This was sent me by a friend right after Katrina. Not much has changed except in degrees of worse, and the pile of corpses is higher...
If you have your finger on the pulse of popular culture then you may have heard about the comedy documentary "The Aristocrats": multiple comedians telling their versions of an allegedly classic dirty joke:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_aristocrats
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436078/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/aristocrats/
This modifies the joke with current political humor...it would be funny if it weren't so true...and sad...
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: NBC for fans of Documentary film...
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:51:53 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.music.artists.springsteen
A Joke
So this guy walks into a talent agency and says to the agent, "Have I got an act for you! It's a family act, you'll love it."
The agent says "Alright, lay it on me."
The guy says, "Well, first the grandpa comes in, this is in the thirties, mind, deals with the Nazis and makes a ton of money off German banking and mining, see. He gets nailed for trading with the enemy in the war, but it doesn't matter much cause by now his family is incredibly wealthy. His son, the Father, flies a plane in the Second World War and later becomes head of the CIA, then later, vice president, and after that, a one term president. He does a half ass job and gets out, kinda sets things up for later. It's the kid, he's the real lynchpin of the act. It gets better."
The agent nods, doodling on his dayplanner. "Please, continue."
"The kid comes in, and starts off with avoiding Vietnam by getting a nice position in the National Guard, see? But he skips out on that gig when he doesn't need it anymore. Then he runs a series of businesses into the ground. He can't run an oil company, he can't manage a baseball team, tries to run for Congress and fails, he does drugs and boozes, has trouble with basic life skills. But since his daddy's Vice President, or later, President, he gets whatever he wants. Gets bailed out every time.
He runs for governor of Texas and wins, and sets a new record for executing people. He likes to joke about the executions, too, mocking the pleas for leniency. 150-odd prisoners go to the chair under the Kid as governor. And the Kid is wearing a cowboy hat and talking in a Texas drawl the whole time, even though he's from Connecticut. But it gets better, this is just the start."
The agent nods, dropping his pen. "Umm.. alright.."
"The Kid doesn't just wanna be a governor, he wants to be President. So he runs for President and.. tough luck, he doesn't win. So get this, his buddies on the Supreme Court have to squeeze him in. They push and push, and finally he's President. He doodles around for a few months and then boom! Some terrorists come in and flatten a couple skyscrapers in New York. Thousands of people die, jumping out of skyscrapers and getting flattened in plane crashes, and the Kid swings into action. He starts bombing where the terrorists are hiding, and looking for them. I mean, wouldn't you? But when he can't find them in a couple months he goes after a totally different country, attacking them 'cause they had oil and his Dad had trouble with them ten or twelve years ago. He says it's because this country was the real guys who flattened those skyscrapers, because they'll do it again with weapons of mass destruction if they get the chance. So the audience is right behind him. Now there's a big ass war right on stage and bombs are flying, people getting killed left and right. And the Kid, you'll love this, underequips the soldiers being sent in, not enough armor, and makes them do police functions in a hostile country for months and months and then years after he says we won the war. And we get to torturing the Iraqis, making them stand around with electrodes on their nutsacks, raping their wives and kids in front of them, attacking them with vicious dogs, pissing on their holy books, and the audience loves it, they clap and applaud. A real crowd pleaser, that sequence. But soon the kid has gotten 1800 American troops killed, wounded thousands more, and get this there were no weapons of mass destruction at all, the whole thing was for oil, and they keep lying about it, lying and lying and lying. And now there's tortured people all over the place. Meanwhile the economy's sputtering along, and another election comes up. The Kid wins this one, by a squeaker, 'cause the other guy wasn't likable enough. So people are starting to question the whole war thing, just a little, and the country we invaded is in the shitter two years later, and nobody wants to leave for fear it'll get even worse. And then.."
The agent leans forward in his chair. "NOW what?"
"Okay, big finish now. A category 4 hurricane comes in and wipes out half the Gulf Coast! Just flattens everything for hundreds of miles around. And the levees in New Orleans break, cause the kid cut the budget for them to finance the war, and the whole city is flooded! Now, the rich white folks got out for the most part, but the poor folks, mostly black, get stuck at the Superdome and the Convention Center by the thousands. And get this, the kid's on vacation so they wait for four days, sleeping in their own shit, starving to death, dying of thirst, we got dead grannies in their wheelchairs and dead bodies lying on the streets and floating in the water, godawful spread of disease and filth, looters running around shooting guns, we got no organization from the government, total chaos. And the Kid, the Kid's in charge and he blames the governor for not signing the proper forms, even though she did. And the Kid turns back offers of aid and says he'll handle it, and that's what he does, he handles it right into the ground. So we got 3,000 corpses in New York, 10 or 20,000 corpses in New Orleans, we got 1800 military corpses quietly shipped home in boxes, we got untold thousands of dead Iraqis, we got Iraq in chaos, we got guys with electrodes attached to their nutsacks and piss all over their Korans, we got New Orleans underwater, we got refugees packing domed stadiums and living in shit, we got five years of blood and carnage and the economy in the crapper, and we got $4/gallon gas. Everyone gets up and takes a bow, except of course the mounds of corpses littering the stage."
The agent is completely flummoxed. Just flabbergasted. "So what the hell do you call this act?"
The guy says, with a flourish, "The Aristocrats!"
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Hillary; there's tough, and then there is dumb!
In the latest spat between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (see below), Hillary chose tough over smart.
Obama said he would not use nuclear weapons against Al Qaeda ot Taliban targets in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Hillary pounced, "say[ing] presidents never take the nuclear option off the table, and extending their feud over whether Obama has enough experience to be elected president in November 2008."
So. Now we know Hillary might nuke Taliban or Al Qaeda, which is about the stupidest idea voiced in a good long while.
Taking nukes off the table, or not, is a cold war relic. During the cold war we always left nukes on the table, which was important (supposedly) because we needed to give the Russians reason to doubt they could get away with a conventional attack on western Europe. Since they had NATO outnumbered in conventional forces, a nuclear threat was all we really had.
Of course, the cold war is over. The Russians no longer lead massive Warsaw Pact forces in Europe's heartland and the rationale of the cold war is over too.
Leave aside the morality of using nuclear weapons, there are times when they would make sense and times when they don't. And in the kind of terrain Al Qaeda and Taliban are hiding in, a nuke would make no sense, at all.
Why not take a really stupid idea off the table, particularly when no president in his or her right mind would waste a nuke--and risk all the flack it entailed--on a target abysmally suited for a nuke.
Why should Hillary make a fuss about taking the nuclear option off the table. Well, I think she is so threatened by Obama's candidacy that she is desperate for opportunities to paint him as inexperienced and dangerous.
Obama made an intelligent observation about nuclear weapons; that they are poorly suited for some purposes. So why not acknowledge it and lose the cold war rationales (that weren't all that rational in the first place).
Hillary could have used Obama's comments to start a discussion on how we think about the dreadful arsenal. Instead she reverted to stale "conventional wisdom" and talking points. That was worthy of the Bushies. Hillary owes us better.
Obama, Clinton in new flap, over nuclear weapons
By Steve Holland, Reuters, Thursday, August 2, 2007; 6:03 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama found himself embroiled in a new foreign policy flap with rival Hillary Clinton on Thursday, this time over the use of nuclear weapons.
Obama ruled out the use of nuclear weapons to go after al Qaeda or Taliban targets in Afghanistan or Pakistan, prompting Clinton to say presidents never take the nuclear option off the table, and extending their feud over whether Obama has enough experience to be elected president in November 2008.
Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, told a reporter after a Capitol Hill event that he would not use nuclear weapons in those countries, an aide said.
"His position could not be more clear," said Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki. "He would not consider using nuclear weapons to fight terror targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
That position came a day after Obama vowed he would be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan with or without the approval of the government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.
Obama struck the tough tone after Clinton accused him of being naive and irresponsible for saying in a debate last week he would be willing to meet without preconditions the leaders of hostile nations Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela in his first year in office.
Clinton's position was that she would only meet those leaders after careful lower-level diplomacy bore fruit. Obama said she represented conventional thinking in line with that of the Bush administration and would not bring the fundamental change Americans need.
The New York senator and former first lady quickly pounced on Obama's remark about nuclear weapons at a Capitol Hill news conference.
"I think presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use, or non-use, of nuclear weapons," she said.
"Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non use of nuclear weapons," she said.
The sharpest disputes of the Democratic race have come as Obama, aiming to become the first black U.S. president, struggles to close a big polling gap on Clinton.
A new poll by the Pew Research Center said Clinton now holds a nearly two-to-one lead over Obama in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, with the support of 40 percent of Democrats to 21 percent for Obama.
Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd, a senator from Connecticut, also criticized Obama, saying that over the last several days, "Senator Obama's assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options."
"We are facing a dangerous and complicated world. The next president will require a level of understanding and judgment unprecedented in American history to address these challenges," Dodd said.
