Notes on how things seem to me from out here in Hollywood... As seen from Just Above Sunset
Make your own free website on Tripod.com
OF INTEREST
Click here to go there... Click here to go there...

Here you will find a few things you might want to investigate.

Support the Just Above Sunset websites...

Sponsor:

Click here to go there...

ARCHIVE
« June 2006 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
Photos and text, unless otherwise noted, Copyright 2003,2004,2005,2006 - Alan M. Pavlik
Contact the Editor

Consider:

"It is better to be drunk with loss and to beat the ground, than to let the deeper things gradually escape."

- I. Compton-Burnett, letter to Francis King (1969)

"Cynical realism – it is the intelligent man’s best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation."

- Aldous Huxley, "Time Must Have a Stop"







Site Meter
Technorati Profile

Tuesday, 27 June 2006
The Irony of Power: Losing it all by being strong...
Topic: Couldn't be so...

The Irony of Power: Losing it all by being strong...

Of course the big event of Tuesday, June 27, was the new war in the Middle East, as Israeli tanks rolled into Gaza and the Egyptian army was massing off to the south. This should be interesting, as the Associated Press notes here -
Israeli tanks and troops entered southern Gaza and planes attacked three bridges and knocked out electricity to the coastal strip early Wednesday, stepping up the pressure on Palestinian militants holding captive a 19-year-old Israeli soldier.

The soldiers and tanks began taking up positions in two locations about a mile east of the Gaza town of Rafah under the cover of tank shells, according to witnesses and Palestinian security officials. Palestinians dug in behind walls and sand embankments, bracing for a major Israeli offensive.
Oh great. Our Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, was trying urging Israel to "give diplomacy a chance." And that wasn't working. We taught them too well - somebody does something outrageous, and it will be war, and that's that. We lead by example, not by what we say. The Israelis say it's just a "limited operation" - and we said we'd bop into Iraq, get rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, hand the place over to Ahmed Chalabi, and be home by Christmas. We'll see.

There was some movement, or not -
Trying to defuse building tensions, negotiators from the ruling Hamas movement said Tuesday they had accepted a document implicitly recognizing Israel. But two Syrian-based Hamas leaders denied a final deal had been reached.

Israel said only freedom for the captive soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, could defuse the crisis, not a political agreement.
We did teach them well. There's just nothing that can do. There are "consequences" - and that's that.

So we've become the model. As Fareed Zakaria points out in the latest Newsweek here, war had been our default approach to foreign affairs, and our diplomatic efforts, such as they are, whne we are forced to use such things, have been a bit limited and ineffective - "The entire approach of isolating, shunning and sanctioning regimes as a way of changing them or their behavior has been an unmitigated failure from Cuba (boycotted since 1960) to Iran (since 1979). Meanwhile, the regimes we have talked to and thus had influence with - in China, Vietnam, Libya - are evolving. In Washington, it's still more important to look tough than be effective."

And so it is in Israel, with the same bad PR - the minor side issues everyone picks on, as the locals just don't seem to appreciate that our looking tough, and doing the strong thing because it's noble and just "right," means they may be somewhere between inconvenienced and dead - "The attack raised the specter of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, as water pumps in the strip are powered by electricity. Some power in Gaza City was restored by tapping into electricity supplied by Israel in northern Gaza."

But Israel wants that one soldier back - and no talking will do. No water? What's the problem? We taught them well.

On other hand, the other big story of the day was also awful, or cheering, depending on your point of view - the Senate, by one vote, rejected joining the house and moving forward with a new constitutional amendment to add the very first exception to that free speech stuff in the first amendment. There will be no change to the constitution to create a special case where one form of free speech, burning the flag in protest, is forbidden. The details are here, and the vote tally, of just who voted for and against, is here.

The ACLU had this to say -
"The Senate came close to torching our constitution, but luckily it came through unscathed," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "We applaud those brave Senators who stood up for the First Amendment and rejected this damaging and needless amendment.

"America prides itself on tolerance and acceptance; it is essential that we not amend our founding document to allow censorship, even when the speech in question is reprehensible," Fredrickson added. "Today the First Amendment and, indeed, the entire Bill of Rights remain untarnished and more meaningful than ever. It is our hope that the Senate will now move on to the real problems this country faces."
Good luck with that. But then, the whole range of carve-outs the first amendment, creating specific but patriotic exemptions to the principles of free speech - first the flag burning exclusion, then anything said by the Dixie Chicks or whatever, then the exclusion that allows the government to tell the press what news can and cannot be printed or broadcast - were derailed at the first try. By one vote. They'll try again.

