Friday, January 31, 2003
Extremist ‘unilateralists’ and ‘multilateralists’ (Or why knives and forks are not mutually exclusive), Part II: Ah, what the hell. Said at the end of my previous post on this subject that I’d end the discussion, for now. But then I stumbled across this Charles Krauthammer column about the U.N., RIP. This isn’t a perfect example of extremist unilateralism. And this article about AIDS ‘activists’ may not be the perfect example of extremist multilateralism. But they’re both close enough to make my point. As for Charles, he’s all over the map, bashing the U.N. and not mentioning how the administration is now playing the U.N. card (quite deftly, I might say, though belatedly, I might add). Charles brings up the subject of NATO and the eight European leaders who have sided with the U.S. in the Iraq crisis, but doesn’t mention how those leaders constantly referred to the U.N., Security Council, NATO etc. in their collective letter. ...
... The ‘unilateralist’ vs. ‘multilateralist’ debate is becoming more and more like an argument over whether you should just use a knife or fork while eating. Well, personally, I kind of like using both. Don’t you? ‘Unilateralism’ and ‘multilateralism’ have to be used in conjunction with each other. You toggle back and forth, using one for one purpose, the other for another purpose, and sometimes you use both at the same time, sort of like using a knife to push the peas onto the fork, something my mother always railed against but a practice my father did with a wink and great dexterity. Are the U.N. and NATO both flawed? Hell yes. But junk them? Hell no. Bush, if we’re lucky, is finally discovering the naughty delight of using the multilateralist U.N. to push the little peas on our unilateralist fork. And the more peas on the fork, the better. Know what the best part is? We're beating the French at their own knife-and-fork game! ... And, again:
“As Churchill said, the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them.”
... The ‘unilateralist’ vs. ‘multilateralist’ debate is becoming more and more like an argument over whether you should just use a knife or fork while eating. Well, personally, I kind of like using both. Don’t you? ‘Unilateralism’ and ‘multilateralism’ have to be used in conjunction with each other. You toggle back and forth, using one for one purpose, the other for another purpose, and sometimes you use both at the same time, sort of like using a knife to push the peas onto the fork, something my mother always railed against but a practice my father did with a wink and great dexterity. Are the U.N. and NATO both flawed? Hell yes. But junk them? Hell no. Bush, if we’re lucky, is finally discovering the naughty delight of using the multilateralist U.N. to push the little peas on our unilateralist fork. And the more peas on the fork, the better. Know what the best part is? We're beating the French at their own knife-and-fork game! ... And, again:
“As Churchill said, the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them.”
‘Tax hikes won’t fly -- not yet’: They can whine and whine. But there won’t be a tax hike to plug the state’s current budget deficit. Mitt ain’t going to do it. And he shouldn’t. Or he better not. But next fiscal year, well, that’s a different matter. Scot Lehigh explains why in probably the best piece I’ve read so far about the old no-new-taxes vs. tax-and-spend debate now playing out on Beacon Hill. ...
... Best right-to-the-point lead on a column I’ve read in a while: ‘The Metropolitan District Commission is a cockroach.’ ...
Read Tom Keane this morning. Talk about ‘No reforms, no new taxes.’ From Tom: ‘If Massachusetts raises taxes and the Quinn Bill (which boosts cops' salaries by millions in exchange for taking bogus classes) is still around, then taxes were not raised as a ‘last resort.’ If we raise taxes and the Pacheco Bill (which prevents the government from using competition to deliver services more cheaply) is still law, taxes were not raised as a ‘last resort.’” As Tom says, the list could go on and on and on. ... Speaking of Tom Keane, you really should read his column for the number of other delightful observations and one-liners he fires off. As I said yesterday, I think analyzing the ‘style’ of a speech is almost always subjective and more than a little ludicrous. But Keane probably came closest to pure objectivity when he wrote the following about the speeches by Mitt, Tommy and the Trav: ‘All looked a bit like animals caught in the headlights (Romney, a deer; Travaglini, a koala; Finneran, a ferret).’ ...
... No, no, no! No more Howie Carr columns slamming hacks! But, damn it, he did it again. (Some think -- or hope -- the Bulger/FBI legal wrangling will drain Billy’s personal piggy bank. Think again. Billy has built up his own mini-law firm over at UMass -- and we’re paying for it.) By the way, Howie plugs the howiecarr.org web site for those who care. Didn’t know there was one. Alas, it’s not a blog.
... Best right-to-the-point lead on a column I’ve read in a while: ‘The Metropolitan District Commission is a cockroach.’ ...
Read Tom Keane this morning. Talk about ‘No reforms, no new taxes.’ From Tom: ‘If Massachusetts raises taxes and the Quinn Bill (which boosts cops' salaries by millions in exchange for taking bogus classes) is still around, then taxes were not raised as a ‘last resort.’ If we raise taxes and the Pacheco Bill (which prevents the government from using competition to deliver services more cheaply) is still law, taxes were not raised as a ‘last resort.’” As Tom says, the list could go on and on and on. ... Speaking of Tom Keane, you really should read his column for the number of other delightful observations and one-liners he fires off. As I said yesterday, I think analyzing the ‘style’ of a speech is almost always subjective and more than a little ludicrous. But Keane probably came closest to pure objectivity when he wrote the following about the speeches by Mitt, Tommy and the Trav: ‘All looked a bit like animals caught in the headlights (Romney, a deer; Travaglini, a koala; Finneran, a ferret).’ ...
... No, no, no! No more Howie Carr columns slamming hacks! But, damn it, he did it again. (Some think -- or hope -- the Bulger/FBI legal wrangling will drain Billy’s personal piggy bank. Think again. Billy has built up his own mini-law firm over at UMass -- and we’re paying for it.) By the way, Howie plugs the howiecarr.org web site for those who care. Didn’t know there was one. Alas, it’s not a blog.
Amtrak vs. the MBTA: Cosmo Macero referees a fight between a pot calling a kettle black.
‘Something with a little bite’: This is, without a doubt, the worst column ever written by Brian McGrory. Period. Seriously. Awful. Immature. Lazy. And you know what? He had to do it. There’s just something about journalism where you have to pursue these cravings and get them out of your system. Kind of like a character in one of the greatest books ever written about journalism, called “Dwarf Rapes Nun; Flees in UFO,” by Arnold Sawislack. If you’re a journalist, buy it. Sort of like ‘Confederacy of Dunces,’ though obviously not as good. (What could be?) Anyway, quick story line of 'Dwarf Rapes Nun': A Fleet Street Brit editor, unable to find the Holy Grail of screamer headlines in the UK, comes to the US in his crazed search for the perfect tabloid headline. In the process, he turns a small, sleepy, Midwestern capital city upside down and inside out. ... As for Brian: You found your Holy Grail. (Or did you?) Anyway, congrats. I'm envious. Now back to work!
Update -- For some reason, I can't get the above link to work for the 'Dwarf Rapes Nun' book. But it is available over there at Amazon.
Update -- For some reason, I can't get the above link to work for the 'Dwarf Rapes Nun' book. But it is available over there at Amazon.
Extremist ‘unilateralists’ and extremist ‘multilateralists’: Hub Blog is starting a new campaign. Against what? The abuse of the words ‘unilateralist’ and ‘multilateralist.’ We’re all guilty of it these days, including yours truly. Tired of the debate. Got truly fed up with it when I read this editorial in the Globe, which, by the way, doesn’t mention the fact that eight European leaders just signed a letter expressing solidarity with the US. ... Anyway, what bothers me about the ‘unilateralist’ vs. ‘multilateralist’ debate (besides the fact that it’s now entered the official lexicon of the modern ideological/cultural wars) is that there’s no such thing as a pure ‘unilateralist’ or pure ‘multilateralist,’ try as one might to prove it. George Bush, with his swaggering unilateralist rhetoric, is obviously now engaged in a very multilateralist chess match over at the UN. (And, surprisingly, he just might win, to the regret of extreme unilateralists and multilateralists.) Meanwhile, France, the biggest proponent of multilateralism, is now acting like a true neo-colonial unilateralist in the Ivory Coast. (Or should I call it ‘Cote d’Ivorie,’ as some are now pretentiously calling it. Should we start calling England ‘Angleterre’? Just asking. But I digress.) There are many, many different shades of ‘unilateralists’ and ‘multilateralists.’ Don’t have time to slice and dice all of them to show examples. But let’s take the recent war on terrorism to make the point: I don’t think anyone seriously doubted America’s right to go after the Taliban and Osama in Afrghanistan, with or without international help. We had and have a right to defend ourselves. That’s embracing, well, a form of unilateralism. But in the case of Iraq it’s a little trickier, requiring, as Bush has found out the hard way, a little more multilateral finesse, something the administration has been particularly bad at acknowledging and handling. Dismissing either ‘unilateralism’ or ‘multilateralism’ is like trying to fix a flat tire with a jack minus the tire iron. You need both. End it here with this vow: From now on, humble little Hub Blog will start referring, when appropriate, to ‘extremist unilateralism’ or ‘extremist multilaterism.’ And, oh, as usual, here’s this quote:
“As Churchill said, the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them.”