Nuclear deterrence has been a tenet of American foreign policy since the Cold War.
Obama, outlining his foreign policy ideas in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs magazine, said the United States and Russia should work together to "de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons," and avoid rushing to produce a new generation of atomic weapons, while still "maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent."
(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell)
© 2007 Reuters
Obama said he would not use nuclear weapons against Al Qaeda ot Taliban targets in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Hillary pounced, "say[ing] presidents never take the nuclear option off the table, and extending their feud over whether Obama has enough experience to be elected president in November 2008."
So. Now we know Hillary might nuke Taliban or Al Qaeda, which is about the stupidest idea voiced in a good long while.
Taking nukes off the table, or not, is a cold war relic. During the cold war we always left nukes on the table, which was important (supposedly) because we needed to give the Russians reason to doubt they could get away with a conventional attack on western Europe. Since they had NATO outnumbered in conventional forces, a nuclear threat was all we really had.
Of course, the cold war is over. The Russians no longer lead massive Warsaw Pact forces in Europe's heartland and the rationale of the cold war is over too.
Leave aside the morality of using nuclear weapons, there are times when they would make sense and times when they don't. And in the kind of terrain Al Qaeda and Taliban are hiding in, a nuke would make no sense, at all.
Why not take a really stupid idea off the table, particularly when no president in his or her right mind would waste a nuke--and risk all the flack it entailed--on a target abysmally suited for a nuke.
Why should Hillary make a fuss about taking the nuclear option off the table. Well, I think she is so threatened by Obama's candidacy that she is desperate for opportunities to paint him as inexperienced and dangerous.
Obama made an intelligent observation about nuclear weapons; that they are poorly suited for some purposes. So why not acknowledge it and lose the cold war rationales (that weren't all that rational in the first place).
Hillary could have used Obama's comments to start a discussion on how we think about the dreadful arsenal. Instead she reverted to stale "conventional wisdom" and talking points. That was worthy of the Bushies. Hillary owes us better.
Obama, Clinton in new flap, over nuclear weapons
By Steve Holland, Reuters, Thursday, August 2, 2007; 6:03 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama found himself embroiled in a new foreign policy flap with rival Hillary Clinton on Thursday, this time over the use of nuclear weapons.
Obama ruled out the use of nuclear weapons to go after al Qaeda or Taliban targets in Afghanistan or Pakistan, prompting Clinton to say presidents never take the nuclear option off the table, and extending their feud over whether Obama has enough experience to be elected president in November 2008.
Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, told a reporter after a Capitol Hill event that he would not use nuclear weapons in those countries, an aide said.
"His position could not be more clear," said Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki. "He would not consider using nuclear weapons to fight terror targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
That position came a day after Obama vowed he would be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan with or without the approval of the government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.
Obama struck the tough tone after Clinton accused him of being naive and irresponsible for saying in a debate last week he would be willing to meet without preconditions the leaders of hostile nations Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela in his first year in office.
Clinton's position was that she would only meet those leaders after careful lower-level diplomacy bore fruit. Obama said she represented conventional thinking in line with that of the Bush administration and would not bring the fundamental change Americans need.
The New York senator and former first lady quickly pounced on Obama's remark about nuclear weapons at a Capitol Hill news conference.
"I think presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use, or non-use, of nuclear weapons," she said.
"Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non use of nuclear weapons," she said.
The sharpest disputes of the Democratic race have come as Obama, aiming to become the first black U.S. president, struggles to close a big polling gap on Clinton.
A new poll by the Pew Research Center said Clinton now holds a nearly two-to-one lead over Obama in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, with the support of 40 percent of Democrats to 21 percent for Obama.
Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd, a senator from Connecticut, also criticized Obama, saying that over the last several days, "Senator Obama's assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options."
"We are facing a dangerous and complicated world. The next president will require a level of understanding and judgment unprecedented in American history to address these challenges," Dodd said.
Nuclear deterrence has been a tenet of American foreign policy since the Cold War.
Obama, outlining his foreign policy ideas in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs magazine, said the United States and Russia should work together to "de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons," and avoid rushing to produce a new generation of atomic weapons, while still "maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent."
(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell)
© 2007 Reuters
Friday, July 27, 2007
Come on up for the rising...
This is another "where a song can take you" post, only this was has a photo involved as well.
This evening, as I drove across the mountains that are the eastern wall of the Shenandoah Valley, I played Bruce Springsteen's CD, The Rising.
That is his "9/11" CD. I like most of the songs on it. The title song, though, is my favorite. It may not be the best on the album; anyway the critics don't seem to think so. But everytime I listen to it. I can't help but remember a picture from that day. It was of a fireman in a stairwell at the World Trade Center.
He was loaded down with gear and drenched with sweat. He was a young looking 30-ish. What was really notable was the smile on his face. On that day. In that place. He was smiling. It was the sort of involuntary smile people wear when they are doing something they love, that they are meant to do.
I don't know if he got out or not.
The depiction of the fireman climbing into the tower to save lives is powerful enough, but the chorus sends the song into the place of the spirit.
It is almost scriptural; "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." But these weren't even friends in the towers. They were total strangers. And he still went up the stairs.
The "rising"; the lifting up, is most fitting. Bruce Springsteen wrote an amazing song about amazing people. We are coming up on the sixth anniversary of the day and the picture. Many will mourn, all will remember, some will misuse the day. We should all celebrate the courage and grace, and the goodness, that we saw that day.
For the fireman in the picture, and in the song:
Amen.
This evening, as I drove across the mountains that are the eastern wall of the Shenandoah Valley, I played Bruce Springsteen's CD, The Rising.
That is his "9/11" CD. I like most of the songs on it. The title song, though, is my favorite. It may not be the best on the album; anyway the critics don't seem to think so. But everytime I listen to it. I can't help but remember a picture from that day. It was of a fireman in a stairwell at the World Trade Center.
He was loaded down with gear and drenched with sweat. He was a young looking 30-ish. What was really notable was the smile on his face. On that day. In that place. He was smiling. It was the sort of involuntary smile people wear when they are doing something they love, that they are meant to do.
Left the house this morningHe was on his way up the stairwell, as far as he could go, to do his job.
Bells ringing filled the air
Wearin the cross
of my calling
On wheels of fire I come rollin down here
I don't know if he got out or not.
Can't see nothin in front of me
Can't see nothin coming up behind
I make my way through this darkness
I can't feel nothing but this chain that binds me
Lost track of how far I've gone
How far I've gone, how high I've climbed
On my back's a sixty pound stone
On my shoulder a half mile of line
The depiction of the fireman climbing into the tower to save lives is powerful enough, but the chorus sends the song into the place of the spirit.
Come on up for the rising
Come on up, lay your hands in mine
Come on up for the rising
Come on up for the rising tonight
It is almost scriptural; "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." But these weren't even friends in the towers. They were total strangers. And he still went up the stairs.
The "rising"; the lifting up, is most fitting. Bruce Springsteen wrote an amazing song about amazing people. We are coming up on the sixth anniversary of the day and the picture. Many will mourn, all will remember, some will misuse the day. We should all celebrate the courage and grace, and the goodness, that we saw that day.
For the fireman in the picture, and in the song:
Come on up for the rising
Come on up, lay your hands in mine
Come on up for the rising
Come on up for the rising tonight
Amen.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Is he out of his freakin' mind?
8:54pm Sunday, Jun 10
Joe Lieberman announced this morning that he though an attack on Iran might be needed, in order to stop then from pursuing their nuclear ambitions and to keep them from killing Americans in Iraq.
What does he think we can attack Iran with?
We have exhausted our ground forces. At this point we can't take on Serbia, for Christ's sake -- and thanks to our boy president's panderfest in Albania yesterday, we may have to take on Serbia (he gets to feel the love in a precinct in Chicago and the Balkans gets another shot at war). But the President's screw ups are for another day and another note; back to "tail-gunner Joe".
What the hell is he thinking???
We don't have the ground forces. But wait, he wants air strikes no doubt. Thats the ticket! It worked so well with Shock and Awe. It worked so well in Lebanon. If there is any doubt, some Air power freak is there to whisper it in your ear. "You don't need to worry about casualties. We can bring the enemy to its knees with strategic air power."
Bullshit.
It didn't work for the Luftwaffe., it didn't work in Vietnam. It didn't even work in Kosovo without help from ground forces, otherwise known as the KLA.
It didn't work in Lebanon; in fact it was probably counter-productive in Lebanon where light infantry and commandos could have better accomplished the mission.
Air power is attractive to amateurs who don't want to explain why a lot of their troops are going to get killed. And let me just say this -- right out of Clausewicz -- if you aren't ready to tell your people why you are sending their kids, siblings, spouses, and parents into harm's way; you are not ready to take them into war. Air power won't make it any easier. You still need ground forces to do the mopping up, to secure sensitive sites, to control populations, to rebuild infrastructure. To do all the things that we gaffed off in Iraq and will undoubtedly gaff off in Iran if arm-chair generals like Lieberman get their way.