This "don't burn the flag" effort was discussed elsewhere in the pages in Shutting Things Down, along with the parallel effort to charge the New York Times with treason, formally or informally, for revealing all the secret spying done on us all - from the warrantless phone taps and data-mining of everyone's phone records, to sweeping up all financial records available. The former is clearly illegal on the face of it, and that may be news, while the later is, while amazingly broad, more defensible, if disturbing.

The Times thought people ought to know about both - so did the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times - but the administration thought not. Sure people might like to know that their privacy is pretty much gone, but if the bad guys got wind of the programs they'd stop using phones and banks. No, that can't be right, because that would be a good thing, crippling their communications and screwing up their funding. The basic idea must be then that they don't know we're looking for them, and now they do. No, that can't be right either - we said we're looking for them, so they know that. But the programs were secret, and now they're not. One must assume we're to imagine these programs are like the Enigma business in WWII - we'd captured the encryption device and finally figured out how it worked, and the Germans had no idea we could read their message traffic and were three steps ahead of all their moves. It must be like that. They simply had no idea we'd actually be tapping their phones and following the money. No, that can't be right either. Are they diabolically clever, as we're told they are, or dumb as a post? Which is it? They'd assume we were watching and listening and reading those bank records. And the American public wants that done. That's what the administration should be doing.

What the newspapers, particularly the Times, were reporting, was that this was being done in an odd way, outside the explicit law to protect us all from the spying being abused - used for political or financial purposes or whatever - and basically looking at anything and everything without much discrimination and certainly no oversight, and little focus, making us all "the enemy." That's news.

It's all very odd, but may come down to a matter of principle. The government said this stuff was classified, and when they say something is classified - even if illegal and ineffective and unconstitutional six ways from Sunday - you have to give them the benefit of the doubt and trust them that's it's for the best, really. What was revealed was offensive because it implied maybe you cannot trust this crowd, and after the war business - the WMD that we're there and the al Qaeda connection that wasn't, and the mobile chemical weapons labs that weren't there either, and the aluminum tubes they were told had nothing to do with any nuclear weapons program - anyone who implies that, that trusting these guys has been a problem and still may be, needs to be shut down fast.

So the National Review, faithful surrogate for the administration, demands that the New York Times has its press credential taken away - no more access to anything. (Read that here.) But then the new White House press secretary, Tony Snow of Fox News, tells Editor and Publisher that the Times won't lose its press credentials, really, and the attorney general, Alberto Gonzalez, isn't likely to "prosecute" the Times for treason or sedition or even littering - it would just be a political circus. Who needs that? (That item is here.)

So now what? Greg Sargent tries to untangle it here -
This is kind of strange. Both Snow and Dick Cheney have explicitly said that the Times is putting the nation's security at risk. Yet by all indications the administration is unlikely to take any real action against the paper, mainly because it would be politically disastrous for Bush.

That leaves only two possibilities. Either:

1) Officials won't act aggressively against an institution they're claiming puts American lives at risk, because it's politically untenable. That would mean the administration is putting politics ahead of aggressively prosecuting behavior it says endangers American lives.

Or:

2) The administration doesn't genuinely believe the Times has put our national security at risk at all, and hence won't act. If this is the case, both Snow and Cheney blatantly and repeatedly lied.

So there you have it. Either the administration is putting politics ahead of national security and won't act aggressively against an institution it says is endangering American lives - because it would be bad for Bush. Or the administration's claim that the Times endangered national security is just the latest in a long string of lies it has told to the American people. Which is it?

The answer, of course, is number two. This isn't about protecting American lives at all. It's about scapegoating, pure and simple. Desperate to deflect attention from its disastrous international performance, unable to persuade Americans that things are improving in Iraq, the administration now is embarrassingly trying to shift the blame to an institution that GOP base regards as the most prominent symbol of liberal elitism in the land. This is a cheap stunt. The administration doesn't think the paper's endangering national security, and it's not going to genuinely go after the paper, either. This is just bluster for the boneheads, pure and simple.

Incidentally, the fact that the White House is engaging in such rank scapegoating is the real reason the administration has narrowed its previously broader attack on the media into one focused on the Times. Scapegoating requires the selection of a single target, the singling out of one from the herd so the rest of the herd doesn't feel it has a stake in the battle's outcome. And it appears to be working.

... now that the Times has basically been isolated in the White House's sights the rest of the media has unwittingly legitimized this assault on one of their own by cheerfully letting such ridiculous rhetoric find a comfortable place in the mainstream conversation.

Luckily this attack is pure bunkum and will end with a fizzle in a few days. But with this kind of official behavior slowly gaining legitimacy, doesn't the possibility grow that the next one might be for real?
That is a possibility, but how remote a possibility is the question.