“As Churchill said, the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them.”
Thursday, January 30, 2003
Allies, unity and cohesion: A number of readers have sent various links that deal with this stirring and moving letter by eight European leaders expressing their support for the United States and for a united stand against Iraq. One letter writer, noting my past criticism of President Bush for not reaching out enough to all Americans and to Europeans, said: “See? We do have allies!” My response: “Isn’t it nice to have allies?” Excerpts from the letter by the European leaders:
“Today more than ever, the trans-Atlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom. ....
“The trans-Atlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime's persistent attempts to threaten world security. In today's world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion. ...
“All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the U.N. route, and our support for the Security Council at the Prague NATO Summit and the Copenhagen European Council. ...
“The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.”
Besides the humbling reference to ‘American bravery’ during the struggle against fascism and communism, notice also all the references to ‘bond’ and ‘relationship’ and ‘unity’ and ‘cohesion’ and ‘all of us’ and ‘solidarity,’ not to mention the references to the U.N., the Security Council and NATO. There have been many in this administration who have wantonly ignored, even belittled, the idea of going to the U.N. and building a strong coalition. Is there or is there not a faction within this administration that has been touting a unilateralist, go-it-alone Pax America approach toward the world’s problems? Of course there is. To deny it is to lie. And it’s that faction that’s been dismissing the U.N., dismissing European sentiment, dismissing anything that even remotely smacks of the dreaded ‘multilateralism.’ And now some of the administration’s most ardent supporters are excitedly sending me this stirring letter by European leaders -- with the leaders’ references to the U.N., the Security Council, NATO and the need to act in a, well, multilateralist way -- and say it represents their views and not mine? Pleasssssssse. I firmly believed this administration’s bellicose, blustering and blundering policies over the past year have needlessly turned off a lot of people across the world and even here in America. And I firmly believe this: Had the president more deftly handled the diplomatic front over the past year, we might have a had ninth leader signing the European leaders’ letter. Who would have been the ninth? A different German chancellor than the clown we have now. The election in Germany was close -- and it was settled, ultimately, by a gross appeal to anti-American and anti-war hysteria, fed partly by a U.S. president who didn’t realize his words (and not necessarily his actions) were disturbing a lot of people. Seeing that Phase I (Afghanistan) of the war is over and that we’re about to enter Phase II of the war (Iraq), I hope the administration has learned some lessons when we move on to Phase III. And again, here’s a line I’ve been using a lot lately:
“As Churchill said, the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them.”
Glad to see that so many now apparently agree with this point.
P.S. And, oh, yes. I did get this link to Peggy Noonan’s review of the president’s State of the Union Address. She liked the speech. So did I. Just wish he had used the same calm, reasoned, non-chest-beating rhetoric throughout the past year. It would have helped our cause a lot more.
Update 7:30 p.m. -- That old 'faux-hawkish multilateralist' Tony Blair is urging President Bush to stick with the UN option. Meanwhile, read on about the turmoil in Europe this crisis is causing.
“Today more than ever, the trans-Atlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom. ....
“The trans-Atlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime's persistent attempts to threaten world security. In today's world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion. ...
“All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the U.N. route, and our support for the Security Council at the Prague NATO Summit and the Copenhagen European Council. ...
“The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.”
Besides the humbling reference to ‘American bravery’ during the struggle against fascism and communism, notice also all the references to ‘bond’ and ‘relationship’ and ‘unity’ and ‘cohesion’ and ‘all of us’ and ‘solidarity,’ not to mention the references to the U.N., the Security Council and NATO. There have been many in this administration who have wantonly ignored, even belittled, the idea of going to the U.N. and building a strong coalition. Is there or is there not a faction within this administration that has been touting a unilateralist, go-it-alone Pax America approach toward the world’s problems? Of course there is. To deny it is to lie. And it’s that faction that’s been dismissing the U.N., dismissing European sentiment, dismissing anything that even remotely smacks of the dreaded ‘multilateralism.’ And now some of the administration’s most ardent supporters are excitedly sending me this stirring letter by European leaders -- with the leaders’ references to the U.N., the Security Council, NATO and the need to act in a, well, multilateralist way -- and say it represents their views and not mine? Pleasssssssse. I firmly believed this administration’s bellicose, blustering and blundering policies over the past year have needlessly turned off a lot of people across the world and even here in America. And I firmly believe this: Had the president more deftly handled the diplomatic front over the past year, we might have a had ninth leader signing the European leaders’ letter. Who would have been the ninth? A different German chancellor than the clown we have now. The election in Germany was close -- and it was settled, ultimately, by a gross appeal to anti-American and anti-war hysteria, fed partly by a U.S. president who didn’t realize his words (and not necessarily his actions) were disturbing a lot of people. Seeing that Phase I (Afghanistan) of the war is over and that we’re about to enter Phase II of the war (Iraq), I hope the administration has learned some lessons when we move on to Phase III. And again, here’s a line I’ve been using a lot lately:
“As Churchill said, the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them.”
Glad to see that so many now apparently agree with this point.
P.S. And, oh, yes. I did get this link to Peggy Noonan’s review of the president’s State of the Union Address. She liked the speech. So did I. Just wish he had used the same calm, reasoned, non-chest-beating rhetoric throughout the past year. It would have helped our cause a lot more.
Update 7:30 p.m. -- That old 'faux-hawkish multilateralist' Tony Blair is urging President Bush to stick with the UN option. Meanwhile, read on about the turmoil in Europe this crisis is causing.
The worst Globe op-ed?: Politica Obscura thinks he's found it.
‘The CEO sets the stage’: Must admit: Saw only bits and pieces of Mitt’s speech last night. What I saw, though, wasn’t great but certainly not bad. Don’t want to get into a style assessment of the speech, for those who like Mitt will say they generally liked the speech, while those who don’t like him will say the opposite. A waste of time. ...
... The most curious morning-after piece was this Globe ‘analysis’ of Mitt’s handling of the budget announcements. It’s as if the writer, Frank Phillips, can’t quite believe that a non-politician is running state government and is handling matters differently from past governors. I mean, the shock! The article is strewn with references to ‘CEO’ and Bain and ‘businesslike’ and ‘corporate’ and other private-sector lingo. Love this line: “The frustration was palpable because Romney's approach was such a sharp departure from recent governors of both parties: Other chief executives would almost daily make themselves available to the news media - usually right outside the executive office - and take questions from any comer. ... Still, Romney's cool corporate style may be an asset in winning public support as he deals with tough budget issues.”
... One complaint: I do wish Mitt had outlined more of the cuts. The announcement he was firing hundreds of lawyers was a little too much of, hmmm, how shall we say this, ...pandering to our prejudices?
... Maybe last night wasn’t the time, but the governor better be serious about restructuring and reforming government. I think he is. The planned elimination of the patronage-laden MDC was a great first step in the reform campaign. One of many other suggestions: the Quinn Bill. For some reason, this has struck a nerve in people. They know it’s a scam. Here’s hoping Mitt guts or reforms it next month. Remember: $100 million. ... Speaking of scams and reforms, check out Margery Eagan’s column this morning. From Margery: “It's like scam central around here. It's Scam of the Week. It's Scam-a-rama. But during every budget crisis, we hear the same song and dance. I repeat: Cops, firefighters and teachers must go first. And the children. What about the children? Second. Throw 'em overboard. Meanwhile, the scam-meisters continue on their merry ways, laughing at all us saps.”
A reader responds:
"Just a bit of feedback on the Phillips 'analysis' piece. I think you should read the whole thing as a shot across the bow from the Globe at the Romney administration regarding lack of access. In general, the administration has been very disciplined about leaks. And when they do leak, it's to (the) Herald. … The discipline trend appears to be in keeping with the administration's aim of centralizing press at the executive level. Fewer connected sources at the agencies means less opportunity for enterprising reporters."
