Notes on how things seem to me from out here in Hollywood... As seen from Just Above Sunset
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...


Click here to go there...

« March 2004 »
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 31
Photos and text, unless otherwise noted, Copyright 2003,2004,2005,2006 - Alan M. Pavlik
Contact the Editor


"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

Monday, 29 March 2004

Topic: Election Notes

Interesting commentary...

Ezra Klein has this to say on Spain...
The reaction the right had to the Socialist victory in Spain upset me in a way most partisan conflicts don't. The audacity it took to demand that the Spanish continue to fight a war they never wished to enter, all for the ironic purpose of promoting democracy, astonished and offended me in a way few positions do. Forget that the defeated Government immediately attempted to twist the attacks for political gain, forget that the Socialists were within the poll's margin of error for victory, forget that the constant proclamations that the cowardly Spanish had allowed the terrorists to win certainly reinforced any victory the terrorists might have claimed, the very idea that we could somehow evaluate their foreign policy's morality through the lens of our own interests mere days after a vicious terrorist attack showed how little these people understood 9/11. For a group that is quick to grasp for ownership of the tragedy and quicker to remind us of its significance, they completely lost the ability to treat a grieving country with even a modicum of respect.

That, much more than the arguments over whether or not the terrorists won, is what incited my ire. But it's not the first time a government had given into terrorists.

Ronald Reagan's major military action was in Lebanon, where he deployed peacekeeping troops in the aftermath of Israel's 1982 invasion. Not long thereafter, a terrorist drove a truck packed with explosives into the headquarters of the First Battalion, killing 241 American servicemen. A few months later, Reagan pulled the troops out of Lebanon, placing them on offshore ships instead. Explained spokesman Larry Speakes: "We don't consider this a withdrawal but more of a redeployment."

So a terrorist killed hundreds of Americans in the hopes of getting us out of Lebanon and quickly succeeded. There was no other explanation, no other motivation for the "redeployment". In the face of terrorists, Reagan promptly gave into their demands.

So I want to know. Was Reagan an appeaser to terrorists? A coward? Unable to stand up to evil?

And if not, then how dare you open your mouth to criticize the Spanish.

And Jesse Taylor on Bush, Kerry and religion:
A Bush administration representative has said that it was ""beyond the bounds of acceptable political discourse" for Kerry to mention Scripture in his rebuke of Republican policies.

Does this strike anyone else as the biggest steaming pile of horse manure ever dragged out and plopped onto the stage of the national discourse?

Conservative Christian Republicans, headed by a man who said Jesus was his favorite philosopher, who in turn appointed a man who said we had no king but Jesus to the AG's office, are now assaulting a man for speaking accurately in religious terms.

If you believe that your faith calls you to political service (I don't, but many do), then James 2:14-17 is a perfect summary of what you are called to do:

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

A party that's crafted its appeal to voters in explicitly religious terms, often claiming to be better Christians than its opposition (to the point where its opponents are evil - see Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, for instance) has no business whatsoever criticizing anyone else for their use of the Bible. None.
Things are getting hot.

Posted by Alan at 10:14 PST | Post Comment | Permalink

Sunday, 28 March 2004

Topic: Election Notes

Sometimes folks actually throw the bums out... Flash Report from Paris

What happens in France may have no implications for what happens in the United States. Ric Erickson sends this fast update on today's elections there. Folks got fed up with the conservative folks in charge. They turned them out. It wasn't even close. I guess they didn't like all the cuts in services and benefits, nor the "public safety trumps anyone's rights" crackdown on crime, nor the rest of the "take care of yourself and don't expect anything from your government" policies.

Could such a thing happen here? One never knows. Former Socialist minister Jack Lang said, "The French considered themselves deceived by government policies." There's a bit of that in the air over here this week, isn't there?

28.03 - Left KOs Right

Bonsoir Alan -

Today French voters stopped not voting and turned out en masse to reject the policies of France's right-wing government by giving majorities to Socialist-Green parties in the final round of regional elections. Voter participation was above 65 percent.

Shortly after polls closed at 20:00, results showed that the Socialists and other assorted leftists, including the Greens, had captured control of 20 regions, leaving only Alsace with a right-wing majority. Results from Corsica and overseas regions were not immediately available.