Note Matthew Yglesias the day before with this -
Tragically, I walked through the door yesterday and my roommate already had Hardball on. There were two people debating the issue ... whether or not the New York Times should be brought up on charges of treason. Seriously. Treason. For publishing an article in a newspaper. Treason. And there was Chris Matthews happily presiding over the whole thing as if this was a serious conversation that people should be having. This all taking place on a network that, allegedly, does journalism.
Well, some wonder about journalism on MSNBC - think Rita Crosby. You can watch the debate on MSNBC Hardball here.

Duncan Black says this -
Torturing people, jailing journalists for treason, the president being allowed to disobey the law at whim... The mainstream media has made all of these things a part of the normal conversation. They've allowed "two sides" to all of these things to be debated on equal footing. ... Conservatives call for the New York Times to be blown up and their reporters and editors jailed and they get treated seriously on MSNBC's flagship political talk show.

There's a problem here. You've been playing this game for years, letting these people control the terms of the debate. This is where it has brought you. Congratulations.
On the other hand, James Wolcott is just nasty -
... Consider what's happened in the last 24 hours. Bush has called the disclosure "disgraceful," looking far angrier (or fake-angrier) than he ever did about the Katrina fuckup. Cheney, of course, released some deep-stomach rumbles. Tony Snow made his displeasure known. And in a cloud of dust rode the Ox-Bow posse, fashioning a necktie for Bill Keller and company. Congressman Peter King, the sort of bullyboy who would have been right at home planted next to Joe McCarthy during the Red Scare, urged criminal prosecution. Today alone I've seen Newt Gingrich employing his full-press sneer to decry the "pathology" of the Times is revealing security secrets, Hugh "The Iceman Cometh" Hewitt demagoguing the issue on CNN, the blue glint in his eyes demanding retribution. The Fox News All Stars haven't yet convened, but I'm certain they're return with a guilty verdict.* The right blogosphere is similarly inflamed. ... The National Review, stepping forward into the chamber with a heavy heart, grumbles, "The administration should withdraw the newspaper's White House press credentials because this privilege has been so egregiously abused, and an aggressive investigation should be undertaken to identify and prosecute, at a minimum, the government officials who have leaked national-defense information." I didn't bother listening to talk radio, but I'm sure they're baying for blood between commercials for bladder control.

What a gummy uproar. One so loud and ferocious that there almost has to be some follow-through, otherwise you are going to have one frustrated batch of highly indignants. They want the administration to show the Times and the rest of the press who's boss. The neocon contingent is already dismayed with the tiptoeing around Iran's nuclear program, with Ledeen and Perle lodging protests. If the pushback against the Times peters out, if the posse disbands shortly after mounting up, the White House is going to look weak in the bugged-out eyes of its mutant defenders. It'll be interesting to see if the controversy builds or fades over the next few days, and whether or not the Times-bashers will be compelled to call their own bluff. In the meantime, whatever one thinks of the Times's performance leading up to Iraq and the Judith Miller debacle, the ugly threatmongering and barking ("For the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous") of Peter King shouldn't go unchallenged. Let him climb the Empire State Building if he wants to work off steam.

*They sure enough did. Fox News All Star and full-time schmendrick Mort Kondracke said, more in anger than sorrow, "I think they [The New York Times] has forgotten that New York is the place 9/11 happened." Only a Beltway coward could be that obtuse.
Ah well, the talk is of shutting down the press. Make of it what you will.

But we are exporting democracy. To Iraq and wherever. See Josh Marshall here -
1. President encourages supporters to accuse newspaper reporters of treason: check.

2. President mandates systematic use of torture: check.

3. President routinely asserts right to ignores laws passed by Congress: check.

What am I missing?

Actually, I think it's more one of those trick questions. Like, we're not exporting "democracy" but our democracy. So, as we send it to them, we lose ours.
So it would seem.

And even that's not working, as Philip Gordon explains in the current issue of Foreign Affairs - "The rhetoric of the Bush revolution may live on, but the revolution itself is over." Why's that? We've overstretched ourselves in Iraq, alienated just ably every key ally, worn away almost all domestic support for spreading democracy abroad - only 20 percent of Americans today say that should be "a very important goal" - and Bush's post-9/11 revolution in foreign policy was enabled by "a feeling of tremendous power" that seems false now. There's more detail and other links here from Paige Austin, but you get the idea.

There may be a third war brewing in the Middle East, but since the flag thing failed, shutting down the Times may just what the doctor ordered. That'll fix everything.

Posted by Alan at 23:31 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Tuesday, 27 June 2006 23:47 PDT home

Our Man in Paris: Zizou Scores
Topic: Breaking News

Our Man in Paris: Zizou Scores
What's up in Paris? For those you following the World Cup games now in progress, Our Man in Paris (Ric Erickson, editor of MetropoleParis) covers the joy in the streets. Things are going well.