Hub Blog's response: One is tempted to say, 'Welcome to business journalism, Frank, where the CEO doesn't always have to talk to the press.' ... Not saying that's good, but that's the way it is. ... The institutional clash between the political press and Mitt is going to be fascinating to watch. Mitt, who came from the private sector, is obviously stealing a page or two from the press strategy of George Bush, who also came from the private sector.
... The most curious morning-after piece was this Globe ‘analysis’ of Mitt’s handling of the budget announcements. It’s as if the writer, Frank Phillips, can’t quite believe that a non-politician is running state government and is handling matters differently from past governors. I mean, the shock! The article is strewn with references to ‘CEO’ and Bain and ‘businesslike’ and ‘corporate’ and other private-sector lingo. Love this line: “The frustration was palpable because Romney's approach was such a sharp departure from recent governors of both parties: Other chief executives would almost daily make themselves available to the news media - usually right outside the executive office - and take questions from any comer. ... Still, Romney's cool corporate style may be an asset in winning public support as he deals with tough budget issues.”
... One complaint: I do wish Mitt had outlined more of the cuts. The announcement he was firing hundreds of lawyers was a little too much of, hmmm, how shall we say this, ...pandering to our prejudices?
... Maybe last night wasn’t the time, but the governor better be serious about restructuring and reforming government. I think he is. The planned elimination of the patronage-laden MDC was a great first step in the reform campaign. One of many other suggestions: the Quinn Bill. For some reason, this has struck a nerve in people. They know it’s a scam. Here’s hoping Mitt guts or reforms it next month. Remember: $100 million. ... Speaking of scams and reforms, check out Margery Eagan’s column this morning. From Margery: “It's like scam central around here. It's Scam of the Week. It's Scam-a-rama. But during every budget crisis, we hear the same song and dance. I repeat: Cops, firefighters and teachers must go first. And the children. What about the children? Second. Throw 'em overboard. Meanwhile, the scam-meisters continue on their merry ways, laughing at all us saps.”
A reader responds:
"Just a bit of feedback on the Phillips 'analysis' piece. I think you should read the whole thing as a shot across the bow from the Globe at the Romney administration regarding lack of access. In general, the administration has been very disciplined about leaks. And when they do leak, it's to (the) Herald. … The discipline trend appears to be in keeping with the administration's aim of centralizing press at the executive level. Fewer connected sources at the agencies means less opportunity for enterprising reporters."
Hub Blog's response: One is tempted to say, 'Welcome to business journalism, Frank, where the CEO doesn't always have to talk to the press.' ... Not saying that's good, but that's the way it is. ... The institutional clash between the political press and Mitt is going to be fascinating to watch. Mitt, who came from the private sector, is obviously stealing a page or two from the press strategy of George Bush, who also came from the private sector.
They’re already carping: The administration reaches out to the world and proposes a bold, dynamic plan to tackle AIDS in Africa and elsewhere. And what are some ‘activists’ saying? I’m not making it up: The administration is being too ‘unilateralist’ in its approach. Unbelievable. As anyone who regularly reads this blog knows, I’m against ‘unilateralist’ extremists in this administration. But one thing I should start stressing more: I’m against ‘multilateralist’ extremists, too. The ingratitude of some of these people is amazing. Simply amazing. ... Keep reading the article beyond the bureaucratic whining and posturing. Toward the end, the story gives an excellent account of how the administration planned its radical AIDS initiative. Hub Blog personally knows some of the people the administration consulted with prior to Tuesday’s announcement. They are first-class, brilliant people dedicated to fighting AIDS. The more I read about this plan, the more I like it.
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
The speech he should have given a year ago: He was calm, focused, convincing and eloquent on Iraq. The sad part is: This is The Speech He Should Have Given A Year Ago (And Throughout The Past Year), coupled with a U.N. Policy That He Should Have Tried A Year Ago (And Throughout The Past Year). You already know my position, so just reread this post and this post and this post to get a flavor of where I stand. What a shame. The damage has already been done after a year of bellicose talking to his own kind, rather than trying to convince others. ... One can only hope that, after Iraq, he’ll have learned his lessons and try different diplomatic and rhetorical methods to achieve the same ends and drum up more support. But this Fred Barnes piece, while identifying Bush’s admirable goals for Phase III of the war after Iraq, isn’t encouraging. ... Wonder if the president has ever heard of the phrase: There’s more than one way to skin a cat. ...
... Reader BK sent in this email to me last night:
“Hubblog’s job For jan. 29th
“1. Put liberal press cant and commentary on Bush's SOTU speech through the most stringent scrutiny and reverse-engineering possible.
“2. Full-speed ahead with Hubblog's unique -- and as yet still unchallenged -- selling proposition: covering the media's and the Democrats' inabilities to grasp Romney's new thinking and approaches-- while still criticizing Mitt on the merits wherever Hubblog finds it necessary to do so.”
More on Mitt below, but first the reverse-engineering of Bush’s SOTU. Think I’ve already started that process by expressing my regret with Bush’s atrocious argumentative style over the past year, while still grudgingly supporting him. (Is that technically reverse engineering? Not sure.) Anyway, I think Reader BK has an EXCELLENT take on the speech himself. Here’s BK:
“Bush's SOTU: I bet the Democrats in the chamber (and most of the media) thought that Bush started out slowly, that he looked a bit tired, that the speech was going to be mediocre. But within two minutes, he reached across the aisle and -- domestic issue by domestic issue -- started pulling their collective teeth out until I wondered whether he was going to stop pulling when he reached their brain stems. By the standards set by Bush's speeches of September 14th, 2001, September 20th, 2001, and last year's SOTU, this year's SOTU is only a very, good but not a great speech. The Boston media's opinionazzi will contend that it is even less impressive. But had any Democrat given last night's speech, it would be ranked as the most farsighted and courageous speech (let alone SOTU) that any leader -- Democrat or Republican -- has given in the last two decades. (And) great work on Kerry's foreign policy ‘masterpiece.’ Looking forward to your continuing and thorough guidance through JFK's year of ‘personal growth’ in his pursuit of the presidency of the world's oldest democracy.”
Oh, yeah, my masterpiece fisking of Kerry’s masterpiece of a speech. Thank you. Now that fisking the other day was definitely a form of reverse engineering. Ain’t easy being a multilateralist defending a unilateralist against a fellow multilateralist while also attacking the unilateralist’s penchant for treating others like dog doo-doo. ...
But where were we? Oh, yes. BK’s challenge to Hub Blog to monitor the local media’s spin this morning on George’s SOTU speech. No huge complaints, but did find this instance of reverse engineering: The Herald’s ‘analysis’ of the speech was more negative than the Globe’s ‘analysis’ of the speech. Thought that was rather curious. And any time you put a Scot Lehigh column and a Derrick Jackson column on the same op-ed page, with the two writing about the same subject, that, too, is a form of reverse engineering. (Loved Scot’s take on the sham interviews with Iraq’s scientists. Read it, even though you might not need more proof of Saddam’s cruelty.) Derrick will never, ever be convinced about the need to go to war, but he does raise interesting points about Rummy’s unilateralist ways and 'Powell's vindidation.' (That’s reverse engineering, right? Taking a slap at Derrick while also admitting he makes some decent points? Or am I supposed to dismiss everything he says just because he’s not 100 percent on ‘my side’? ). ....
... Meanwhile, loved this article for one reason: John Kerry’s retort to the president. And here’s Johnnnnnnnny: ''We live in serious times facing serious challenges, and we cannot afford a mere rhetorical presidency. ... Americans are tired of politicians who make promises in speeches and break them in practice.'' ... A ‘mere rhetorical presidency.’ John Kerry said this. John Kerry. Methinks Tom Oliphant has a different impression about who’s been a tad bit too rhetorical these days.
... What was the most encouraging, exciting, non-Iraq portion of Bush’s speech? His call to fight AIDS in Africa. It was AWESOME. Seriously. If funded and implemented correctly, this president will have saved millions and millions of lives -- and win millions of admirers in a continent that truly does look up to America and wishes we’d be more active there. Need more of this compassionate, intelligent multilateralist outreach, George. Wins 'friends' and 'allies.' ...
... What was the worst part of the president’s speech? It’s what he didn’t mention: The evil, evil threat posed by Canadians to our north. This is truly frightening. Hub Blog's new secret mission in the war: Must find 'Agent Deep Freeze' and neutralize him before it's too late.