The right has enjoyed a majority control of France's regions since 1998, with majorities in 14 regions. The left controlled 8 regions.

The Socialist candidate in the Paris-Ile de France region beat the government candidate and the FN candidate, Marine Le Pen, by gaining an absolute majority.

The election result is seen here as a rejection of the reform plans pushed forward by the right-wing majority nationally. Former Socialist minister Jack Lang said, "The French considered themselves deceived by government policies."

Former Prime Minister and leader of the right-wing UMP party allied to President Jacques Chirac, Alain Jupp?, said "We should listen more carefully to the French."

All current government ministers who were candidates in the regional elections were defeated. The center right in France has a tendency to self-destruct from time to time.

The big political question now is - can the President afford to keep Jean-Pierre Raffarin? The right's candidate was solidly beaten in Prime Minister's 'home' region.

Jean-Marie Le Pen was excluded from running in this election, for not fulfilling residence requirements in PACA. His substitute in the region was beaten by the Socialist candidate.

This election reverses the results of the presidential election of 2002. Then, results in the first round gave Front National leader Jean-Marie Le Pen a slight edge over Socialist leader Lionel Jospin - which eliminated him as a candidate. For the second round, leftist politicians urged all voters to vote against the ultra-right leader, and Jacques Chirac was elected with about 80 percent of the vote - and was rewarded by voters with an strong majority of deputies in the Assembly National.

Today's election results amount to a rejection of the government's national policies.

regards from Paris, ric

Visit Ric's website MetropoleParis for more on what's up in Paris, and in France, as he updates late on Mondays (our time).

Posted by Alan at 12:10 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Sunday, 28 March 2004 12:11 PST home

Saturday, 27 March 2004

Topic: Political Theory

The uses of history... George Bush as Oliver Cromwell? That is a stretch.

From a senior fellow with the Davenport Institute for Public Policy at Pepperdine University, just up the coast from where I'm sitting. What's his take on the state of American politics today? What we're facing is really Charles I and his Cavaliers versus Oliver Cromwell his Roundheads. Say what?

See Red, Blue and... So 17th Century?
Joel Kotkin, The Washington Post, Sunday, March 28, 2004; Page B01

Here's the opening:

Ideological and theological divisions running deep. Opposing factions so far apart they no longer seem to respect one another. A breakdown in communication. The elites of each side, neither able to appeal to the other, poised like opposing armies ready to do battle.

America 2004? Actually, no. This was the lamentable state of affairs in mid-17th century England, as it teetered on the brink of civil war. But there certainly is something disturbingly familiar about this description of a body politic dividing into two unbreachable camps.

Like England under Charles I, when the Cavaliers -- the royalist supporters of the king -- and the Roundheads -- Puritan upstarts led by Oliver Cromwell -- went at it for seven years of war, the United States today is becoming two nations. This is not merely the age-old split between income groups, as Sen. John Edwards kept suggesting in his unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, but something even more fundamental -- a struggle between contrasting and utterly incompatible worldviews.
Is this a fair comparison?

Well, Kotkin says it's not exact but close enough.

Some describe the conflict as one between the "red" and the "blue" states, the right and the left, conservatives and liberals. But even though no one is about to behead our ruler and overthrow the government, as Cromwell's forces did when they captured Parliament in 1649, I find the parallel of the Cavaliers and the Roundheads to be the most apt. They grew to hate each other so much that they could no longer accommodate a common national vision. "I have heard foul language and desperate quarrelings even between old and entire friends," wrote one Englishman on the eve of conflict. Much the same could be said of us today.
Ah, that's his argument. We are so split on fundamental issues, or moral views, that we cannot, ever, reconcile them.

And then this fellow runs his metaphor. He says America's Roundheads (the puritans) cluster in the South, the Plains and various parts of the West, while the Cavaliers inhabit the coasts, particularly the large metropolitan centers of the Northeast and Pacific Northwest. And "each side has its own views, confirmed by its favored media. Fox TV, most of talk radio, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Sean Hannity speak for the Roundheads, supporting President Bush and America's global mission. The mainstream media, the universities and the cultural establishment, including most of Hollywood, are the voices of the Cavaliers, whose elites, like many of England's Cavaliers and Charles I's French wife before them, are most concerned with winning over continental opinion and mimicking the European way of life."