PARIS - Tuesday, June 27 - There's a mess of unhappy Spaniards in Hanover tonight. They sent out a dancing team of scrappy kids to take on the phlegmatic French, a gang of antique joggers and bicyclists, and oh woe, their bald team captain Zizou, the much beloved top-shooter for Real Madrid, whacked in an authentic 'Zizou' goal for France in the game's closing minutes.

The French were leading two to one, having just dropped in a dubious goal as a result of a fake penalty against a Spanish player, and if that had been the winning goal relations between to two countries would have become as sour as they were during the Peninsular War.

Sometimes one wishes there could be more than one World Cup winner. When the games get good, when the teams sparkle, when the weather presents itself as atmospheric as wine and the world turns without wobbling, football's folks put all their imagination into being fans, and they are all born winners.

The French have been glum about the series until now. So much so that they staged a minor victory celebration on the Champs-Elysées after scoring higher than Togo last week. It might have been the one and only French victory, the papers said.

Right now car horns are tooting and emergency sirens are racing to scenes of overjoy, while the police in the 8th arrondissement call for reinforcements to handle the impending delirious impromptu whoop-up on the Champs-Elysées.

In Hannover old guy 'Zizou' is probably drinking Champagne while the astonished French fans put away kegs of cool beer. Le Parisien on Monday questioned the possibility of Zinedine Zidane 'saving' the French effort. Sidelined for the match against Togo on his 34th birthday because of a penalty, tonight's goal erases that disappointment.

If the Spanish were the first formidable team to be put aside by the French squad, now they face the übermanschaft of Brazil on Saturday at 21:00 in Frankfurt. There are no more 'easy' games to come. Only the best of the best make it to the quarter-finals - and who they are will be known to all by this time Saturday Night.

Copyright © 2006 - Ric Erickson, MetropoleParis
This item is crossposted there.


Posted by Alan at 16:52 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Tuesday, 27 June 2006 18:59 PDT home

Monday, 26 June 2006
Shutting Things Down
Topic: Dissent

Shutting Things Down

Actually, the two issues that seem to be at the center of the national dialog as the week began on Monday, June 26, are related, even if they don't seem to be. As the Senate was dropping all other business to work on passing a proposed amendment to the constitution to ban flag burning - something no protester has done since the late sixties - simultaneously the whole right side of things is calling for the New York Times to be charged with treason, or so the Republican Congressman from New York, that excitable King fellow, said should be done. Well, he said that on Fox News Sunday and the president helped him out the following day, just as the Senate was getting into the flag burning thing.

Obviously there's a call from the Republican side for everyone to get patriotic - and some antique form of letting people know you are unhappy with the government should be forbidden, and the press should be patriotic too, and not print what the government says they shouldn't print. Patriotism here is shutting up, and not rocking the boat.

But flag burning? When did that become a problem?

It became a problem, of course, when all the polling is showing the Republicans could easily lose the House in the upcoming November elections, and might lose the Senate too. They need to remind voters that they will let no one protest in the wrong way ever again, like way back when, nor will they let the press print what the government says it shouldn't print. There are limits, and people need to know them. For a crowd that so often derides "political correctness" as an evil that undercuts free speech and "open dialog," there's no small irony here. After all the outrage and anger at "what you can't say" - blacks really are inferior and Mexicans lazy and whatnot - here they are taking a gamble, hoping their hyper-patriotic base and a few in the middle will agree that there are, well, exceptions.

The effort in the Senate is being led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, just as he led the effort to keep one brain-dead woman alive (he said she certainly wasn't, and he was a doctor after all), and just as he led the effort to pass a proposed amendment to constitution to ban gay marriage, as that was just wrong too. He needs a win one of these days, and this may be it. This one may have just enough votes to pass.

Tim Grieve here calls the effort "Gay Marriage II" and that fits. And as the Wall Street Journal notes here, Frist is working with Daniel Wheeler, the executive director of the American Legion and the president of the Citizens Flag Alliance. Wheeler "says he has never seen a flag on fire" but considers the flag-burning amendment "crucial because it 'reflects the values of the American people.'" Right.

Grieve says this -
Here in the reality-based community, we tend to deal more with things we have seen. And as we sit back to watch the Senate debate a constitutional amendment over flag burning, we wonder how some of the things we've seen "reflect the values of the American people." We're thinking here about places like New Orleans and Guantánamo; we're thinking about families struggling to make it on a federal minimum wage that hasn't been increased in nearly a decade; we're thinking about more than 50,000 dead Iraqis, more than 2,500 dead Americans, and thousands upon thousands upon thousands of both who will spend their lives suffering from the devastating injuries of war.

How does any of that "reflect the values of the American people"? And what, exactly, has Bill Frist done about it?
Not much, of course, but we're talking baseball, apple pie and motherhood here.

Really, we're talking baseball, Los Angeles Dodgers' baseball specifically - even if the team motto is, unfortunately, "Go Blue!"