Joe Lieberman announced this morning that he though an attack on Iran might be needed, in order to stop then from pursuing their nuclear ambitions and to keep them from killing Americans in Iraq.
What does he think we can attack Iran with?
We have exhausted our ground forces. At this point we can't take on Serbia, for Christ's sake -- and thanks to our boy president's panderfest in Albania yesterday, we may have to take on Serbia (he gets to feel the love in a precinct in Chicago and the Balkans gets another shot at war). But the President's screw ups are for another day and another note; back to "tail-gunner Joe".
What the hell is he thinking???
We don't have the ground forces. But wait, he wants air strikes no doubt. Thats the ticket! It worked so well with Shock and Awe. It worked so well in Lebanon. If there is any doubt, some Air power freak is there to whisper it in your ear. "You don't need to worry about casualties. We can bring the enemy to its knees with strategic air power."
Bullshit.
It didn't work for the Luftwaffe., it didn't work in Vietnam. It didn't even work in Kosovo without help from ground forces, otherwise known as the KLA.
It didn't work in Lebanon; in fact it was probably counter-productive in Lebanon where light infantry and commandos could have better accomplished the mission.
Air power is attractive to amateurs who don't want to explain why a lot of their troops are going to get killed. And let me just say this -- right out of Clausewicz -- if you aren't ready to tell your people why you are sending their kids, siblings, spouses, and parents into harm's way; you are not ready to take them into war. Air power won't make it any easier. You still need ground forces to do the mopping up, to secure sensitive sites, to control populations, to rebuild infrastructure. To do all the things that we gaffed off in Iraq and will undoubtedly gaff off in Iran if arm-chair generals like Lieberman get their way.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Too smart?
The article below, by Eugene Robinson, appeared in the Washington Post last Friday. The column was the occasion for some elevator chat about Gore's chances; and a comment from a co-worker that "we need an idiot savant in the White House." I probably don't need to write the next response (it is so obvious after all), but I will:
"We are already halfway there!"
It would be depressing to think that Americans might prefer a moron for President. Actually, I don't think they do. I think they want a smart guy; they just don't want him to act smart. This is borne out by the glee with which Republicans pointed out, before the 2004 election, that Bush's SAT scores were higher than Kerry's. They knew that Americans want their President to be smart. They also want him to be Jimmy Stewart -- or Mr Smith anyway. They want him to be plain-spoken, but able to stir the soul with enobling rhetoric in the vernacular of everyman.
Al Gore's "mistake" has been to act smart as well as be smart. That is elitist.
We have been like this about our Presidents for a long time. Andrew Jackson ran against Washington elitism and that old egghead John Quincy Adams in 1824 and 1828, accusing him in the latter election of dirty dealing and manipulating the Electoral College. "Just-folks" as a presidential virtue came into its own in the 1840 election when the Whig case for voting for Harrison was that he was born in a log-cabin (which he wasn't) and that he drank a lot of hard cider (which he didn't). But the message that a poor-born drunkard was preferable to a New York fop such as his opponent Van Buren worked; although it was helped along by a financial panic and a passle of scandals.
An Egghead for the Oval Office
By Eugene Robinson, Friday, June 1, 2007
Al Gore has been in town launching his new book, "The Assault on Reason," and you could have predicted the buzz: Is he about to jump into the race? What you probably wouldn't have predicted is the counter-buzz that Gore, poor fellow, is just too ostentatiously smart to be elected president.
In the book, you see, Gore betrays familiarity with history, economics, even science. He uses big words, often several in the same sentence. And in public appearances he doesn't even try to disguise his erudition. These supposedly are glaring shortcomings that should keep Gore on the sidelines, rereading Gibbon and exchanging ideas about the structure of the cosmos with Stephen Hawking.
Leave aside the question of whether Gore is even thinking about another presidential run, or how he would stack up against the other candidates. I'm making a more general point: One thing that should be clear to anyone who's been paying attention these past few years is that we need to go out and get ourselves the smartest president we can find. We need a brainiac president, a regular Mister or Miss Smarty-Pants. We need to elect the kid you hated in high school, the teacher's pet with perfect grades.
When I look at what the next president will have to deal with, I don't see much that can be solved with just a winning smile, a firm handshake and a ton of resolve. I see conundrums, dilemmas, quandaries, impasses, gnarly thickets of fateful possibility with no obvious way out. Iraq is the obvious place he or she will have to start; I want a president smart enough to figure out how to minimize the damage.
I want a president who reads newspapers, who reads books other than those that confirm his worldview, who bones up on Persian history before deciding how to deal with Iran's ambitious dreams of glory. I want a president who understands the relationship between energy policy at home and U.S. interests in the Middle East -- and who's smart enough to form his or her own opinions, not just rely on what old friends in the oil business say.
I want a president who looks forward to policy meetings on health care and has ideas to throw into the mix.
I want a president who believes in empirical fact, whose understanding of spirituality is complete enough to know that faith is "the evidence of things not seen" and who knows that for things that can be seen, the relevant evidence is fact, not belief. I want a president -- and it's amazing that I even have to put this on my wish list -- smart enough to know that Darwin was right.
Actually, I want a president smart enough to know a good deal about science. He or she doesn't have to be able to do the math, but I want a president who knows that the great theories underpinning our understanding of the universe -- general relativity and quantum mechanics -- have stood for nearly a century and proved stunningly accurate, even though they describe a world that is more shimmer than substance. I want him or her to know that there's a lot we still don't know.
I want the next president to be intellectually curious -- and also intellectually honest. I want him or her to understand the details, not just the big picture. I won't complain if the next president occasionally uses a word I have to look up.
The conventional wisdom says that voters are turned off when candidates put on showy displays of highfalutin brilliance. I hope that's wrong. I hope people understand how complicated and difficult the next president's job will be, and how much of a difference some real candlepower would make.
I don't want the candidates to pretend to be average people, because why would we choose an ordinary person for such an extraordinary job? I want to see what they've got -- how much they know, how readily they absorb new information, how effectively they analyze problems and evaluate solutions. If the next president is almost always the smartest person in the room, I won't mind a bit. After all, we're not in high school anymore.
"We are already halfway there!"
It would be depressing to think that Americans might prefer a moron for President. Actually, I don't think they do. I think they want a smart guy; they just don't want him to act smart. This is borne out by the glee with which Republicans pointed out, before the 2004 election, that Bush's SAT scores were higher than Kerry's. They knew that Americans want their President to be smart. They also want him to be Jimmy Stewart -- or Mr Smith anyway. They want him to be plain-spoken, but able to stir the soul with enobling rhetoric in the vernacular of everyman.
Al Gore's "mistake" has been to act smart as well as be smart. That is elitist.
We have been like this about our Presidents for a long time. Andrew Jackson ran against Washington elitism and that old egghead John Quincy Adams in 1824 and 1828, accusing him in the latter election of dirty dealing and manipulating the Electoral College. "Just-folks" as a presidential virtue came into its own in the 1840 election when the Whig case for voting for Harrison was that he was born in a log-cabin (which he wasn't) and that he drank a lot of hard cider (which he didn't). But the message that a poor-born drunkard was preferable to a New York fop such as his opponent Van Buren worked; although it was helped along by a financial panic and a passle of scandals.
An Egghead for the Oval Office
By Eugene Robinson, Friday, June 1, 2007
Al Gore has been in town launching his new book, "The Assault on Reason," and you could have predicted the buzz: Is he about to jump into the race? What you probably wouldn't have predicted is the counter-buzz that Gore, poor fellow, is just too ostentatiously smart to be elected president.
In the book, you see, Gore betrays familiarity with history, economics, even science. He uses big words, often several in the same sentence. And in public appearances he doesn't even try to disguise his erudition. These supposedly are glaring shortcomings that should keep Gore on the sidelines, rereading Gibbon and exchanging ideas about the structure of the cosmos with Stephen Hawking.
Leave aside the question of whether Gore is even thinking about another presidential run, or how he would stack up against the other candidates. I'm making a more general point: One thing that should be clear to anyone who's been paying attention these past few years is that we need to go out and get ourselves the smartest president we can find. We need a brainiac president, a regular Mister or Miss Smarty-Pants. We need to elect the kid you hated in high school, the teacher's pet with perfect grades.
When I look at what the next president will have to deal with, I don't see much that can be solved with just a winning smile, a firm handshake and a ton of resolve. I see conundrums, dilemmas, quandaries, impasses, gnarly thickets of fateful possibility with no obvious way out. Iraq is the obvious place he or she will have to start; I want a president smart enough to figure out how to minimize the damage.