Update -- 1 p.m. -- Love it. Love it! Europeans are squabbling and taking sides (sort of) over Rummy’s ‘Old Europe’ crack. Interesting observation at the end:
“I don't want to exaggerate the depth of the differences or overplay the unity of the ‘New Europe.’ British opinion polls are indeed running soundly against the war in Iraq. Much of the Italian and Spanish media are profoundly anti-American. For that matter, support for American policy in Iraq might be found in France and Germany if the Bush administration, Rumsfeld included, cared enough to promote it. Nevertheless, differences remain -- so when foreign reactions to the president's State of the Union speech are quoted today, do find out which countries are speaking in the name of ‘Europe’ before drawing conclusions.”
Makes my points, counters my points. And that’s why I like blogging. Thanks to none other than (drum roll please) Reader BK, once again, for the link.
... Reader BK sent in this email to me last night:
“Hubblog’s job For jan. 29th
“1. Put liberal press cant and commentary on Bush's SOTU speech through the most stringent scrutiny and reverse-engineering possible.
“2. Full-speed ahead with Hubblog's unique -- and as yet still unchallenged -- selling proposition: covering the media's and the Democrats' inabilities to grasp Romney's new thinking and approaches-- while still criticizing Mitt on the merits wherever Hubblog finds it necessary to do so.”
More on Mitt below, but first the reverse-engineering of Bush’s SOTU. Think I’ve already started that process by expressing my regret with Bush’s atrocious argumentative style over the past year, while still grudgingly supporting him. (Is that technically reverse engineering? Not sure.) Anyway, I think Reader BK has an EXCELLENT take on the speech himself. Here’s BK:
“Bush's SOTU: I bet the Democrats in the chamber (and most of the media) thought that Bush started out slowly, that he looked a bit tired, that the speech was going to be mediocre. But within two minutes, he reached across the aisle and -- domestic issue by domestic issue -- started pulling their collective teeth out until I wondered whether he was going to stop pulling when he reached their brain stems. By the standards set by Bush's speeches of September 14th, 2001, September 20th, 2001, and last year's SOTU, this year's SOTU is only a very, good but not a great speech. The Boston media's opinionazzi will contend that it is even less impressive. But had any Democrat given last night's speech, it would be ranked as the most farsighted and courageous speech (let alone SOTU) that any leader -- Democrat or Republican -- has given in the last two decades. (And) great work on Kerry's foreign policy ‘masterpiece.’ Looking forward to your continuing and thorough guidance through JFK's year of ‘personal growth’ in his pursuit of the presidency of the world's oldest democracy.”
Oh, yeah, my masterpiece fisking of Kerry’s masterpiece of a speech. Thank you. Now that fisking the other day was definitely a form of reverse engineering. Ain’t easy being a multilateralist defending a unilateralist against a fellow multilateralist while also attacking the unilateralist’s penchant for treating others like dog doo-doo. ...
But where were we? Oh, yes. BK’s challenge to Hub Blog to monitor the local media’s spin this morning on George’s SOTU speech. No huge complaints, but did find this instance of reverse engineering: The Herald’s ‘analysis’ of the speech was more negative than the Globe’s ‘analysis’ of the speech. Thought that was rather curious. And any time you put a Scot Lehigh column and a Derrick Jackson column on the same op-ed page, with the two writing about the same subject, that, too, is a form of reverse engineering. (Loved Scot’s take on the sham interviews with Iraq’s scientists. Read it, even though you might not need more proof of Saddam’s cruelty.) Derrick will never, ever be convinced about the need to go to war, but he does raise interesting points about Rummy’s unilateralist ways and 'Powell's vindidation.' (That’s reverse engineering, right? Taking a slap at Derrick while also admitting he makes some decent points? Or am I supposed to dismiss everything he says just because he’s not 100 percent on ‘my side’? ). ....
... Meanwhile, loved this article for one reason: John Kerry’s retort to the president. And here’s Johnnnnnnnny: ''We live in serious times facing serious challenges, and we cannot afford a mere rhetorical presidency. ... Americans are tired of politicians who make promises in speeches and break them in practice.'' ... A ‘mere rhetorical presidency.’ John Kerry said this. John Kerry. Methinks Tom Oliphant has a different impression about who’s been a tad bit too rhetorical these days.
... What was the most encouraging, exciting, non-Iraq portion of Bush’s speech? His call to fight AIDS in Africa. It was AWESOME. Seriously. If funded and implemented correctly, this president will have saved millions and millions of lives -- and win millions of admirers in a continent that truly does look up to America and wishes we’d be more active there. Need more of this compassionate, intelligent multilateralist outreach, George. Wins 'friends' and 'allies.' ...
... What was the worst part of the president’s speech? It’s what he didn’t mention: The evil, evil threat posed by Canadians to our north. This is truly frightening. Hub Blog's new secret mission in the war: Must find 'Agent Deep Freeze' and neutralize him before it's too late.
Update -- 1 p.m. -- Love it. Love it! Europeans are squabbling and taking sides (sort of) over Rummy’s ‘Old Europe’ crack. Interesting observation at the end:
“I don't want to exaggerate the depth of the differences or overplay the unity of the ‘New Europe.’ British opinion polls are indeed running soundly against the war in Iraq. Much of the Italian and Spanish media are profoundly anti-American. For that matter, support for American policy in Iraq might be found in France and Germany if the Bush administration, Rumsfeld included, cared enough to promote it. Nevertheless, differences remain -- so when foreign reactions to the president's State of the Union speech are quoted today, do find out which countries are speaking in the name of ‘Europe’ before drawing conclusions.”
Makes my points, counters my points. And that’s why I like blogging. Thanks to none other than (drum roll please) Reader BK, once again, for the link.
Mitt’s new way of thinking: He’s cutting back the press secretary corps. And another promising career avenue for Hub Blog hits a dead end. ... Make sure to watch Mitt’s budget speech tonight, followed by Gov. Finneran and President Trav.
Rethinking homelessness: Tom Keane has an outstanding column about the homeless, the mentally ill, the ‘deinstitutionalization’ movement of the ‘60s and ‘70s, and how solving the problem of ‘homelessness’ isn’t as easy as conservatives or liberals claim. Great background material on the issue for those who jump to simple conclusions whenever they step over the bloodied, inebriated bodies of homeless people in Boston.
Why I love the Herald: Because they run headlines like this: “ ‘Frankenstein’ breast surgery clinic uncovered.” The story is appalling. The lede: “A Cambodian couple turned their Lowell apartment into a makeshift clinic, performing backroom breast enhancements and other illicit surgeries until investigators probing the claims of infected victims stumbled upon the bloody ‘operating room,’ officials said.” ... How can you not read this story? ... Just wait until they describe the ‘operating table.’
Tuesday, January 28, 2003
'Powell's Vindication,' Part II: Hub Blog has been quoting Peggy Noonan a lot these days on Iraq, in fact I did so earlier today, linking to one of her columns from September. But I missed this Noonan column from yesterday (via Dan Kennedy and Mickey Kaus). Some excerpts from Noonan's latest piece:
"... Mr. Bush's passion is well-established. Too much so, actually. Last summer, when Mr. Bush told Bob Woodward's tape recorder that he personally loathes Kim Jung Il, when he spoke of his disdain in startlingly personal tones -- and when the world heard it on television, for Mr. Woodward apparently provided the tape to publicists when he was selling his Bush book -- well, that was not a great moment in the history of diplomacy. Mr. Bush's father was often accused of allowing himself to express too little. George W. Bush may be remembered in part for allowing himself to express too much. ...
"But one of the problems with the strategy, if it is a strategy -- and one certainly hopes it is for if it's not there's a lot of messy swaggering going on at the White House -- is this: It leaves the world and the American people wondering if Mr. Bush isn't a little too hot, too quick on the draw, too personal in his handling of international challenges. In an odd way Mr. Bush's passion about Iraq is getting in the way of his message on Iraq. It's not carrying the message forth forcefully, which is what passion is supposed to do. At this point his passion seems to be distracting from the message."
"... Mr. Bush's passion is well-established. Too much so, actually. Last summer, when Mr. Bush told Bob Woodward's tape recorder that he personally loathes Kim Jung Il, when he spoke of his disdain in startlingly personal tones -- and when the world heard it on television, for Mr. Woodward apparently provided the tape to publicists when he was selling his Bush book -- well, that was not a great moment in the history of diplomacy. Mr. Bush's father was often accused of allowing himself to express too little. George W. Bush may be remembered in part for allowing himself to express too much. ...