Michael Scherer explains the baseball connection here -
If only for a cigarette lighter, Rick Monday would have gone down in history as just another above-average baseball player, a left-hander who peaked with a 32-home-run season. But on April 25, 1976, two bell-bottomed protesters jumped the outfield fence at Dodger Stadium and streaked onto the field with an American flag, a bottle of lighter fluid and a pack of matches. The first match didn't light. By the time they got the second match going, Monday had run over to snatch the flag away, making his mark as the slugger who saved the Stars and Stripes.

Thirty years later, it is politics as much as patriotism that keeps Monday's achievement in the headlines. Senate Republicans have been treating him like a war hero in recent weeks, passing a resolution to commemorate his courage and holding a Flag Day rally on the lawn outside the Capitol in his honor. The slugger brought with him the yellowed and tattered, but uncharred, flag he saved in Los Angeles, as six senators took their turn at a podium to praise Old Glory and memorialize the outfielder's spot decision. "It is arguably one of the greatest moments in the game," praised Sen. Jim Bunning, a Kentucky Republican, who played as a pitcher in the major leagues until 1971. "Like Rick, we should do everything we can to protect and honor our flag."
Monday was a pretty good ballplayer, and Bunning a fine pitcher, but this is almost comic. One assumes they served apple pie, and photogenic mothers of the June Cleaver type stood around with their cute little blond kids.

But Monday seems to really want to be, as Scherer explains, the "poster boy for the latest attempt to pass a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration."

Ah, but such things happen when the Republicans sense danger, which in this case is a loss of power.

And this one will be close -
The current vote counts used by both Republicans and Democrats put the flag amendment within one vote of the two-thirds majority needed for passage - the closest margin on this issue in the history of the republic. A total of 14 Democrats, including Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Dianne Feinstein of California, are expected to join 52 Republicans who support changing the Constitution to allow federal prohibitions of flag burning. A solid minority of senators, including Majority Whip Mitch McConnell and two other Republicans, are expected to hold back the tide. The House, meanwhile, has already passed the flag amendment, under the unlikely leadership of Jack Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat, and Duke Cunningham, a now-convicted California Republican.
Stop! Yeah, the House passed it - they'd vote to take the vote way from women and dark skinned folks, to beatify George Bush if the pope would agree, and bring back slavery - as they are heavy with "red meat" conservatives, but the new enemy of the right Jack Murtha, and the man in jail for taking bribes so incompetent contractors got key defense contractors got business, led this. That's delicious.

And there's this from Frist, after the "baseball" rally - "There is a new spirit coming across the country. I think you can feel it in the last six months - people coming together around the flag." What's he been smoking?

Scherer helpfully runs down the main arguments and counter arguments - Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont saying this is lot like the gay marriage thing, just posturing, and "I think the Constitution is too important to be used for partisan gain." And Mitch McConnell, the Republican from Kentucky, is screwing up his own party by saying he won't vote for it - something or other about free speech and all that, and then he may be up for Frist's job as majority leader.

The cool thing is how they're dealing with McConnell, "trotting out Heather French Henry, a former Miss America from Kentucky, to publicly call for her senator's vote." She says he's not representing "the people." And she was Miss America, after all. She knows. She had the title, officially.

And the Republicans want this debate now, and if it passes, the debate in the legislatures of all fifty states, and it must be ratified by thirty-eight to get added to the constitution. They've got the baseball players, and the former Miss America, and their side. You want to oppose that? Scherer - "Most Republicans have made no secret of their desire to thrust America into a full-fledged debate over a form of protest that went out of style before the Bee Gees fell off the charts."

Then there's Orrin Hatch of Utah -
"Five unelected activist jurists changed the law," Hatch said at the Flag Day rally, referring to the divided 1989 Supreme Court decision that struck down federal laws against flag burning. Hatch, of course, did not mention that one of those "activist jurists" was arch-conservative Antonin Scalia.
Oops. As you recall, the Supreme Court did rule that burning the flag might be offensive, but much free speech can be offensive to one side or the other, and you just didn't go and make rules to make sure no one is offended - that not how it's supposed to work. And Scalia said so.

And as for the matter of urgency -
... Republicans are also struggling to deal with the current trends in flag desecration. In recent years, public reports of flag burning have become far less common than fatal lightning strikes. This has driven Sen. Bob Bennett, the junior Republican from Utah, to oppose the amendment. "It's a non-problem," Bennett told Salon, in a statement. "The only time people burn the flag is when this amendment comes up."

... In 1990, Gallup found that 68 percent of Americans supported the amendment. That number dropped to 55 percent in 2005, a measure that held steady in a CNN poll completed this month. Flag burning is not a red-hot issue for voters in general: A June Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that only 4 percent of registered voters consider flag burning one of the two most important issues in this year's election. By contrast, 53 percent identified the Iraq war and 32 percent mentioned illegal immigration, while on social issues, 21 percent of voters ranked abortion as a top issue, and 16 percent named gay marriage.