Funny guy, isn't he?

But then he really takes off -

As in 17th-century England, where the Roundheads disdained the Cavaliers' embrace of what John Milton called "new-vomited Paganisme," the most obvious divisions between the two groups are contrasting views of moral and religious issues. Our Cavaliers are the secular nation, whose spiritual home is in those places that yearn to join San Francisco at the same-sex-marriage altar. Contemporary Roundheads, like Cromwell's Shakespeare-hating Puritans, possess a fundamentalist sensibility; they seek to stop gay marriage and abortion, and bemoan other manifestations of our secular culture.
And I have to admit, that works out nicely.

He then rings the changes on economic issues and views of the military.

If you click on the link you can read through his detailed analysis. It's clever, but such things have been said before without resorting to belaboring the civil war of the early 1640's in England, the Interregnum that followed, and the Restoration that then followed. Most folks don't care about such things. And Charles the Second returning didn't really fix things. James the Second after him was a flaming queen (in today's parlance) and only when the Scots and Bonnie Prince Charlie got smashed down at Culloden were matters settled. As you recall, in 1745, James's grandson, known as the "Young Pretender" or "Bonnie Prince Charlie", landed in the Hebrides and gathered supporters from all over the Scottish highlands. They entered Edinburgh and began to threaten England. The Duke of Cumberland, son of King George II, led an English army against Bonnie Prince Charlie at Culloden, near Inverness, in April 1746. This was the last battle concerning this business to be fought on British soil. Bonnie Prince Charlie managed to escape, even though a reward of ?30,000 was placed on his head. He went into exile in France and finally died forty years later, sorting of drinking himself to death.

Surely we are not going to repeat all this?

Yes, it seems true that we do not get along well. And this Pepperdine fellow actually does suggest we really don't have to go through all the rigmarole that the British went through.

What should we do to not repeat such history? He suggests "the best thing would be for the political, university and media classes to begin reestablishing a civil dialogue and the kind of politics where debate and tolerance for opposing views are respected. America's strength has been an ability to adapt to changing conditions as a result of such open discussion."

Oh, that sounds so nice. If only it were possible. I think we're past that now.

And anyway, he has his history wrong. He says "gradually, civility and a rational balance were restored to the political system, with results that turned England into the world's most important country and mother to this one. Back in 1688, the English called this return to common sense their Glorious Revolution. May we look forward to our own."

Wait. The Glorious Revolution of 1688, sometimes called the "bloodless revolution" (as all the fighting was done in Ireland, which doesn't count I guess) - brought in William and Mary from Orange in the Netherlands to rule England. Well, good enough - at least they we're Catholics. And the main battle of this Glorious Revolution, at the Boyne River near Belfast, with the Catholics against the Protestants, is still being fought this weekend. That never really ended, did it? As what of the rulers who followed? There was the dull and rather stupid Queen Anne, then the imported German kings who followed her, the first of whom didn't even speak English. One odd George followed the next until the last quite mad George, who is said to have quite often stopped his carriage to step out and chat with a tree he'd noticed, and he lost the colonies over here. Careless fellow.

History can be seen lots of ways. Joel here is clever. But this is silly stuff.

Posted by Alan at 14:54 PST | Post Comment | Permalink

Friday, 26 March 2004

Topic: Oddities

Terry Teachout over at About Last Night found some good ones...

"Robespierre and Saint-Just were ready to eliminate violently whole social strata that seemed to them to be made up of parasites and conspirators, in order that they might adjust this actual France to the Sparta of their dreams; so that the Terror was far more than is commonly realized a bucolic episode. It lends color to the assertion that has been made that the last stage of sentimentalism is homicidal mania."

- Irving Babbitt, Democracy and Leadership

In theaters this weekend, Jersey Girl (Miramax) may cause a rash of homicides. Ben Affleck plays a movie publicist who raises a daughter after his wife (Jennifer Lopez in this film, oddly enough) dies in childbirth, then finds romance with video store clerk Liv Tyler. Yep, the elf princess from the Lord of the Rings films. One reviewer (the Philadelphia Inquirer) says "the sap practically oozes from the screen." Yuk. In order that I not turn into a homicidal maniac, I'll pass on this film.