"But one of the problems with the strategy, if it is a strategy -- and one certainly hopes it is for if it's not there's a lot of messy swaggering going on at the White House -- is this: It leaves the world and the American people wondering if Mr. Bush isn't a little too hot, too quick on the draw, too personal in his handling of international challenges. In an odd way Mr. Bush's passion about Iraq is getting in the way of his message on Iraq. It's not carrying the message forth forcefully, which is what passion is supposed to do. At this point his passion seems to be distracting from the message."
Economy in limbo, Part II: I’ve stopped trying to make sense of this local economy. It’s throwing too many curves, though residential real estate isn’t a very good indicator of economic/business activity. A more accurate measure can be found in commercial real estate. I stand by an earlier assertion: We’re going to be in the doldrums for a while.
MBTA -- no reforms, no new taxes: A few weeks ago, Hub Blog advocated a possible gas tax increase in order to pay for much-needed transportation (re: rail) improvements. A reader quickly wrote back that I should apply my own mantra to the MBTA: “No reforms, no new taxes.” This story proves the point: No reforms, no new taxes.
Gov. Finneran: He really does think he’s gubernatorial material. What’s Tommy up to? Giving the Democrats’ version of the budget debate after Mitt’s televised address tomorrow night? Or explaining the legislature’s plans to work with Mitt? Or promoting himself? You decide. Hub Blog has its own suspicions. ... Meanwhile, current deficit estimates are back up to $650 million. Say what you will about Jane Swift, but she was unfairly knocked for all the wild budget estimates coming out of her office in the last days of her administration. Predicting incoming revenue ain’t easy in a recession. ...
... Mitt and Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall deserve a lot of credit for their performance in recent weeks, according to Wayne Woodlief. “Whether it's his no-nonsense corporate sense or political skills he learned from his late father George, a popular governor of Michigan, Romney has scored well on several points.” ... Hub Blog has also been hearing a lot of positive comments about how Mitt has been showing up at all the National Guard send offs. A small, slam-dunk, patriotic thing for a governor to do, no doubt. But people are noticing and talking about it.
... Mitt and Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall deserve a lot of credit for their performance in recent weeks, according to Wayne Woodlief. “Whether it's his no-nonsense corporate sense or political skills he learned from his late father George, a popular governor of Michigan, Romney has scored well on several points.” ... Hub Blog has also been hearing a lot of positive comments about how Mitt has been showing up at all the National Guard send offs. A small, slam-dunk, patriotic thing for a governor to do, no doubt. But people are noticing and talking about it.
‘Powell’s vindication’: That’s how Andrew Sullivan describes the U.N.’s damning report on Iraq -- damning, that is, if you pay attention to the facts -- and Powell’s push to involve the U.N. in the process. But is it really a ‘vindication’? And, if so, who’s discredited/not vindicated in the administration? Names, please. The fact is this diplomatic route should have been tried a year ago. It was resisted by many in the administration. Now it’s being implemented at the very last minute, too late, probably, to sway any meaningful number of Americans and/or Europeans. Too many people have already made up their minds. ... One reader wrote to me the other day (and I’m paraphrasing, for I no longer have the email): The United States was never going to convince the hard-core anti-American Europeans who see nothing but evil in everything America does. But it could have swayed, say, 5 percent to 10 percent more of the European population. Modest numbers, to be sure. But, as the reader said, it might have been enough to change the outcome of the German election had we tried a more diplomatic, less bellicose strategy. ...
.... Joan Vennochi has some good observations on roughly the same matter: “Ever since (Bush’s State of the Union address last year), he has marched the country toward another war. But we are not marching to one clear voice but rather to a jarring, confusing cacophony that starts and stops and starts again. Between the fits and starts, it is hard to hear Bush's voice over the voices coming from Iraq, North Korea, and the United Nations, not to mention the voices vying to be heard from inside his own administration.” ... Now there are certain things I disagree with in Joan’s column, such as the way she personally describes the president and her suggestion that he hasn’t made a clear case for war. Personally, I think the case for possible war was made a long, long time ago. The point of the U.N. approach was to convince others about the possible need for war. But Joan is largely right about this administration’s zigzagging ways. ... Sorry to hammer away at the point, but maybe it’s time, now that some are giving Colin Powell credit, to once again reread Peggy Noonan’s column from this past September on the mood of the country. ... And, oh, what the hell, while we’re at it, why not reread the Chruchill line sent in by Brighton Reader:
“As Churchill said, the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them.”
.... Joan Vennochi has some good observations on roughly the same matter: “Ever since (Bush’s State of the Union address last year), he has marched the country toward another war. But we are not marching to one clear voice but rather to a jarring, confusing cacophony that starts and stops and starts again. Between the fits and starts, it is hard to hear Bush's voice over the voices coming from Iraq, North Korea, and the United Nations, not to mention the voices vying to be heard from inside his own administration.” ... Now there are certain things I disagree with in Joan’s column, such as the way she personally describes the president and her suggestion that he hasn’t made a clear case for war. Personally, I think the case for possible war was made a long, long time ago. The point of the U.N. approach was to convince others about the possible need for war. But Joan is largely right about this administration’s zigzagging ways. ... Sorry to hammer away at the point, but maybe it’s time, now that some are giving Colin Powell credit, to once again reread Peggy Noonan’s column from this past September on the mood of the country. ... And, oh, what the hell, while we’re at it, why not reread the Chruchill line sent in by Brighton Reader:
“As Churchill said, the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them.”
Monday, January 27, 2003
'Going down north': That’s a phrase some blacks outside the north sometimes use when a friend or loved one is about to travel to a northern city -- the use of the word ‘down’ intended to draw parallels with going down to the old South. ... Boston definitely has a major racial image problem, so the 2004 Democratic National Convention is going to be a big, big racial test for the city. One of the things I liked about this article is how many out-of-town African-American delegates, interviewed by the Globe, freely admit that their opinions of Boston were shaped by the busing controversy of the ‘70s and that they’re open to the idea of dispelling those notions. ... Here’s a great passage from the piece: '' 'My friend who is coming to the convention told me the last time he'd even thought about Boston was the 1970s,' said Joyce Ferriabough, a black political consultant whose husband, Bruce Bolling, was the first black City Council president. ''I told him, `You've got a lot to catch up on, my brother.' I see that people just harp on the busing thing and, to be honest with you, it ticks me off. While I know that things still need to change here, the climate of Boston has changed dramatically.' '' ... The last sentence -- both clauses -- is quite true.
Throwing in the MCAS towel: The state cuts haven’t even been announced and some are urging throwing in the towel on MCAS? Seems a little hasty and drastic, not bold and decisive. Gutting it now in the face of tough economic times would mean that past efforts (and funds ) were simply wasted and sends a signal that no school reform can be touched. Of course, there’s another factor at play: A lot of people have been searching for excuses since Day 1 to gut MCAS.
Throwing in the towel on the Quinn Bill: Now here’s a program we should have thrown the towel in on a long, long time ago. Adrian Walker: “Given the political clout of its beneficiaries, the police unions, the Quinn Bill isn't likely to go away. But in the name of common sense it should be overhauled.” ... How about $100 million for schools?
Understanding the ‘groundswell of anxiety’: So Colin Powell is back to arguing in favor of a ‘great coalition’ to take on Iraq. Guess he’s got to keep trying, as futile as it may seem. We’ll have to go it alone, or with a minimal amount of allies, as things stand now. ...
Andrew Sullivan has an interesting post today on the subject. Andrew: “I've been trying to understand better the groundswell of anxiety about the coming war. Leaving aside the extremists, it seems to me that the undecideds simply hold an assumption I don't share. The assumption is that 9/11 was an isolated event that portended nothing more than itself and only legitimized a police operation in self-defense targeted precisely at the group that perpetrated it.” ... Glad he threw in the line about ‘leaving aside the extremists,’ for I’ve gotten quite a bit of email recently suggesting that my criticism of Bush in recent posts somehow shows I’ve become ‘antiwar.’ I also appreciate the fact that Andrew is at least ‘trying to understand better’ the views of non-extremists. But that’s the problem: Bush and his supporters have done very little to try to understand better people with different views on how to reach the same goal: Disarming and/or removing Saddam. It’s not all about ‘anxiety’ or ‘ambivalence’ or ‘faux-hawkish multilateralists.’ It also has to do with a perception, based on reality, in my opinion, that this administration has regularly, consistently, adamantly turned a tin ear to those with different ideas and views on how to reach the same end. The administration and its supporters have been, at times, bellicose, contemptuous and disdainful towards people who would have gladly lined up behind him had he tried to better understand their doubts and concerns. I think it was Mickey Kaus who wrote, soon after Sept. 11, that the administration had to reach out to Democrats in order to reach a true national consensus. True, but I would add: The administration had to also reach out to Independents and even people within his own party. What did we get? Trial balloons (quickly shot down) about how the administration might not have to consult with Congress over going to war with Iraq. Initially dismissing attempts to rally international support through the U.N. (but later embracing this approach under pressure, when it was too late). Etc., etc., etc. Most of us non-extremists-- the lukewarm supporters of his general cause -- actually believe in building as strong a consensus and alliance as possible. Poll after poll has shown Americans prefer going into this war with as much support as possible. This hasn’t always been the attitude of the administration, as we all know. What we’re seeing now at the U.N. -- with the U.S., France, Germany at odds etc. -- is two unwilling dancers at the prom. None of them truly believe in the U.N. route. They’re just doing it for the appearance. ...