I want a president who reads newspapers, who reads books other than those that confirm his worldview, who bones up on Persian history before deciding how to deal with Iran's ambitious dreams of glory. I want a president who understands the relationship between energy policy at home and U.S. interests in the Middle East -- and who's smart enough to form his or her own opinions, not just rely on what old friends in the oil business say.
I want a president who looks forward to policy meetings on health care and has ideas to throw into the mix.
I want a president who believes in empirical fact, whose understanding of spirituality is complete enough to know that faith is "the evidence of things not seen" and who knows that for things that can be seen, the relevant evidence is fact, not belief. I want a president -- and it's amazing that I even have to put this on my wish list -- smart enough to know that Darwin was right.
Actually, I want a president smart enough to know a good deal about science. He or she doesn't have to be able to do the math, but I want a president who knows that the great theories underpinning our understanding of the universe -- general relativity and quantum mechanics -- have stood for nearly a century and proved stunningly accurate, even though they describe a world that is more shimmer than substance. I want him or her to know that there's a lot we still don't know.
I want the next president to be intellectually curious -- and also intellectually honest. I want him or her to understand the details, not just the big picture. I won't complain if the next president occasionally uses a word I have to look up.
The conventional wisdom says that voters are turned off when candidates put on showy displays of highfalutin brilliance. I hope that's wrong. I hope people understand how complicated and difficult the next president's job will be, and how much of a difference some real candlepower would make.
I don't want the candidates to pretend to be average people, because why would we choose an ordinary person for such an extraordinary job? I want to see what they've got -- how much they know, how readily they absorb new information, how effectively they analyze problems and evaluate solutions. If the next president is almost always the smartest person in the room, I won't mind a bit. After all, we're not in high school anymore.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Political Miracle Worker
Back in the early 1990's, Washington DC elected Sharon Pratt Kelly as it's mayor. Kelly's administration was in all ways unremarkable, save one. She was so uninspiring and incompetent that she performed the political equivalent of raising Lazarus from the dead. She made Marion Barry re-electable. For those who don't remember , in 1990 Marion Barry was declared politically dead after "the bitch set [him] up " for a crack cocaine bust.
So why I am I thinking about Sharon Pratt Kelly? Mostly because I am thinking about another miracle worker who has raised a political corpse. In late 2000 I would have said--I did say, actually--that the only chance Al Gore had to get into the White House again was a public tour. Thanks to George W Bush, Al Gore may yet grace the Oval Office.
In November 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote by a respectable margin. He lost the electoral vote in a controversial Supreme Court decision that ended his hopes for a recount of the popular vote in key Florida counties and precincts.
Had Al Gore asked for a full recount of the Florida vote he might have won, or lost, but he would have emerged as the man for Bush to beat in 2004. Had he given the gracious concession speech on election night that he gave weeks later he would also have emerged as the man to beat. As it was, Gore took the worst possible course for a potential future candidate. He appeared to pout his way through the following weeks; worse he pursued a course in the courts that seemed at once conniving, pettifogging and cowardly. By demanding a recount of precincts that were heavily Democratic, but declining an opportunity to recount the entire state, Gore seemed to doubt his own voters. Legally, he undercut his own case to the Supreme Court and ensured the moniker of "sore loser".
Then, in the run-up to the 2004 Democratic primary, Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean--with no prior notification to his 2000 running-mate, Joe Lieberman, wh had gone on record as witholding an announcement pending Gore's decision whether to run or not--was considered shabby by the party pros.
But now, with a Democratic field barely smoldering, and an Oscar for his powerpoint presentation, Al Gore is the hottest prospect around. How is it possible? Simple. George W Bush has, through his blistering incompetence, dishonesty and stupidity, reminded all of us how badly we screwed up in November 2000. More importantly, I think he has reminded Gore how badly he screwed up in 2000. If he runs this year, he will not be the same Al Gore as then. There will be no more heavy sighs, no "controlling legal authority". There will be Howard Dean with his loyalists in tow, and--if Gore is nominated--Bill Clinton and lots of him. The sense of humor that so many report that the "real" Al Gore possesses will be evident this time in spades.
But frankly, I don't think it matters. George Bush has been such a disaster that only the deluded and the dishonest can imagine that the better man won in 2000. Al Gore may finally be the man to beat.
So why I am I thinking about Sharon Pratt Kelly? Mostly because I am thinking about another miracle worker who has raised a political corpse. In late 2000 I would have said--I did say, actually--that the only chance Al Gore had to get into the White House again was a public tour. Thanks to George W Bush, Al Gore may yet grace the Oval Office.
In November 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote by a respectable margin. He lost the electoral vote in a controversial Supreme Court decision that ended his hopes for a recount of the popular vote in key Florida counties and precincts.
Had Al Gore asked for a full recount of the Florida vote he might have won, or lost, but he would have emerged as the man for Bush to beat in 2004. Had he given the gracious concession speech on election night that he gave weeks later he would also have emerged as the man to beat. As it was, Gore took the worst possible course for a potential future candidate. He appeared to pout his way through the following weeks; worse he pursued a course in the courts that seemed at once conniving, pettifogging and cowardly. By demanding a recount of precincts that were heavily Democratic, but declining an opportunity to recount the entire state, Gore seemed to doubt his own voters. Legally, he undercut his own case to the Supreme Court and ensured the moniker of "sore loser".
Then, in the run-up to the 2004 Democratic primary, Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean--with no prior notification to his 2000 running-mate, Joe Lieberman, wh had gone on record as witholding an announcement pending Gore's decision whether to run or not--was considered shabby by the party pros.
But now, with a Democratic field barely smoldering, and an Oscar for his powerpoint presentation, Al Gore is the hottest prospect around. How is it possible? Simple. George W Bush has, through his blistering incompetence, dishonesty and stupidity, reminded all of us how badly we screwed up in November 2000. More importantly, I think he has reminded Gore how badly he screwed up in 2000. If he runs this year, he will not be the same Al Gore as then. There will be no more heavy sighs, no "controlling legal authority". There will be Howard Dean with his loyalists in tow, and--if Gore is nominated--Bill Clinton and lots of him. The sense of humor that so many report that the "real" Al Gore possesses will be evident this time in spades.
But frankly, I don't think it matters. George Bush has been such a disaster that only the deluded and the dishonest can imagine that the better man won in 2000. Al Gore may finally be the man to beat.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Where a song can take you...
Yesterday I listened to Neil Young's "Roger and Out" from his Living With War album. The song deals with loss from the Vietnam war. It not only gave me a chill and a major lump in my throat, it also focused me on today.
In 1970 I was an 18 year old Hospital Corpsman working at the Naval Hospital at St Albans, in Queens, NYC. We received dozens and sometimes hundreds of patients a month from Vietnam. They were treated in hospitals and on hospital ships in-country and then shipped to states-side hospitals closest to their homes of record as soon as they were stable enough to travel.
The first decorated Vietnam casualty I met ( he was given a Silver Star) was a young UH1 (Huey, as they were commonly called) pilot who had been injured flying a medevac mission. Huey pilots--this one particularly-- bore a distinctive wounding pattern, almost a signature. The seat protected their buttocks and upper-thighs, not to mention everything else above mid-thigh. They came into the battalion aid stations with everything from mid-thigh to the ankles shot up because "Charlie" learned that if he fired into the bottom of the cockpit as the bird lifted off, he could get the pilot in the legs and bring the bird down.
The Siver Star Huey pilot earned his award because he kept control of the aircraft and flew his patients to safety while one of the attending medics tried to stop his bleeding.
St Albans Naval Hospital was full of men who were from one to five years older than me. All had been seriously injured and were trying to come home in one way or another. Among those of us who cared for them, most had not been to Vietnam and were awaiting our turn. All of us who waited wondered if we were up to taking care of "our Marines" when we got there.
My time never came. Through an administrative wrinkle I went to a WAVE boot camp to give shots and open health records. By the time my next transfer came around, the war was winding down for Americans.
The song, "Roger and Out" reminds me of the days before. When it was our chance to do what our fathers and uncles had done. When it was our chance to save the world from tyranny. When we were kids and did not realize that some men fought wars to the last innocent kid's death to keep from being called a "wuss" or soft on communism; or to win an election.
Today I look at the kids coming back from Iraq and they are really kids now. The wounds are so much worse. Many who would have never survived in Vietnam now make it back and carry a tremendous burden. They are the same age now as then, for the most part. I am 55 and they are so young. And it seems so criminal a waste.
We cannot easily extract ourselves now. Our administration lit this conflagration, allowed it to rage out of control and proposes that the next administration take care of putting it out. If we leave precipitously the fire will grow worse. If we stay it may worsen anyway. But to leave now and send the region over a cliff would only compound our culpability. We have to find a way out and it will cost more blood and treasure; and we must remember, this Memorial day, as we mourn our losses and thank God for those who have been spared, that this war was entered on pretext--on a lie--and that high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed.