All this may make Americans wonder why the Senate is now closer than ever to forcing another round in the 1970s culture wars.
That's a good question. Everyone really misses the Bee Gees?

Some others make sense. Not a senator yet, but running in Virginia against the incumbent George Allen, is James Webb - the former Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan, the best-selling author (Fields of Fire from 1978), and a former United States Marine Corps officer decorated for valor in the Vietnam War. He's left the Republicans. He's running as a Democrat. Allen is the tobacco-chewing good ol' boy wannabe, son of the famous football coach, with the confederate flags all over (more detail in these pages here). So it's the done-everything, intellectual and writer and lawyer and man of action, against the "I don't read nothin' much" never-in-the-military man of the Old South, who went to high school out here in chic Palos Verdes and cut classes a lot.

Allen wants the amendment to pass. Webb, doesn't -
"Jim Webb has great respect for our national flag and great respect for our Constitution, and is proud of the many contributions his family has made in defense of both. Like many combat veterans such as General Colin Powell and former Senators John Glenn and Bob Kerry, he does not believe it is necessary to amend the Constitution in order to protect the dignity of our flag. This is yet another example of deliberately divisive politics that distract Americans from the real issues that are facing our country," said Kristian Denny Todd, spokeswoman for the Webb campaign.
So why do military men, like Webb and Powell and Glenn, think this is all silliness? Maybe they fought so people had the right to burn the flag if they're angry - it's offensive, yes, and meant to be, but there are bigger issues, and it only makes the "burner" look petty and foolish. What's the problem?

What Webb says on his campaign site -
There are many challenges facing Americans today: an unpopular war, skyrocketing health care costs, a shrinking job market and rising inequality in society. I believe in the strength of American character and the ingenuity of the American people. With the right leaders we can overcome all of these obstacles. America doesn't lack ideas, it lacks leaders willing to stand up and make courageous decisions.

I have fought - and continue to fight - to protect American values. I fought in Vietnam with the hope that the Vietnamese might share the same freedoms we enjoy. I fought as a congressional committee counselor to guarantee our veterans the treatment they deserve. I fought as Secretary of the Navy to maintain the excellence of our military. I fought, pro bono, on behalf of countless veterans and refugees, in order that they might have their voices heard in the vast government bureaucracy. And I will fight in the Senate to give all Americans the chance to achieve their dreams.
Frist would say "that's a loser" and they will attack this -
Webb was commissioned a second lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. He served with the 5th Marine Regiment in Vietnam as a rifle platoon and company commander. He remained in the Marine Corps until 1972, receiving the Navy Cross, the second-highest award in the Navy; the Silver Star Medal; two Bronze Star Medals; and two Purple Hearts.

Webb wrote his first book, Micronesia and U.S. Pacific Strategy, while a law student at Georgetown University. He received his J.D. in 1975. He served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs and then Secretary of the Navy (1987-1988) during the Reagan Administration. He resigned as Secretary of the Navy after refusing to agree to reduce the size of the Navy.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, Webb wrote an op-ed piece for USA Today in which he considered the candidacies of John Kerry and George W. Bush from the perspective of military veterans. He criticized Kerry for his activism against the Vietnam War in the 1970s while affiliated with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and Bush for having "committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory" with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
So he's another Kohn Kerry coward, not a fighter pilot like Bush. You know how that will play out.

And then there's the Hollywood thing - Webb wrote the story and was the executive producer for Rules of Engagement (2000), and Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson were in that. And Rob Reiner is directing his Whiskey River, now in production at Warner Brothers over in Burbank. Rob Reiner is so not red state. And too there's his past - Webb won a varsity letter for boxing at Annapolis, but in his second-class (junior) year, he fought and lost in a controversial decision to Oliver North, the fellow convicted of lying to congress in the Iran-Contra business and who now has his own show, War Stories, on Fox News.

So he will probably lose. He doesn't care if some misguided idiot burns a flag one day. He thinks there are bigger issues than punishing such assholes, if they return from the late sixties and early seventies. The congress doesn't. The House passed the thing, and the Senate has dropped everything to try to pass it.

Some of us see the whole thing as kind of a joke. But it's not. It's chipping away at what cannot be "said" politically. That's a dangerous business. Patriots don't shut up when something is just wrong. And both said do dramatic things. How do you draw the line?

The there's the New York Times. How do you draw the line there?