... so now we’re heading to war, with divisions in America and within our NATO alliance (which some in the administration have always pooh-poohed as a viable partner). We’re getting the unilateralist approach that some in the administration have always wanted and advocated. And that disturbs and depresses a lot of people. We could have done better. How much better, I’m not sure. But we could have done better. Brighton Reader has been sending me a lot of emails lately on this subject. One line he sent sticks out. Here it is:
“As Churchill said, the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them.”
Well, I’m supporting Bush now. The stakes are too high. But I regret, even resent, the path we followed to get here.
Andrew Sullivan has an interesting post today on the subject. Andrew: “I've been trying to understand better the groundswell of anxiety about the coming war. Leaving aside the extremists, it seems to me that the undecideds simply hold an assumption I don't share. The assumption is that 9/11 was an isolated event that portended nothing more than itself and only legitimized a police operation in self-defense targeted precisely at the group that perpetrated it.” ... Glad he threw in the line about ‘leaving aside the extremists,’ for I’ve gotten quite a bit of email recently suggesting that my criticism of Bush in recent posts somehow shows I’ve become ‘antiwar.’ I also appreciate the fact that Andrew is at least ‘trying to understand better’ the views of non-extremists. But that’s the problem: Bush and his supporters have done very little to try to understand better people with different views on how to reach the same goal: Disarming and/or removing Saddam. It’s not all about ‘anxiety’ or ‘ambivalence’ or ‘faux-hawkish multilateralists.’ It also has to do with a perception, based on reality, in my opinion, that this administration has regularly, consistently, adamantly turned a tin ear to those with different ideas and views on how to reach the same end. The administration and its supporters have been, at times, bellicose, contemptuous and disdainful towards people who would have gladly lined up behind him had he tried to better understand their doubts and concerns. I think it was Mickey Kaus who wrote, soon after Sept. 11, that the administration had to reach out to Democrats in order to reach a true national consensus. True, but I would add: The administration had to also reach out to Independents and even people within his own party. What did we get? Trial balloons (quickly shot down) about how the administration might not have to consult with Congress over going to war with Iraq. Initially dismissing attempts to rally international support through the U.N. (but later embracing this approach under pressure, when it was too late). Etc., etc., etc. Most of us non-extremists-- the lukewarm supporters of his general cause -- actually believe in building as strong a consensus and alliance as possible. Poll after poll has shown Americans prefer going into this war with as much support as possible. This hasn’t always been the attitude of the administration, as we all know. What we’re seeing now at the U.N. -- with the U.S., France, Germany at odds etc. -- is two unwilling dancers at the prom. None of them truly believe in the U.N. route. They’re just doing it for the appearance. ...
... so now we’re heading to war, with divisions in America and within our NATO alliance (which some in the administration have always pooh-poohed as a viable partner). We’re getting the unilateralist approach that some in the administration have always wanted and advocated. And that disturbs and depresses a lot of people. We could have done better. How much better, I’m not sure. But we could have done better. Brighton Reader has been sending me a lot of emails lately on this subject. One line he sent sticks out. Here it is:
“As Churchill said, the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them.”
Well, I’m supporting Bush now. The stakes are too high. But I regret, even resent, the path we followed to get here.
Sunday, January 26, 2003
Understanding the French: A reader and friend emailed me to ask about a book on France I had recommended a while ago. The reader, reacting to all the news these days about France, Germany and Iraq, said he finally wants to “figure out what’s going through their f&*cking frog heads.” ...
... Here it is: William Shirer’s “The Collapse of the Third Republic: An Inquiry into the Fall of France in 1940.” I highly recommend it, though it’s long and dense. Having spent a lot of time in France and West Africa (France’s neocolonial, hypocritical stomping grounds to this day), it really gave me a greater understanding of the French mind and character. Shirer, best known for his classic “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” doesn’t just explore the immediate events leading up to 1940. He goes back to when the Third Republic was founded, how it survived through World War I, and the disastrous post-war military and diplomatic decisions by the French. Warning: It’s not as good as Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.” What could be? But it’s still excellent. ...
... On the same subject, I’ve noticed that Josh Marshall is a sort of military/diplomatic history buff too. There’s a newer book out, “Strange Victory,” by Ernest May, also about the fall of France in 1940. Here’s Josh’s mini-review of the book. I haven’t read it, but think I will. One thing about Josh’s review that caught my attention: How the French and English had more and better weapons facing Hitler in ‘40. Probably true. Recall Shirer saying the same thing. But Shirer makes clear -- and maybe May does too -- how many of those weapons were bought from the Americans at the last minute, just prior and after Poland’s fall in ‘39, and how the French didn’t have a clue how to use and deploy them properly.
Update -- Was over at Downtown Crossing and purchased a copy of "Strange Victory," written by Ernest R. May, who, by the way, is a Harvard prof and Cambridge resident. A blurb on the jacket praises the book as a 'splendid revisionist work.' Hmmmm. Now I'm really interested. A 'revisionist history' perhaps at odds with Shirer's conclusions? Should be fun. Get back to you on it later, probably in a few weeks.
... Here it is: William Shirer’s “The Collapse of the Third Republic: An Inquiry into the Fall of France in 1940.” I highly recommend it, though it’s long and dense. Having spent a lot of time in France and West Africa (France’s neocolonial, hypocritical stomping grounds to this day), it really gave me a greater understanding of the French mind and character. Shirer, best known for his classic “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” doesn’t just explore the immediate events leading up to 1940. He goes back to when the Third Republic was founded, how it survived through World War I, and the disastrous post-war military and diplomatic decisions by the French. Warning: It’s not as good as Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.” What could be? But it’s still excellent. ...
... On the same subject, I’ve noticed that Josh Marshall is a sort of military/diplomatic history buff too. There’s a newer book out, “Strange Victory,” by Ernest May, also about the fall of France in 1940. Here’s Josh’s mini-review of the book. I haven’t read it, but think I will. One thing about Josh’s review that caught my attention: How the French and English had more and better weapons facing Hitler in ‘40. Probably true. Recall Shirer saying the same thing. But Shirer makes clear -- and maybe May does too -- how many of those weapons were bought from the Americans at the last minute, just prior and after Poland’s fall in ‘39, and how the French didn’t have a clue how to use and deploy them properly.
Update -- Was over at Downtown Crossing and purchased a copy of "Strange Victory," written by Ernest R. May, who, by the way, is a Harvard prof and Cambridge resident. A blurb on the jacket praises the book as a 'splendid revisionist work.' Hmmmm. Now I'm really interested. A 'revisionist history' perhaps at odds with Shirer's conclusions? Should be fun. Get back to you on it later, probably in a few weeks.
‘Ambivalence on war shadows Kerry’: Thomas Oliphant, a multilateralist who has taken a consistently tough stand on Iraq, is taking Kerry to task for his have-it-both-ways stand on Iraq. From Oliphant: “Last weekend, in Iowa, he was the would-be antiwarrior, allegedly hamstrung in his dovish efforts in 2002 by more hawkish Democratic colleagues. Last week, he was the possibly reluctant warrior, decrying a headlong stumble toward war in the Persian Gulf but resigned and even supportive of it depending on the circumstances. ... The trick is in knowing at what point a question must be addressed with either a yes or a no. With Iraq that moment is fast approaching.” Oliphant concludes:
“Kerry has reflected the growing national ambivalence. That is not a sin, but it is not what presidents do. They have to choose before they can lead.”