When this administration leaves office on January 20th 2009, I hope and pray the next administration and Congress demand of Bush, Cheney, et al the truth, accountability, and justice for this crime.
In 1970 I was an 18 year old Hospital Corpsman working at the Naval Hospital at St Albans, in Queens, NYC. We received dozens and sometimes hundreds of patients a month from Vietnam. They were treated in hospitals and on hospital ships in-country and then shipped to states-side hospitals closest to their homes of record as soon as they were stable enough to travel.
The first decorated Vietnam casualty I met ( he was given a Silver Star) was a young UH1 (Huey, as they were commonly called) pilot who had been injured flying a medevac mission. Huey pilots--this one particularly-- bore a distinctive wounding pattern, almost a signature. The seat protected their buttocks and upper-thighs, not to mention everything else above mid-thigh. They came into the battalion aid stations with everything from mid-thigh to the ankles shot up because "Charlie" learned that if he fired into the bottom of the cockpit as the bird lifted off, he could get the pilot in the legs and bring the bird down.
The Siver Star Huey pilot earned his award because he kept control of the aircraft and flew his patients to safety while one of the attending medics tried to stop his bleeding.
St Albans Naval Hospital was full of men who were from one to five years older than me. All had been seriously injured and were trying to come home in one way or another. Among those of us who cared for them, most had not been to Vietnam and were awaiting our turn. All of us who waited wondered if we were up to taking care of "our Marines" when we got there.
My time never came. Through an administrative wrinkle I went to a WAVE boot camp to give shots and open health records. By the time my next transfer came around, the war was winding down for Americans.
The song, "Roger and Out" reminds me of the days before. When it was our chance to do what our fathers and uncles had done. When it was our chance to save the world from tyranny. When we were kids and did not realize that some men fought wars to the last innocent kid's death to keep from being called a "wuss" or soft on communism; or to win an election.
Today I look at the kids coming back from Iraq and they are really kids now. The wounds are so much worse. Many who would have never survived in Vietnam now make it back and carry a tremendous burden. They are the same age now as then, for the most part. I am 55 and they are so young. And it seems so criminal a waste.
We cannot easily extract ourselves now. Our administration lit this conflagration, allowed it to rage out of control and proposes that the next administration take care of putting it out. If we leave precipitously the fire will grow worse. If we stay it may worsen anyway. But to leave now and send the region over a cliff would only compound our culpability. We have to find a way out and it will cost more blood and treasure; and we must remember, this Memorial day, as we mourn our losses and thank God for those who have been spared, that this war was entered on pretext--on a lie--and that high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed.
When this administration leaves office on January 20th 2009, I hope and pray the next administration and Congress demand of Bush, Cheney, et al the truth, accountability, and justice for this crime.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Could they be the stupidest people on earth?
Under the heading of mind-boggling stupidity we have this tale from Murfreesboro, Tennessee. It is bad enough that teachers would pull such a lame, cruel "prank" on the students who trust them, but for the school system to try to wriggle out of responsibility. That is how I read the statement, “I think they need to take the appropriate action, but I don’t think they need to overreact.” (see below).
Comments on the story, posted in the Tennesseean, speculate that this is the result of a Federal Program designed to spur fear among families. I'm not quite that paranoid (although I am getting there) but I do think it is typical of the education "industry." These people refuse to indulge in serious self-examination and criticism.
School system says students told to expect prank
Murfreesboro board members don’t want overreaction
By JAIME SARRIO
Staff Writer
Elementary students on a school field trip had been told to expect a “campfire prank” by the teachers, but a tale of a gunman on the loose went too far, Murfreesboro’s city school system said in a statement Sunday.
Sixty-nine sixth-grade students from Scales Elementary were told Thursday during a field trip to Fall Creek Falls that someone was shooting in the park and they should lie on the floor or crawl underneath tables and keep quiet.
Parents met at the school over the weekend to discuss the incident, which frightened many of the children and brought some to tears.
According to a statement released late Sunday by the district, the students had been anticipating a prank such as had been done to previous sixth-grade campers. Most of the students, the statement said, stood up after the trick, exchanged high fives and said, “That was a good one. Yeah, you got me.”
But some parents were outraged, especially in light of the April 16 shootings at Virginia Tech.
The district conceded that the prank crossed the line in light of recent incidents but stated that there were many versions of the story and news coverage of the hoax had been sensationalized.
Several Murfreesboro City Schools board members said Sunday that the phony attack was foolish and an error in judgment.
But they said they trust the director of schools, Marilyn Mathis, to decide what action — if any — should be taken against teachers and an assistant principal who staged the prank."
“I’m not sure punishment is even the right word,” said Nancy Phillips, a board member who knows the assistant principal involved.
“I think they need to take the appropriate action, but I don’t think they need to overreact.”
Board member Lon Nuell agrees. He said the incident was very unfortunate and immature, but he will leave it to Mathis to make the call on how those involved should be dealt with.
“It was a very foolish thing for adults to do to children,” he said. “Telling ghost stories is one thing, but carrying it as far as they did was a pretty big error in judgment.”
Scales Elementary Principal Catherine Stephens did not return calls made to her home Sunday.
She held a meeting Saturday afternoon at the school to discuss the matter with a handful of concerned parents. She said that she was saddened by the situation and that the school was handling it, though she declined to elaborate Saturday on whether the teachers involved would face disciplinary action.
Board member Patrick McCarthy said that the incident should be handled with care and sensitivity and that the administration should work hard to get all sides of the story.
“You have to hire the right people and them let them do their job,” he said.
Comments on the story, posted in the Tennesseean, speculate that this is the result of a Federal Program designed to spur fear among families. I'm not quite that paranoid (although I am getting there) but I do think it is typical of the education "industry." These people refuse to indulge in serious self-examination and criticism.
School system says students told to expect prank
Murfreesboro board members don’t want overreaction
By JAIME SARRIO
Staff Writer
Elementary students on a school field trip had been told to expect a “campfire prank” by the teachers, but a tale of a gunman on the loose went too far, Murfreesboro’s city school system said in a statement Sunday.
Sixty-nine sixth-grade students from Scales Elementary were told Thursday during a field trip to Fall Creek Falls that someone was shooting in the park and they should lie on the floor or crawl underneath tables and keep quiet.
Parents met at the school over the weekend to discuss the incident, which frightened many of the children and brought some to tears.
According to a statement released late Sunday by the district, the students had been anticipating a prank such as had been done to previous sixth-grade campers. Most of the students, the statement said, stood up after the trick, exchanged high fives and said, “That was a good one. Yeah, you got me.”
But some parents were outraged, especially in light of the April 16 shootings at Virginia Tech.
The district conceded that the prank crossed the line in light of recent incidents but stated that there were many versions of the story and news coverage of the hoax had been sensationalized.
Several Murfreesboro City Schools board members said Sunday that the phony attack was foolish and an error in judgment.
But they said they trust the director of schools, Marilyn Mathis, to decide what action — if any — should be taken against teachers and an assistant principal who staged the prank."
“I’m not sure punishment is even the right word,” said Nancy Phillips, a board member who knows the assistant principal involved.
“I think they need to take the appropriate action, but I don’t think they need to overreact.”
Board member Lon Nuell agrees. He said the incident was very unfortunate and immature, but he will leave it to Mathis to make the call on how those involved should be dealt with.
“It was a very foolish thing for adults to do to children,” he said. “Telling ghost stories is one thing, but carrying it as far as they did was a pretty big error in judgment.”
Scales Elementary Principal Catherine Stephens did not return calls made to her home Sunday.
She held a meeting Saturday afternoon at the school to discuss the matter with a handful of concerned parents. She said that she was saddened by the situation and that the school was handling it, though she declined to elaborate Saturday on whether the teachers involved would face disciplinary action.
Board member Patrick McCarthy said that the incident should be handled with care and sensitivity and that the administration should work hard to get all sides of the story.
“You have to hire the right people and them let them do their job,” he said.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
"Politics, passion"
Written Friday, May 4, 2007
There was a an anecdote going around in the late 90's--when Newt Gingrich was starting to flame out because of his mouth, his petulance, and his excesses in general--that a reporter asked David Bonior if he thought there was any substance to the idea that Gingrich was his own worst enemy. Bonior replied, 'Not while I'm around.'
What I like about that statement is that it tells me Bonior--who is managing John Edwards's campaign--is passionate about his politics and cause.
I know that we are supposed to strive to get along in politics, to be bi-partisan and all that. Indeed I hope we return to those days. But first, the body-politic needs to be rid of the guys who brought us to this point, the politicos who came to the house and senate in 1994 with their axes to grind and their scores to settle. These are the people who knee-capped a new president in 1992 because they were sore losers, and were ready/are ready to shred to constitution when it serves their purpose to do so. They are the people who made it impossible for Bill Clinton to carry out his foreign policy effectively and all too possible for George Bush to carry out his foreign policy.
