oz is a new one on me: another American 'blogger working out of Australia. Since he shows up on Anthony Hicks' Aussie Blogs site under NSW, I suppose he, too, is in Sydney. I'll have to dig through the archives for a bit to find out more. (He better not be stealing any of my traffic.)
Postscript: Hi, Scott, who'd've guessed? Well, that's what I get for posting before researching. Do you engage in non-Dean Meetups? Great content, by the way. I'm sorry your parents are terrorists.
A Yank in Oz is a new one on me: another American 'blogger working out of Australia. Since he shows up on Anthony Hicks' Aussie Blogs site under NSW, I suppose he, too, is in Sydney. I'll have to dig through the archives for a bit to find out more. (He better not be stealing any of my traffic.)
Postscript: Hi, Scott, who'd've guessed? Well, that's what I get for posting before researching. Do you engage in non-Dean Meetups? Great content, by the way. I'm sorry your parents are terrorists.
07 April 2004
The 73
‘Blogging reaches new . . . something or other. Now there’s a weblog devoted to riding the bus in London, specifically, route 73. I haven’t really thought about doing any more than the usual entries on commuting, although if I was paying attention, I’m sure I could have reported something similar to Cheryl’s conversation with her grandmother. Probably I need a digital camera and a site that let’s me post photos.
‘Blogging reaches new . . . something or other. Now there’s a weblog devoted to riding the bus in London, specifically, route 73. I haven’t really thought about doing any more than the usual entries on commuting, although if I was paying attention, I’m sure I could have reported something similar to Cheryl’s conversation with her grandmother. Probably I need a digital camera and a site that let’s me post photos.
No-Fly Zones
Now that Hussein is out of power in Iraq, the Transportation Security Administration has established similar travel restrictions to those imposed in that country following the first Gulf War. The ACLU is bringing a suit to end the practice, claiming that insufficient safeguards exist to ensure passengers Constitutional rights. It’s an interesting problem. If airlines are simply complying with the TSA, a governmental body, then the case looks pretty much open-and-shut to me (unless they're using psychics, like they do in Florida). However, if this is a recommendation by the TSA that the airlines can comply with or not, then it appears more difficult. In the latter case, the airlines should have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose, and if there’s even the slightest possibility that the little old lady trying to board a flight to visit her grandchildren might be a suicide bomber, then she can just ride the bus or stay home. It’s the airline’s plane, and it cost them plenty to get it and run it. They can’t just have people blowing them up willy-nilly. In the former case, pre-screening would have to occur, with an appeals process through the courts, and well before the actual execution of travel plans. Instead of having to arrive at the airport three hours before your flight, you’d have to appear before a judge as soon as the docket was sufficiently clear to hear your plea. That should help the economy.
Now that Hussein is out of power in Iraq, the Transportation Security Administration has established similar travel restrictions to those imposed in that country following the first Gulf War. The ACLU is bringing a suit to end the practice, claiming that insufficient safeguards exist to ensure passengers Constitutional rights. It’s an interesting problem. If airlines are simply complying with the TSA, a governmental body, then the case looks pretty much open-and-shut to me (unless they're using psychics, like they do in Florida). However, if this is a recommendation by the TSA that the airlines can comply with or not, then it appears more difficult. In the latter case, the airlines should have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose, and if there’s even the slightest possibility that the little old lady trying to board a flight to visit her grandchildren might be a suicide bomber, then she can just ride the bus or stay home. It’s the airline’s plane, and it cost them plenty to get it and run it. They can’t just have people blowing them up willy-nilly. In the former case, pre-screening would have to occur, with an appeals process through the courts, and well before the actual execution of travel plans. Instead of having to arrive at the airport three hours before your flight, you’d have to appear before a judge as soon as the docket was sufficiently clear to hear your plea. That should help the economy.
Iditarod
Congratulations to the University of Connecticut’s women’s basketball team. I have always enjoyed how the “UConn” team is called the Huskies, even though that should the Yukon’s team name – there’s got to be a connection. (Kentucky’s “Vols” always makes me think of a small rodent, even though I know it isn’t pronounced that way.)
Congratulations to the University of Connecticut’s women’s basketball team. I have always enjoyed how the “UConn” team is called the Huskies, even though that should the Yukon’s team name – there’s got to be a connection. (Kentucky’s “Vols” always makes me think of a small rodent, even though I know it isn’t pronounced that way.)
06 April 2004
The Wrong Debate
Once again, William Safire has got it wrong. He casts the present debate in terms of hindsight, mischaracterizes the antiwar movement, and addresses the dilemma facing the U.S. and its allies as a choice between moving forward or of treading water. That’s not it, which is probably why Tony Blair is on his way over to have frank words with George II. The debate may include assessments of the choices made by Bush and his administration cronies to ignore terrorism in favor of developing an agenda against Iraq, and the developing situation there (or collapse into chaos depending on your perspective) has to inform our present decisions for the future. Nevertheless, the debate is ultimately that of the population at large, not just the politicians sitting in judgment, and consists of trying to choose between fighting terrorism using all the methods available to us or simplistically opting for military force alone against nations regardless of their participation in supporting non-state terrorists. We have to choose between who do we bomb next and how do we defeat terrorism? Letting Condoleeza Rice off the hook doesn’t help the debate, much as Mr. Safire would prefer it. I really have to stop reading his column.
Once again, William Safire has got it wrong. He casts the present debate in terms of hindsight, mischaracterizes the antiwar movement, and addresses the dilemma facing the U.S. and its allies as a choice between moving forward or of treading water. That’s not it, which is probably why Tony Blair is on his way over to have frank words with George II. The debate may include assessments of the choices made by Bush and his administration cronies to ignore terrorism in favor of developing an agenda against Iraq, and the developing situation there (or collapse into chaos depending on your perspective) has to inform our present decisions for the future. Nevertheless, the debate is ultimately that of the population at large, not just the politicians sitting in judgment, and consists of trying to choose between fighting terrorism using all the methods available to us or simplistically opting for military force alone against nations regardless of their participation in supporting non-state terrorists. We have to choose between who do we bomb next and how do we defeat terrorism? Letting Condoleeza Rice off the hook doesn’t help the debate, much as Mr. Safire would prefer it. I really have to stop reading his column.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