A minor disagreement with Oliphant: The word 'ambivalence,' at least to me, implies you've given genuine thought to an issue and can't arrive at a clear answer. You're torn. You see both sides. The answer may lie in the harder-to-describe-and-defend middle. Etc. John Kerry is genuinely interested in international affairs and many aspects of his Georgetown speech were well thought out. But I'm not convinced he's truly 'ambivalent' about Iraq. One has a clear sense that Kerry, who can be so articulate about world affairs (as shown in his speech on Friday), is merely playing both sides of the fence. Hey, maybe I'm wrong. I've been all over the map on Iraq. I've been ambivalent and inconsistent, too. But Kerry's Georgetown speech and his flip-flopping sermons to different audiences indicate something else is at play. The word 'calculating' comes to mind. ...
... While you’re at it, check out Thomas Friedman’s column this morning on Iraq and, of course, Hub Blog’s exciting, exhausting fisking of Kerry’s Georgetown speech.
A reader responds: Brighton Reader, in an email slugged ‘How do you like your eggs done?’, writes in response to the above post and my fisking post further below:
“We multi-lateralists do not have eggs on our faces. The point was to try to get as broad a coalition to support disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. If not everyone signed on, so be it. This approach did succeed in getting the inspectors back in and the first UN resolution. The other aspect was the need to persuade the American public and public opinion among our allies why this was needed, that we did want their support, and that there was a way for war to be avoided, no matter how unlikely it was that Saddam would do it. If this had been the case from the beginning, I think the approach would have been more successful. But it seemed more of an add-on (by the Bush Administration), something done for PR purposes after the decision had already been made. ...
“... Even now we can't ignore the need for allies. What happens when other countries start to do the same as the French and Germans? If they do not believe Islamic terrorism is their fight, too, they may not put the resources into routing out networks on their home turfs. One of the main reasons that Reagan and Thatcher were so popular in eastern Europe countries is they didn't hesitate to assert what they were fighting for. These same countries may start to go French as well, as Tom Friedman put it, if the US takes them and their concerns for granted.
“Finally, as Churchill said, the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them.”
“Kerry has reflected the growing national ambivalence. That is not a sin, but it is not what presidents do. They have to choose before they can lead.”
A minor disagreement with Oliphant: The word 'ambivalence,' at least to me, implies you've given genuine thought to an issue and can't arrive at a clear answer. You're torn. You see both sides. The answer may lie in the harder-to-describe-and-defend middle. Etc. John Kerry is genuinely interested in international affairs and many aspects of his Georgetown speech were well thought out. But I'm not convinced he's truly 'ambivalent' about Iraq. One has a clear sense that Kerry, who can be so articulate about world affairs (as shown in his speech on Friday), is merely playing both sides of the fence. Hey, maybe I'm wrong. I've been all over the map on Iraq. I've been ambivalent and inconsistent, too. But Kerry's Georgetown speech and his flip-flopping sermons to different audiences indicate something else is at play. The word 'calculating' comes to mind. ...
... While you’re at it, check out Thomas Friedman’s column this morning on Iraq and, of course, Hub Blog’s exciting, exhausting fisking of Kerry’s Georgetown speech.
A reader responds: Brighton Reader, in an email slugged ‘How do you like your eggs done?’, writes in response to the above post and my fisking post further below:
“We multi-lateralists do not have eggs on our faces. The point was to try to get as broad a coalition to support disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. If not everyone signed on, so be it. This approach did succeed in getting the inspectors back in and the first UN resolution. The other aspect was the need to persuade the American public and public opinion among our allies why this was needed, that we did want their support, and that there was a way for war to be avoided, no matter how unlikely it was that Saddam would do it. If this had been the case from the beginning, I think the approach would have been more successful. But it seemed more of an add-on (by the Bush Administration), something done for PR purposes after the decision had already been made. ...
“... Even now we can't ignore the need for allies. What happens when other countries start to do the same as the French and Germans? If they do not believe Islamic terrorism is their fight, too, they may not put the resources into routing out networks on their home turfs. One of the main reasons that Reagan and Thatcher were so popular in eastern Europe countries is they didn't hesitate to assert what they were fighting for. These same countries may start to go French as well, as Tom Friedman put it, if the US takes them and their concerns for granted.
“Finally, as Churchill said, the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them.”
Bill Belichick, NYT op-ed writer: There I was, doing the usual rounds, poking around the NYT’s online op-ed material. Maureen Dowd, Thomas Friedman and ... Bill Belichick? Read it. A funny ‘thirty-seven thoughts for the victorious coach on today's national holiday.’
‘An economy in limbo’: A nice look at the current economic malaise we’re going through, nationally and locally. Conclusion: ‘Waiting itself is the problem.’ Know the feeling. Find out why. ... I'm coming to the conclusion we're going to be in the doldrums for a while more. Still hearing reports from IT friends, who are tied into the high-tech sector, about how much software, hardware and other materials left over from the Internet frenzy of the '90s are selling for bargain prices at auctions. Repeat: At auctions.
Test day for Mitt: Wednesday is a big day for Mitt. In a locally televised address, he’ll be outlining his plan for tackling the state’s current deficit. The good news: Looks like the deficit might be smaller than expected and school-aid cuts might be avoided. But there's still next year's budget deficit, projected to be between $2 billion and $3 billion. Wednesday is a test for Mitt. The big test comes when he delivers his budget for next fiscal year. That's when the real shrieking and fighting begins.
Torture and Western standards: Thought Jeff Jacoby was about to embrace one of modern Western civilization’s great taboos -- torture. But then Jeff made clear: “No. The way to win this war is not to adopt our enemies' evil methods. Resort to torture could conceivably stave off a catastrophe. But at what price to our self-respect?” A good piece in his series on how to win (and not win) the war.
Saturday, January 25, 2003
A multilateralist's 'Fisking' of John Kerry’s multilateralist's major foreign policy speech: Ah, Hub Blog’s first public Fisking of an article or speech. I decided to do this because of: the international events of recent days (i.e., France and Germany’s decision on Iraq, Colin Powell’s somersault on UN inspections in reaction to France and Germany’s moves); the large amount of email I’ve received on the issue since I posted some items on it a few days ago; and the fact John Kerry is from the old Hub, giving me the local peg I needed to justify this long item. A couple notes before the Fisking commences:
-- Those of us who favor resorting to war against Iraq as a last resort, but preferred a more multilateralist approach beforehand, definitely have egg on our faces these days. It’s now clear the U.N. route is not working -- and probably never would have worked, judging by France and others’ recent actions. The die is now cast. War is going to happen, unless Saddam is ousted first or some miracle happens. Powell knows this. Those of us who backed him and favored his multilateralist approach -- as opposed to those who favor a multilateralist approach in order to block any and all action against Iraq -- also know it. Reluctantly, we're seeing through the egg yolk.
-- Some conservatives (by the way, I consider myself a moderate conservative) are now chortling over these recent events. But I find it curious that these same people are not acknowledging George Bush’s role in agreeing with this U.N. approach. I maintain going the extra U.N. mile was the right move, diplomatically and for PR purposes, and it certainly appears Bush will probably string it out even longer, for the same diplomatic and PR reasons. Despite what unilaterists say (Billy Kristol has mocked those of us who use the ‘u’ word as ‘faux-hawkish multilateralists’), this president seems to sense, from a gut instinct level, that some sort of multilateralism is necessary -- or at least the appearance of multilateralism. In my opinion, Bush should have tried the multilateralist U.N. approach much, much earlier, even if it was doomed to failure, for it would have taken the edge off his image as someone eager for war. As Peggy Noonan wrote last September:
“Members of the administration, on the other hand, seem lately almost inebriated with a sense of mission. And maybe that's inevitable when the stakes are high and you're sure you're right. But in off-the-cuff remarks and unprepared moments the president and some of his men often seem to have missing within them a sense of the tragic. Which is odd because we're talking about war, after all.”
In other words, there are some of us ‘faux-hawkish multilateralists’ who believe in Winston Churchill’s famous axiom that it’s sometimes “better to jaw-jaw than war-war.” We defintely have egg on our face right now, but at least we tried the “jaw-jaw” before “war-war.” So, please, hold the chortling to a minimum, even though you were proven right in the end.
-- Lastly, this is going to be a different type of Fisking, to wit: Call it a 'disallusioned multilateralist's Fisking.' I still agree with many of Kerry’s multilateralist points. However, the singular failure of Kerry’s speech is that, although he clearly had time, he didn’t bother to address the critical events of the last few days in Paris, Berlin and Washington. The speech ultimately bogs down into a have-it-both-ways mush.