Was the Terror that followed the French revolution really a bucolic episode? That's a cool idea.


Then this -

"I suppose I'm a believer in Original Sin. People are profoundly bad, but irresistibly funny."

- Joe Orton, quoted in the Manchester Guardian (September 19, 1966)

Yep, that Joe Orton, who wrote "What the Butler Saw" - an actual farce, not Feydeau of course, but close enough for Britain in the sixties. The Beatles song "I Heard the News Today" is said to be a comment on Orton's suicide.

Posted by Alan at 18:47 PST | Post Comment | Permalink

Thursday, 25 March 2004

Topic: Election Notes

Public Relations and Political Gain - Getting the Tone Right

Last night at the Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner in Washington, George Bush cracked jokes while the audience was shown supposedly humorous photos of the President and top aides.

The full AP story is here.

Basically you get this:

President Bush poked fun at his staff, his Democratic challenger and himself Wednesday night at a black-tie dinner where he hobnobbed with the news media.

Bush put on a slide show, calling it the "White House Election-Year Album" at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association 60th annual dinner, showing himself and his staff in some decidedly unflattering poses.

There was Bush looking under furniture in a fruitless, frustrating search. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," he said.
Everyone laughed - well most everyone. I'm not sure I agree with how the Brits here see it.

See Bush jokes about search for WMD, but it's no laughing matter for critics
David Teather in New York, The Guardian (UK), Friday March 26, 2004

Teather says Bush "sparked a political firestorm yesterday after making what many judged a tasteless and ill-judged joke about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

Yes, John Kerry, said the jokes displayed a "stunningly cavalier" attitude.

And Teather pulls together the emails CNN sent in. I saw that covered this morning as I was sipping coffee. They were overwhelmingly angry. Example? "How can a thinking, caring human being joke about the lies that led to body bags and broken young men and women? I was appalled." Yeah well, people love to be outraged. Another? "It was tasteless and childish. It shows the true man - or child in his case."

Later in the day Donald Rumsfeld was asked about these jokes in a news conference. He ducked it - no opinion. "To know what I would think, I would have to be there." Yeah. Right. This from the man who knew exactly where the WMD were and told us all Hans Blix was an obstructionist fool from "Old Europe."

If you hopped on the Drudge Report you find what Matt says is the Kerry press release about this.

If George Bush thinks his deceptive rationale for going to war is a laughing matter, then he's even more out of touch than we thought. Unfortunately for the President, this is not a joke.

585 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq in the last year, 3,354 have been wounded, and there's no end in sight. Bush Turned White House Credibility into a Joke George Bush sold us on going to war with Iraq based on the threat of weapons of mass destruction. But we still haven't found them, and now he thinks that's funny?

"George Bush didn't tell us the truth about the economy, about job loss, about the true cost of his deceptive prescription drug plan, or about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. There's nothing funny about that."
Fine. But there's no such item on the official Kerry site. Over at World Net Daily the same item is quoted. Google shows nothing else. The release might be counterfeit for some reason.

But that doesn't matter. This evening on MSNBC's Hardball, Chris Matthews' show, one of the guests was a young White House spokesman - I didn't get his name and there's no transcript available yet. Matthews, who just did a piece on the kids, our soldiers, he visited at Walter Reed Hospital - some of the more than three thousand amputees and blinded from the war - lit into to this White House flak with a vengeance. Matthews was at that Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner, and one of the few who didn't laugh. He asked the White House guy if Bush would use the same jokes if he ever got around to visiting the wounded, or to attending a service funeral. It wasn't pretty. The poor fellow from the White House got slammed hard and had little to say. Hey, what's to say?

To put this in perspective, Richard Clarke opened his testimony to the 9-11 commission yesterday by turning the families of September 11 victims in the audience and saying, "... your government failed you... and I failed you. We tried hard but that doesn't matter because we failed and for that failure I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness."

Six or seven hours later Bush was making jokes about the reason he told us we had to go to war. Oops. Kind of funny isn't it. Lost your legs? Lost your eyes? Sorry about that soldier. But hey, lighten up!