They need to be shown the door with all the passion and anger we can muster. Bonior had it right back then. I hear the same passion in John Edwards campaign today. Lets roll."
Written Friday, May 4, 2007
There was a an anecdote going around in the late 90's--when Newt Gingrich was starting to flame out because of his mouth, his petulance, and his excesses in general--that a reporter asked David Bonior if he thought there was any substance to the idea that Gingrich was his own worst enemy. Bonior replied, 'Not while I'm around.'
What I like about that statement is that it tells me Bonior--who is managing John Edwards's campaign--is passionate about his politics and cause.
I know that we are supposed to strive to get along in politics, to be bi-partisan and all that. Indeed I hope we return to those days. But first, the body-politic needs to be rid of the guys who brought us to this point, the politicos who came to the house and senate in 1994 with their axes to grind and their scores to settle. These are the people who knee-capped a new president in 1992 because they were sore losers, and were ready/are ready to shred to constitution when it serves their purpose to do so. They are the people who made it impossible for Bill Clinton to carry out his foreign policy effectively and all too possible for George Bush to carry out his foreign policy.
They need to be shown the door with all the passion and anger we can muster. Bonior had it right back then. I hear the same passion in John Edwards campaign today. Lets roll."
Something nice about Paul Wolfowitz (Really)"
"Something nice about Paul Wolfowitz (Really)"
(Written Monday, Apr 30, 2007)
The article below is in today's Washington Post. Andrew Young makes a case for the World Bank keeping Paul Wolfowicz on the job. Normally I would pay no regard to a defense of Wolfowicz, but Andrew Young is not just any defender. I won't say he has persuaded me, but I am compelled to think twice about tossing Mr Neocon out on his ear."
The Right Man for the World Bank
By Andrew YoungMonday, April 30, 2007; A15
"Daddy King" -- the Rev. Martin Luther King Sr. -- was always reminding us that "hate is too great a burden to bear." Even after a childhood of racist oppression and the cruel assassination of both his son Martin by white men and his wife by a deranged black man as she sat at the organ of Ebenezer Baptist Church playing the Lord's Prayer, he daily affirmed that we must never stoop to hate.
Yet I came closer to hating Paul Wolfowitz than I ever came to hating Bull Connor, the Ku Klux Klan or the killers of Martin Luther King Jr.
You see, I saw Wolfowitz as the neocon policy wonk who led us into a war in Iraq but who had never even been in a street fight himself. My personal fantasy was to catch him alone and give him a good thrashing.
It seems our European friends are now indulging my fantasy. But I've come to realize how wrong that impulse is and how right Archbishop Desmond Tutu is when he says there's "no future without forgiveness."
I've also come to believe that the impatience of Wolfowitz and others with Saddam Hussein's violence grew from a more massive destruction than the world could ignore -- Hussein's murder of more than a million Shiites, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iranians, even without possessing atomic weapons. I was in Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion of 1990. I saw the horror and bloodshed of their occupation, and I knew Hussein had to be restrained. I may disagree with the means that were used, but not with the problem.
At the World Bank, however, an aggressive impatience with the evils of disease and poverty is exactly what is needed.
I first spent time with Paul Wolfowitz in Anacostia in 2005, when I participated in a program of the Operation Hope financial literacy initiative. In reading the program notes, I discovered that his PhD from the University of Chicago concerned the politics and economics of water resources management and that George Shultz had been his mentor at the State Department. When he was Treasury secretary, Shultz took me on my first trip to Africa as a congressional delegate to a World Bank gathering in Nairobi. Shultz also opened the diplomatic dialogue with the African National Congress at a time when much of Europe and America wrote off Oliver Tambo, Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki as hopeless communist terrorists.
I therefore decided to work with Paul Wolfowitz as a brother, and I have not been disappointed. We were together in Nigeria in 2006 for a Leon H. Sullivan Summit. I saw his effectiveness and warmth at work in a setting of 12 heads of state and 2,000 delegates from 22 countries.
His commitment and aggressiveness in promoting African development, as well as his abhorrence of needless bureaucratic "CYA" behavior, have been welcomed by those who love Africa and the developing world as well as by those willing to admit the complicity of the haves in the crisis of the have-nots.
It is my sincere hope that our European friends and allies can make the distinction between the U.S. Defense Department and the World Bank. While we still abhor the mismanagement and hubris of the Iraq invasion, we can share an aggressive impatience with poverty, disease, illiteracy and bureaucratic nitpicking and get on with our efforts to prevent the future wars and environmental crises.
France, Norway and the Netherlands have always been at the forefront of this struggle. I'm hopeful they will see the greater good of working together at the World Bank on these present evils and allow history, the World Court or the United Nations to judge Wolfowitz on his role in our previous conflicts.
We must get beyond the current crisis at the World Bank, a careful examination of which will show that Wolfowitz was operating in what he felt was the best interest of the institution and with the guidance of its ethics committee.
This crisis also should not redound to the detriment of Wolfowitz's companion, Shaha Riza, a British Muslim woman who is an admired World Bank professional and a champion of human rights in the Muslim world.
I am a Protestant Christian minister, a product of America's excessive Puritanism. I've always looked to Europe for sophistication, temperance and the tolerance the world needs to survive. It is my appeal that we offer Paul Wolfowitz the same chance to learn from the misjudgments of the past and move on together to construct a more just, prosperous and nonviolent world.
Andrew Young has served as executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, as mayor of Atlanta and as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He is co-chairman of Good Works International, a consulting firm offering advice in emerging markets in the Caribbean and Africa.
(Written Monday, Apr 30, 2007)
The article below is in today's Washington Post. Andrew Young makes a case for the World Bank keeping Paul Wolfowicz on the job. Normally I would pay no regard to a defense of Wolfowicz, but Andrew Young is not just any defender. I won't say he has persuaded me, but I am compelled to think twice about tossing Mr Neocon out on his ear."
The Right Man for the World Bank
By Andrew YoungMonday, April 30, 2007; A15
"Daddy King" -- the Rev. Martin Luther King Sr. -- was always reminding us that "hate is too great a burden to bear." Even after a childhood of racist oppression and the cruel assassination of both his son Martin by white men and his wife by a deranged black man as she sat at the organ of Ebenezer Baptist Church playing the Lord's Prayer, he daily affirmed that we must never stoop to hate.
Yet I came closer to hating Paul Wolfowitz than I ever came to hating Bull Connor, the Ku Klux Klan or the killers of Martin Luther King Jr.
You see, I saw Wolfowitz as the neocon policy wonk who led us into a war in Iraq but who had never even been in a street fight himself. My personal fantasy was to catch him alone and give him a good thrashing.
It seems our European friends are now indulging my fantasy. But I've come to realize how wrong that impulse is and how right Archbishop Desmond Tutu is when he says there's "no future without forgiveness."
I've also come to believe that the impatience of Wolfowitz and others with Saddam Hussein's violence grew from a more massive destruction than the world could ignore -- Hussein's murder of more than a million Shiites, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iranians, even without possessing atomic weapons. I was in Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion of 1990. I saw the horror and bloodshed of their occupation, and I knew Hussein had to be restrained. I may disagree with the means that were used, but not with the problem.
At the World Bank, however, an aggressive impatience with the evils of disease and poverty is exactly what is needed.
I first spent time with Paul Wolfowitz in Anacostia in 2005, when I participated in a program of the Operation Hope financial literacy initiative. In reading the program notes, I discovered that his PhD from the University of Chicago concerned the politics and economics of water resources management and that George Shultz had been his mentor at the State Department. When he was Treasury secretary, Shultz took me on my first trip to Africa as a congressional delegate to a World Bank gathering in Nairobi. Shultz also opened the diplomatic dialogue with the African National Congress at a time when much of Europe and America wrote off Oliver Tambo, Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki as hopeless communist terrorists.
I therefore decided to work with Paul Wolfowitz as a brother, and I have not been disappointed. We were together in Nigeria in 2006 for a Leon H. Sullivan Summit. I saw his effectiveness and warmth at work in a setting of 12 heads of state and 2,000 delegates from 22 countries.
His commitment and aggressiveness in promoting African development, as well as his abhorrence of needless bureaucratic "CYA" behavior, have been welcomed by those who love Africa and the developing world as well as by those willing to admit the complicity of the haves in the crisis of the have-nots.
It is my sincere hope that our European friends and allies can make the distinction between the U.S. Defense Department and the World Bank. While we still abhor the mismanagement and hubris of the Iraq invasion, we can share an aggressive impatience with poverty, disease, illiteracy and bureaucratic nitpicking and get on with our efforts to prevent the future wars and environmental crises.