First it was the Pentagon Papers, and now we have Eric Lichtblau and James Risen doing their reporting. Last year it was reporting that the Bush administration was monitoring telephone calls and scanning all telephone records without the warrants required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (here). And last week it was the news that the Bush administration has been monitoring and examining the bank records of thousands of American citizens (here). The first won them the Pulitzer Prize. The second made lots of folks angry, like Congressman King from New York, who said here he wants to see the Times prosecuted for running banking story and "putting its own arrogant, elitist, left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people."

Monday, June 26, the president got angry, saying running the story was "disgraceful" and "does great harm to the United States of America." The White House press secretary said this - "The New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know in some cases might override somebody's right to live."

If they know we bent the rules to amass tons of private banking records then they'll hide the money trail and we'll all die? Something like that. You could see the Vice President and every talking head on cable discussing this. You believe there are some things you shouldn't know, as others would then know them too, or you don't, as knowing the administration is breaking a whole lot of laws and bending others, and your privacy is fast disappearing, is a big deal.

So which sort are you?

Arthur Silber puts it nicely here -
When you strip away the numerous distracting details and irrelevancies, people exhibit one of two basic perspectives toward government (including a particular administration that holds power), and toward authority in general. One group, composed of people some might consider skeptics but whom I regard as realists, consistently questions and challenges any concentration of power. Such people recognize one of history's primary lessons: that power seeks to protect its own prerogatives, as it simultaneously seeks to extend its reach. The realists recognize that people who routinely exercise great power should always be held to account for their actions, and there must always be restraints against abuses of power. They reject out of hand anyone's demand for unquestioning loyalty and obedience, a demand often expressed in the form: "Trust me." The realists know that it is precisely the person who makes such demands who is never to be trusted. Honorable people do not demand or expect unquestioning obedience.

The second group is made up of people who are eager to let others make the decisions that shape their lives. They identify with authority in general, and they willingly offer up their own judgment and independence on behalf of those who hold the reins of power. The phrase "speaking truth to power" not only doesn't hold meaning for such people: for these psychological dependents, truth and power are coextensive. The idea that truth and power might be fundamentally opposed almost never occurs to them, because they regard it as inconceivable and incomprehensible. These are the people who do not wait for the demand, "Trust me." They eagerly volunteer their trust to those in power before it is even requested. They think this proves their loyalty. If you rely on others to guide and protect your own life, loyalty is the prerequisite for such protection. The dependents know this without being told - and so do those who hold power. The necessary interrelationship of the dependents and those with power ensures that the scheme will continue without challenge.
And no one should, in anger, burn a flag. That's disloyal.

And as for the press -
The press in this country has voluntarily placed itself in the role of abject dependent for several decades. Many members of the press will rush to reassure us of their independence and their willingness to challenge power - and they will point to their treatment of the Clinton presidency as a notable example. But what did the press challenge in that instance? Not matters of state, and not anything remotely connected to the power government exercises or the policies it pursues - but irrelevant business deals from the remote past, or private sexual behavior. In the same way, if Bush should declare martial law after another terrorist attack and begin to exercise full dictatorial powers, the press will rise to the challenge of questioning absolute power in the new environment in its usual fashion. Our press will offer numerous articles and commentary about whether our President for Life (under an emergency law passed in both houses by large margins) should speak to us more often, to explain how he is protecting us and why we shouldn't be concerned about those friends, acquaintances and even relatives who have mysteriously vanished from our lives. Our President for Life knows what is best for us, our press will tell us repeatedly and with many variations, and he's the only one who can keep us safe. But it would be so much nicer if he reassured us more often. Unlike the members of the press itself, ordinary citizens often don't understand the wisdom exemplified by our leaders, and by our President for Life. They tend to worry unnecessarily. The President for Life should calm their fears, and talk to them regularly in his soothing, folksy way. He should make clear that, although he holds the power of life and death over all of us, he's really a "regular" guy. He just happens to be a dictator - but that last attack showed that's what we need now.
There's much more at the link, but with few exceptions, like the Times at times, that's where we are.

What's happening with these two issues this week is the loyalists against the realists. And the issue is whether folks should just shut up and trust the guys in charge. It's getting pretty basic.

Posted by Alan at 23:01 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Tuesday, 27 June 2006 07:08 PDT home

Sunday, 25 June 2006
Hot of the Virtual Press
Topic: Announcements

Hot of the Virtual Press

The new issue of Just Above Sunset, the weekly magazine-format site that is parent to this daily web log, is now online. This is Volume 4, Number 26, for the week of June 25, 2006.Click here to go there...

This week, five extended commentaries on current events, from the absurd to that new book, to all this reassessment of the war, to even more government snooping around without any warrants or oversight or anything like that, to the new Iraqi government proposing odd things. The usual? So it would seem these days.

At the International Desk, Our Man in Paris, Ric Erickson, covers, with photos, what the annual Fete de la Musique on the summer solstice has become, while Our Man in Tel-Aviv, Sylvain Ubersfeld, offers a tour of the amazing market there at Carmel, with amazing photos.