Well, charitably, the man is tone-deaf.

David Corn is less charitable.

Imagine if Lyndon Johnson had joked about the trumped-up Gulf of Tonkin incident that he deceitfully used as a rationale for U.S. military action in Vietnam: "Who knew that fish had torpedoes?" Or if Ronald Reagan appeared at a correspondents event following the truck-bombing at the Marines barracks in Beirut - which killed over 200 American servicemen - and said, "Guess we forgot to put in a stop light." Or if Clinton had come out after the bombing of Serbia - during which U.S. bombs errantly destroyed the Chinese embassy and killed several people there - and said, "The problem is, those embassies - they all look alike."

Yet there was Bush--apparently having a laugh at his own expense, but actually doing so on the graves of thousands. This was a callous and arrogant display. For Bush, the misinformation - or disinformation - he peddled before the war was no more than material for yucks. ...

Oh well. Bush may apologize.

But I'd guess he won't - not his style. And this will pass. But some of us will remember.

But then the Richard Clarke accusations a few hours ago led to another odd thing that indicates the administration really does need to "calibrate its tone" - as some things like this just look bad.

See White House Asks 9/11 Panel to Meet Rice
JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer, Thursday, March 25, 2004

The scoop?

WASHINGTON - The White House on Thursday asked the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to give national security adviser Condoleezza Rice another opportunity to talk privately with panel members.

The White House said, in a letter to the commission chairman and vice chairman from counsel Alberto Gonzales, that such a session would allow her to clear up "a number of mischaracterizations of Dr. Rice's statements and positions."

Rice still would not testify publicly before the panel, as the members and many relatives of victims of the 2001 terrorist attacks want. Gonzales wrote that is important that presidential advisers such as Rice "not be compelled to testify publicly before congressional bodies such as the Commission."
Of course if you read the whole thing you discover the core issue is that Rice adamantly refuses that this meeting be public in any way at all. Heck, perhaps that is politically wise. You don't want to get in any sort of "who looks more credible on camera" thing with that Clarke fellow. You might lose. So keep it private.

But the really curious thing is that Rice is equally adamant that she not by put under oath - as in "Keep that damned Bible away from me!" She won't be held accountable in THAT way. Not her. This is not testimony in some damned courtroom where you swear you're telling the truth. It's just a chat to clear up some misconceptions.

Does Karl Rove, Bush's political advisor, understand how bad this all looks? In the last eighteen hours Clarke makes this stunning apology to the families who lost folks on September 11 - implying those who don't apologize are arrogant bastards who don't understand what real people feel. Then Bush makes his jokes about the missing WMD - a few miles from the hospital where our guys are working on how to live the rest of their lives without a leg or an arm or without their eyes. Hey, he didn't know the WMD weren't there - and it is kind of funny, isn't it? I guess that depends on your perspective.

Then late in the evening the Rice woman says she's changed her mind - she WILL explain herself, but only privately - on not on the record.

Karl, this is not way to make things look good.


Footnote (a new meme is born):

But then again, in the Republican primaries leading up to the 2000 election, Karl Rove saw how John McCain was gaining ground on Bush in South Carolina and suddenly there were all those stories popping up everywhere about how McCain might have fathered a "nigger baby" - and the rest is history. Good move, Karl. And today on CNN's show "Crossfire" Bob Novak did after all imply that Richard Clarke may have more than his points about Bush and the administration being wrong on terrorism. Novak is hinting the real problem is Richard Clarke has a problem with African-American women like Condoleezza Rice. Really - see this. Must be some racial-sexual hang-up.

Or maybe Richard Clarke is just a plain old racist, as Ann Coulter suggests:

Isn't that just like a liberal? The chair-warmer describes Bush as a cowboy and Rumsfeld as his gunslinger -- but the black chick is a dummy. Maybe even as dumb as Clarence Thomas. Perhaps someday liberals could map out the relative intelligence of various black government officials for us.
That would mean anything he says is to be disregarded, as he just doesn't like black folks. Liberals are like that. Don't listen to him.

It should be an interesting campaign.

Posted by Alan at 21:02 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Friday, 26 March 2004 07:38 PST home

Newer | Latest | Older