France, Norway and the Netherlands have always been at the forefront of this struggle. I'm hopeful they will see the greater good of working together at the World Bank on these present evils and allow history, the World Court or the United Nations to judge Wolfowitz on his role in our previous conflicts.
We must get beyond the current crisis at the World Bank, a careful examination of which will show that Wolfowitz was operating in what he felt was the best interest of the institution and with the guidance of its ethics committee.
This crisis also should not redound to the detriment of Wolfowitz's companion, Shaha Riza, a British Muslim woman who is an admired World Bank professional and a champion of human rights in the Muslim world.
I am a Protestant Christian minister, a product of America's excessive Puritanism. I've always looked to Europe for sophistication, temperance and the tolerance the world needs to survive. It is my appeal that we offer Paul Wolfowitz the same chance to learn from the misjudgments of the past and move on together to construct a more just, prosperous and nonviolent world.
Andrew Young has served as executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, as mayor of Atlanta and as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He is co-chairman of Good Works International, a consulting firm offering advice in emerging markets in the Caribbean and Africa.
Thoughts on the Dem's debate
"Thoughts on the Dem's debate"
(Written Sunday, Apr 29, 2007)
- Obama came off best I think, with Richardson and Dodd tied for second.
- Edwards needs to stop putting an interrogative at the end of his sentences and declarative clauses. It makes him sound wimpy rather than caring.
- Gravel, I actually liked--although he reminds me of Howard Beale in Network (The 'I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore' character).
- Hillary is too prepped and rehearsed.
- Biden got the best humor line of the night with a one word answer to Brian Williams, questioning--given his record of garrulousness-- whether he was able to keep his foot out of his mouth and coontrol his logorrhea while conducting America's business ('Yes')."
(Written Sunday, Apr 29, 2007)
- Obama came off best I think, with Richardson and Dodd tied for second.
- Edwards needs to stop putting an interrogative at the end of his sentences and declarative clauses. It makes him sound wimpy rather than caring.
- Gravel, I actually liked--although he reminds me of Howard Beale in Network (The 'I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore' character).
- Hillary is too prepped and rehearsed.
- Biden got the best humor line of the night with a one word answer to Brian Williams, questioning--given his record of garrulousness-- whether he was able to keep his foot out of his mouth and coontrol his logorrhea while conducting America's business ('Yes')."
Journeys with George
'Journeys with George'
... aired on MSNBC this afternoon (April 29, 2007). It is Alexandra Pelosi's record of life on the Press Bus/Airplane during George Bush's 2000 campaign. What came across to me was that he was a nice guy who gave little evidence that he thought much at all about policy. Also, his staff--mostly Karen Hughes and Karl Rove are profiled--epitomized the Bush administrations cynicism toward--and contempt of--the press. I believe that their cynicism and contempt extends to American voters and political institutions as a whole. How else to explain their complete disregard of Constitutional limits and the role of Congress in government.
In the film Bush also comes across as someone who has never _not_ been a favored son. The combination of princeling and an arrogant contemptuous staff is a toxic one, as we have come to see."
... aired on MSNBC this afternoon (April 29, 2007). It is Alexandra Pelosi's record of life on the Press Bus/Airplane during George Bush's 2000 campaign. What came across to me was that he was a nice guy who gave little evidence that he thought much at all about policy. Also, his staff--mostly Karen Hughes and Karl Rove are profiled--epitomized the Bush administrations cynicism toward--and contempt of--the press. I believe that their cynicism and contempt extends to American voters and political institutions as a whole. How else to explain their complete disregard of Constitutional limits and the role of Congress in government.
In the film Bush also comes across as someone who has never _not_ been a favored son. The combination of princeling and an arrogant contemptuous staff is a toxic one, as we have come to see."
It occurs to me.....
(Written Friday, Apr 27, 2007)
...that there is a very good reason (from the administration's point of view) to take the polarizing, uncompromising position they are taking on the Iraq-war funding bills. It is less about principle (Presidents' right to conduct a war as deemed best) or even about saving face. It is about control of the Senate. Bush and Cheney, by double-dog-daring the Democrats to send a funding bill with a timetable attached, are engineering a collision _within_ the Democratic caucus. They hope--I believe--that this will push Joe Lieberman into the Republican caucus. They might even get a bonus and push Ben Nelson of Nebraska into the Republicans' arms. If either Senator crosses the aisle, they get control of the Senate back.Given the legal problems facing them--not to mention policy problems--that is a smart move, albeit utterly immoral.These guys have completely substituted cynicism for statecraft. They are absolutely the worst administration this country has ever suffered.
...that there is a very good reason (from the administration's point of view) to take the polarizing, uncompromising position they are taking on the Iraq-war funding bills. It is less about principle (Presidents' right to conduct a war as deemed best) or even about saving face. It is about control of the Senate. Bush and Cheney, by double-dog-daring the Democrats to send a funding bill with a timetable attached, are engineering a collision _within_ the Democratic caucus. They hope--I believe--that this will push Joe Lieberman into the Republican caucus. They might even get a bonus and push Ben Nelson of Nebraska into the Republicans' arms. If either Senator crosses the aisle, they get control of the Senate back.Given the legal problems facing them--not to mention policy problems--that is a smart move, albeit utterly immoral.These guys have completely substituted cynicism for statecraft. They are absolutely the worst administration this country has ever suffered.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Maya Angelou on Molly Ivins
Molly Ivins Shook the Walls With Her Clarion Call
By Maya AngelouSpecial to The Washington PostFriday, February 2, 2007; C01
Up to the walls of Jericho
She marched with a spear in her hand
Go blow them ram horns she cried
For the battle is in my hand
The walls have not come down, but they have been given a serious shaking.
That Jericho voice is stilled now.
Molly Ivins has been quieted.
The writer and journalist, dearly loved and admired by many, hated and feared by many, died of cancer in her Texas home on Jan. 31, 2007.
The walls of ignorance and prejudice and cruelty, which she railed against valiantly all her public life, have not fallen, but their truculence to do so does not speak against her determination to make them collapse.
Weeks before she died, she launched what she called "an old-fashioned newspaper crusade" against President Bush's announcement that he was going to send more troops to Iraq.
She wrote, "We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. Every single day every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. We need people in the streets banging pots and pans and demanding, 'Stop it now!' "
Years ago there was a fundraising gala for People for the American Way in New York, and Molly Ivins was keynote speaker. I was a loyal collector and serious Ivins reader, but I had not met the author. Another famous journalist, who was to have introduced her, had his flight canceled in a Southern city. Norman Lear, founder of the organization, asked me to introduce her. I did not hesitate. I spoke glowingly about Ms. Ivins for a few minutes, then, suddenly, a six-foot-tall, red-haired woman sprang from the wings. She strode onto the stage and over to the microphone. She gave me an enveloping hug and said, in that languorous Texas accent, "Maya Angelou and I are identical twins, we were separated at birth."
I am also six feet tall, but I am not white. She was under 50 when she made the statement, and I was in my middle 60s, but our hearts do beat in the same rhythm. Whoever separated us at birth must know it did not work. We have been in the struggle for equal rights for all people since we met on that Waldorf Astoria stage. We have laughed together without apology and we have wept when weeping was necessary.
I shall be weeping a little more these days but I shall never forget the charge. Joshua commanded the people to shout and the walls came tumbling down.
Molly,I am shouting,
With two voices,
Walls come down!Walls come down!
Walls come down!
Poet Maya Angelou is the author of "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings."
By Maya AngelouSpecial to The Washington PostFriday, February 2, 2007; C01
Up to the walls of Jericho
She marched with a spear in her hand
Go blow them ram horns she cried
For the battle is in my hand
The walls have not come down, but they have been given a serious shaking.
That Jericho voice is stilled now.
Molly Ivins has been quieted.
The writer and journalist, dearly loved and admired by many, hated and feared by many, died of cancer in her Texas home on Jan. 31, 2007.
The walls of ignorance and prejudice and cruelty, which she railed against valiantly all her public life, have not fallen, but their truculence to do so does not speak against her determination to make them collapse.
Weeks before she died, she launched what she called "an old-fashioned newspaper crusade" against President Bush's announcement that he was going to send more troops to Iraq.
She wrote, "We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. Every single day every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. We need people in the streets banging pots and pans and demanding, 'Stop it now!' "
Years ago there was a fundraising gala for People for the American Way in New York, and Molly Ivins was keynote speaker. I was a loyal collector and serious Ivins reader, but I had not met the author. Another famous journalist, who was to have introduced her, had his flight canceled in a Southern city. Norman Lear, founder of the organization, asked me to introduce her. I did not hesitate. I spoke glowingly about Ms. Ivins for a few minutes, then, suddenly, a six-foot-tall, red-haired woman sprang from the wings. She strode onto the stage and over to the microphone. She gave me an enveloping hug and said, in that languorous Texas accent, "Maya Angelou and I are identical twins, we were separated at birth."