This week's photography? Two quick Hollywood shots - have to have those - and a visit to Surf City, USA - the real one. And Craftsman architecture, and some studies in blue, and three pages of high-resolution botanicals, with notes.

Our friend from Texas provides us with more of the weird, and the quotes pertain to what you know.

Direct links to specific pages…

Extended Observations on Current Events ________________________

Perspective: It must be some sort of cosmic joke, even if a cruel one...
Books: Summer Reading - A Warning
About This War
Spin: Make Folks Worry, and Hope They Jump to Conclusions
Other Voices: Sunday Political Notes

The International Desk ________________________

Our Man in Paris: Jack's Big Week
Our Man in Tel-Aviv: Apple, Carmel, Melon and Pears

Hollywood Matters ________________________

Quick Shots

Southern California Photography ________________________

Surf City, USA
Architecture: Folk Art
Colors: Studies in Blue...
Botanicals: Increasing Intensity
The Unexpected
Magnolia: A Little Bit of the Old South in Hollywood

__

The Weird: WEIRD, BIZARRE and UNUSUAL
Quotes for the week of June 18, 2006 - So just what do you know?

Posted by Alan at 20:31 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Saturday, 24 June 2006
Elsewhere
Topic: Announcements

Elsewhere

Again, no commentary this day. I'm deep in the assembly of the new issue of Just Above Sunset, the weekly magazine-format parent to this daily web log. The photo-essay from Our Man in Tel-Aviv - Sylvain Ubersfeld - is taking some time. The seven amazing shots of the Carmel market had to be edited for the web, and although he sent me the text in English, he composed it on a Hebrew version of MS Word, so the format had to be untangled - everything was aligned right and the spacing was odd. Ric Erickson's column from Paris was far easier. And the new issue has a ton of high-resolution photography from these parts, and preparing that for posting eats up the hours. The new issue should be posted by Sunday afternoon, Pacific Time.

There are, however, some new photos this day on the photography site - Just Above Sunset Photography. Take a look.

But now it's off to Eagle Rock, near Pasadena, for dinner at Café Beaujolais with my favorite Frenchwoman living here now, and a crew of attorneys off to a wedding in Biarritz soon, and their French teacher. That should be odd. The last trip to Paris was five years ago, but this place is run by French expatriates and the language will be French and that's an end on it.

In lieu of what might have been said here, you could read the best thing on the web today - well, actually it was posted Friday - Arthur Silber at The Power of Narrative with Battling the Ghost of Vietnam, which opens with this -
If you want to provoke an especially heated reaction from the supporters of our current foreign policy -- those who proclaim that we must stay in Iraq for the indefinite future, and until an impossible series of events miraculously transforms a bloody, murderous failure into something they might finally dub a "success" - there is one guaranteed method of achieving that end: compare Iraq to Vietnam. Almost without exception, the hawks instantly burn with white-hot anger. Their moral outrage is palpable.
And he goes on to explain, in detail. It's quite long, and quite good.

Also good, but brief, is this letter a reader sends to Andrew Sullivan at his web log -
Sorting through your blog entries and the readers' emails you've posted yields the following five Iraq options:

(1) If we pull out now, it will be a disaster.

(2) If we keep going indefinitely the way we're going now, it will be a disaster.

(3) If we keep going until January 2009 the way we're going now, the new President will have no choice but to pull out quickly, which will be a disaster.

(4) Have faith that this administration will be more competent from now to January 2009 than it has been so far.

Andrew, I am through putting any faith in this administration. No significant policy they have advanced has turned out like they said it would - the budget, the environment, the cost of Medicare D, torture, WMD, Saddam-Al Qaeda, rebuilding Afghanistan, funding No Child Left Behind, global warming (remember Christine Todd Whitman promising the EPA under Bush would do something about it?), etc. ad nauseam. Have they not practically eliminated funding for civilian rebuilding in Iraq? (Gotta have that estate tax cut.)

How is the military supposed to maintain its present deployment levels for two and a half more years? Stop-loss orders?

One more option:

(5) Have faith that the new Iraqi government will be able to make up for the deficiencies of the Bush administration, if it continues to receive Bush administration help.

Is this faith justified? This seems to me where our inquiry must focus. I confess I don't have enough information to give a reasonable answer, though the reports of rampant corruption and atrocities by people in police and army uniforms are ominous. But we must realize that, if we stay, it's because we have confidence in the new Iraqi government. If we don't have that confidence, we should get out now. We have asked far too much of our military already. If we are to continue stop-loss for two and a half more years, we better have a damn good reason. Faith in the Bush administration is nowhere near good enough.
That's not very cheery.

Ah well, off to dinner.

Posted by Alan at 16:48 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Newer | Latest | Older