I am also six feet tall, but I am not white. She was under 50 when she made the statement, and I was in my middle 60s, but our hearts do beat in the same rhythm. Whoever separated us at birth must know it did not work. We have been in the struggle for equal rights for all people since we met on that Waldorf Astoria stage. We have laughed together without apology and we have wept when weeping was necessary.
I shall be weeping a little more these days but I shall never forget the charge. Joshua commanded the people to shout and the walls came tumbling down.
Molly,I am shouting,
With two voices,
Walls come down!Walls come down!
Walls come down!
Poet Maya Angelou is the author of "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings."
EJ Dionne on Molly Ivins
Molly Ivins's Joyful Outrage
By E. J. Dionne Jr.Friday, February 2, 2007; A15
She explained her views on gun control this way: "I am not anti-gun. I'm pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife. In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We'd turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don't ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives."
She said of a certain beloved former president while he was in office that "if you put his brains in a bee, it would fly backwards" and that "if he gets even more sedate, we will have to water him twice a week."
And she said of her affection for her home state: "I dearly love the state of Texas, but I consider that a harmless perversion on my part, and discuss it only with consenting adults."
Boy, will we miss Molly Ivins, the writer and happy agitator who succumbed Wednesday to cancer -- a disease, she said, not sparing herself from her own lashing wit, that "can kill you, but it doesn't make you a better person." Yes, we will remember her for being raucously funny, always at the expense of the wealthy, the powerful or the Texas legislature.
But because she made you laugh and broke all the rules of polite commentary ("I believe in practicing prudence at least once every two or three years"), Molly made you forget how deadly serious she was about politics, democracy and social justice.
More than just about any other columnist I can think of, Molly was a genuine populist, to make proper reference to a word she couldn't stand to see misused by charlatans. She believed in lifting up the underdog and hated it when the wealthy made excuses for injustice.
When the victims of layoffs and downsizing complained, Molly said some years ago, they were met with "a more sophisticated version of 'So what.' This is the gig where you make yourself look wise by tugging your chin and opining, 'Well, yes, there is a problem, but there's really nothing we can do about it. Blah, blah, economic globalization, blah, blah, technological change, blah, blah, only long-term solutions.' " To Molly, this was all self-interested nonsense.
Molly paid far more attention than most reporters to the details of budget bills and was always on the barricades when poor people were being shortchanged. During the great government shutdown of 1995, when most journalists were obsessing over the personal drama of Clinton vs. Gingrich, Molly was writing about cuts to the Supplemental Security Income program.
She could talk CBO and OMB with the best of the budget mavens. Nobody much noticed because she'd keep people reading with such phrases as "the lick log" -- I can't translate that one -- and "fruitcake tax giveaways."
She believed in democratic politics and hated it when people didn't exercise their rights to vote and protest. She believed in government and hated it when people ran it down.
"This is a column," she wrote in September 2005, "for everyone in the path of Hurricane Katrina who ever said, 'I'm sorry, I'm just not interested in politics,' or, 'There's nothing I can do about it,' or, 'Eh, they're all crooks anyway.' . . . Look around you this morning. I suppose the National Rifle Association would argue, 'Government policies don't kill people, hurricanes kill people.' Actually, hurricanes plus government policies kill people."
I became a Molly fan many years ago when we both worked at the New York Times, a place where she was as inconspicuous as a tarantula on a piece of angel food cake (to steal shamelessly from Raymond Chandler). I was blessed to have dinner with her last November. She was dying but had lost none of her capacity for joyful outrage.
And joy was the key. Another thing she hated was anybody who didn't think that fighting the good fight was a kick. She left us all with a charge a few years ago:
"Keep fighting for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce."
If I may say so without raising complex theological issues, at least the hereafter is now a better place. Molly Ivins is the only person I can think of who, upon entering heaven, would start making jokes at God's expense and get God to laugh with her.
By E. J. Dionne Jr.Friday, February 2, 2007; A15
She explained her views on gun control this way: "I am not anti-gun. I'm pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife. In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We'd turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don't ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives."
She said of a certain beloved former president while he was in office that "if you put his brains in a bee, it would fly backwards" and that "if he gets even more sedate, we will have to water him twice a week."
And she said of her affection for her home state: "I dearly love the state of Texas, but I consider that a harmless perversion on my part, and discuss it only with consenting adults."
Boy, will we miss Molly Ivins, the writer and happy agitator who succumbed Wednesday to cancer -- a disease, she said, not sparing herself from her own lashing wit, that "can kill you, but it doesn't make you a better person." Yes, we will remember her for being raucously funny, always at the expense of the wealthy, the powerful or the Texas legislature.
But because she made you laugh and broke all the rules of polite commentary ("I believe in practicing prudence at least once every two or three years"), Molly made you forget how deadly serious she was about politics, democracy and social justice.
More than just about any other columnist I can think of, Molly was a genuine populist, to make proper reference to a word she couldn't stand to see misused by charlatans. She believed in lifting up the underdog and hated it when the wealthy made excuses for injustice.
When the victims of layoffs and downsizing complained, Molly said some years ago, they were met with "a more sophisticated version of 'So what.' This is the gig where you make yourself look wise by tugging your chin and opining, 'Well, yes, there is a problem, but there's really nothing we can do about it. Blah, blah, economic globalization, blah, blah, technological change, blah, blah, only long-term solutions.' " To Molly, this was all self-interested nonsense.
Molly paid far more attention than most reporters to the details of budget bills and was always on the barricades when poor people were being shortchanged. During the great government shutdown of 1995, when most journalists were obsessing over the personal drama of Clinton vs. Gingrich, Molly was writing about cuts to the Supplemental Security Income program.
She could talk CBO and OMB with the best of the budget mavens. Nobody much noticed because she'd keep people reading with such phrases as "the lick log" -- I can't translate that one -- and "fruitcake tax giveaways."
She believed in democratic politics and hated it when people didn't exercise their rights to vote and protest. She believed in government and hated it when people ran it down.
"This is a column," she wrote in September 2005, "for everyone in the path of Hurricane Katrina who ever said, 'I'm sorry, I'm just not interested in politics,' or, 'There's nothing I can do about it,' or, 'Eh, they're all crooks anyway.' . . . Look around you this morning. I suppose the National Rifle Association would argue, 'Government policies don't kill people, hurricanes kill people.' Actually, hurricanes plus government policies kill people."
I became a Molly fan many years ago when we both worked at the New York Times, a place where she was as inconspicuous as a tarantula on a piece of angel food cake (to steal shamelessly from Raymond Chandler). I was blessed to have dinner with her last November. She was dying but had lost none of her capacity for joyful outrage.
And joy was the key. Another thing she hated was anybody who didn't think that fighting the good fight was a kick. She left us all with a charge a few years ago:
"Keep fighting for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce."
If I may say so without raising complex theological issues, at least the hereafter is now a better place. Molly Ivins is the only person I can think of who, upon entering heaven, would start making jokes at God's expense and get God to laugh with her.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Chris Dodd
I listened to Chris Dodd on NPR tonight. He sounds good. He is one of a few Senators who have addressed their vote to go into Iraq by saying, simply, "I was wrong." Dodd discussed his view on Sarbanes-Oxley (not perfect but a necessary corrective) and the course of the war in Iraq (a disaster). He has great promise.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
ramblings, musings, etc.....
So, these are the ramblings, rantings, musings, of a middle-aged, middle-classguy who is a Democrat. A socially moderate, fiscally conservative, career military (now retired) guy who thinks George W Bush is the worst president in our history, period.
I am politically active and a student of our presidency. I relish the time before our presidential elections when the candidates begin to emerge. 2008 is a dream come true because this is the first election since 1952, in which an incumbent or heir apparent is not running. This thing is totally open.
Right now I am looking at Obama as "my guy". For me the ideal ticket is Obama-Richardson. It could go the other way as easily way, Richardson-Obama, but I think Obama on top of the ticket has the best shot at carrying an election.
Obama has the star quality (I apologize for the cliche) and inspres loyalty and confidence in a way we haven't seen since JFK. But, Obama needs gravitas (Okay, I apologize again); something Richardson can give him.
Of course this all too early. We have a lot of fun ahead.
I am politically active and a student of our presidency. I relish the time before our presidential elections when the candidates begin to emerge. 2008 is a dream come true because this is the first election since 1952, in which an incumbent or heir apparent is not running. This thing is totally open.
Right now I am looking at Obama as "my guy". For me the ideal ticket is Obama-Richardson. It could go the other way as easily way, Richardson-Obama, but I think Obama on top of the ticket has the best shot at carrying an election.
Obama has the star quality (I apologize for the cliche) and inspres loyalty and confidence in a way we haven't seen since JFK. But, Obama needs gravitas (Okay, I apologize again); something Richardson can give him.
Of course this all too early. We have a lot of fun ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