So here goes with the Fisking (FYI, I picked out what I thought were pertinent passages in the speech; you can read it in its entirety here; my responses are in italics following each passage.):
“We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration...."
I don’t know about ‘bold, progressive’ (see rest of speech). I agree about the ‘often billigerent and mypopic’ administration part (see Noonan passage above).
“We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire.”
We’re like imperial Rome and should be proud. We’re not like imperial Rome. Why even bring up Rome? Hmmmm.
“After all, what is today's unilateralism but the right's old isolationist impulse in modern guise? At its core is a familiar and beguiling illusion: that America can escape an entangling world. ...that we can wield our enormous power without incurring obligations to others. ...and that we can pursue our national interests in arrogant ways that make a mockery of our nation's ideals.”
Agreed. It is a form of isolationism. I’m against both Pat Buchanan’s Bunker America and Bill Kristol’s Pax America. Something in the middle is dealing with both our realities and ideals. Go on, Senator.
“I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world.”
I do believe the administration has been engaging in blustering unilateralism. I.e.: ‘We can go it alone, no, wait, let’s try the U.N. option with Iraq.' Or: ‘We won’t talk with North Korea, but, well, let’s talk.’ But I certainly don’t care about ‘alarming our foes’ and don’t believe the Bush administration has caused anti-Americanism. They have exacerbated anti-Americanism, but they didn’t cause it. If the Bush administration is guilty of anything, they’re not doing enough to stem or openly challenge rampant anti-Americanism. How about the president -- not the Secretary of State alluding to -- speaking out against European (and French) hypocrisy? Not to do so seems like an old-fashioned defensive, polite nod to multilateralsim to me. Just pointing it out.
“Too often they've forgotten that energetic global leadership is a strategic imperative for America, not a favor we do for other countries. Leading the world's most advanced democracies isn't mushy multilateralism -- it amplifies America's voice and extends our reach. Working through global institutions doesn't tie our hands -- it invests US aims with greater legitimacy and dampens the fear and resentment that our preponderant power sometimes inspires in others. In a world growing more, not less interdependent, unilateralism is a formula for isolation and shrinking influence. As much as some in the White House may desire it, America can't opt out of a networked world.”
Tony Blair has been saying roughly the same thing. Good enough for me. ... Economic realities usually drive political realities. That's the great irony and wonder of capitalism: Give people economic freedom, they demand political freedom. George Bush understands this. And so: Globalization is unstoppable. And so: Our economies are becoming closer. And so: ... unilateralism or multilateralism? (Or a combination of the two, at the least?)
“We can do better than we are doing today. And those who seek to lead have a duty to offer a clear vision of how we make Americans safer and make America more trusted and respected in the world. That vision is defined by looking to our best traditions -- to the tough-minded strategy of international engagement and leadership forged by Wilson and Roosevelt in two world wars and championed by Truman and Kennedy in the Cold War.”
Leaving out certain key Republicans (such as, oh, Eisenhower and Reagan) seems a bit partisan and myopic, don’t you agree, Senator? Leaving out Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter is a little understandable. Bush Sr.? The Cold War was kind of all but over by the time he took office.
“For Democrats to win America's confidence we must first convince Americans we will keep them safe. You can't do that by avoiding the subjects of national security, foreign policy and military preparedness. Nor can we let our national security agenda be defined by those who reflexively oppose any U.S. military intervention anywhere...who see U.S. power as mostly a malignant force in world politics...who place a higher value on achieving multilateral consensus than necessarily
protecting our vital interests.”
OK, now we’re getting into interesting territory. Kerry should have called it like it is: The people he’s now talking about are largely on the left and to his left. Getting back to the Laborite Tony Blair, he waged (and still wages) an open battle against his own ‘loony left’ (his words, I believe). If Kerry is going to play the statesman-like figure who boldly attacks right-wing isolationists, he should also come out and attack the Democratic left-wing isolationists, for that’s what they are, at least in terms of clipping America’s powers. ... This was also a good point in his speech to more aggressively articulate how many multilateralists (such as Truman and Kennedy, if he had to stick with just those two examples) do believe in a form of American unilateralism when the nation’s safety is at risk. Kerry missed (or fudged) this opportunity.
“Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force.”
Not a bad line.
“... the Bush Administration's erratic unilateralism and reluctant engagement.”
OK, I get the point. Bush has been erratic and reluctant. I also get this point: Kerry is running against Bush and is starting to come across as erratic and reluctant. Swipes like these by Kerry, while holding punches against those on the left, begin to diminish the seriousness and weighty tone of his speech. Not very Tony Blairish.
“We must drain the swamps of terrorists; but you don't have a prayer of doing so if you leave the poisoned sources to gather and flow again. That means we must help the vast majority people of the greater Middle East build a better future. We need to illuminate an alternative path to a futile Jihad against the world ...a path that leads to deeper integration of the greater Middle East into the modern world order.”
Kerry said this in the context of the need to go after terrorists first, before the root-out-the-causes-of-terrorism programs. So, agreed. But doesn’t most everyone generally agree with these points, at least in principle?
“The Bush Administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace.”
Winning a peace would require ‘nation building’ and we all know what some on the right think about that. The events in post-war Afghanistan have been disappointing (the economic aid and security part, not the liberation part). Lots of zigzagging by the administration on the need for peace keepers, etc. Their plans for post-war Iraq, though, seem to have more coherency, albeit they’re more ambitious. Making a democratic nation out of feuding tribal and religious factions in Iraq ain’t going to be easy, for anyone, and it’s arguably unrealistic. We’ll see, apparently.
“NATO is searching for a new mission. What better way to revitalize the most successful and enduring alliance in history, then to reorient it around a common threat to the global system that we have built over more than a half-century of struggle and sacrifice? The Administration has tried to focus NATO on the Middle East, but it's high-handed treatment of our European allies, on everything from Iraq to the Kyoto climate change treaty, has strained relations nearly to the breaking point.”
Here were are. The beginning of true mush. NATO is definitely in search of a new mission. But are the French and Germans on the same page? Yes, the administration has been high-handed in treating just about everyone (that’s the mindset of go-it-alone, Pax America types, after all ), but -- there’s the old ‘but’ again -- the Germans and French just taught us a hard lesson that they will march to the beat of their own EU, NATO and domestic-policy drums. It isn’t all about us alienating them. ... P.S. I stand by a blog item I wrote a few days ago: If NATO does collapse as a result of the Iraq crisis, the president owes it to his countrymen to explain why Iraq was worth it, how we’ll get along without NATO, whether this was envisioned at the outset, what his long-term views are in general on future alliances, the U.N. and Security Council. Doubt we’ll get such an explanation.
“Destroying al Qaeda and other anti-American terror groups must remain our top priority. While the Administration has largely prosecuted this war with vigor, it also has made costly mistakes. The biggest, in my view, was their reluctance to translate their robust rhetoric into American military engagement in Afghanistan. They relied too much on local warlords to carry the fight against our enemies and this permitted many al Qaeda members, and according to evidence, including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip through our fingers. Now the Administration must redouble its efforts to track them down. ...”
Stop right there. The Bush administration’s handling of Afghanistan (during the war, not the peace) was astounding. Remember all the talk on TV -- before the war began there -- about how the Soviets got bogged down in those horrible Afghan mountains and gorges? How Afghanistan was the Soviet’s own Vietnam and how a certain NYT ‘analyst’ brought up the ‘quagmire’ word just prior to the Taliban’s fspectacular fall? The swift victory in Afghanistan was the result of imaginative, bold and brilliant tactics and strategy. It was the Bush administration’s shining moment. The failure at Tora Bora was disappointing. No doubt. Think it had more to do with the modern military’s aversion to risk, not the administration’s aversion to risk. Failure to capture Osama has been a cheap-shot argument for Dems for a while now. Question: Could they have done better? Doubt it. ... The administration had a legimate reason to move to the next phase after the fall of the Taliban about a year ago.
“Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. ....”
Agreed.
“...That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.”
No mention about France and Germany’s unilateralist actions, here or elsewhere in the speech. They’re both members of the Security Council.
“So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament.”
Actually, I’m glad they didn’t bring up Iraq immediately after Sept. 11. It was initially pushed by neo-conservatives and debated in the administration, and then shoved to the backburner, and appropriately so. The initial target became Afghanistan, and appropriately so. As for going to the U.N. a year ago after the Axis of Evil speech, true. That was the time. But we’re not dealing with a year ago. We’re talking about today. Think: France and Germany -- and Powell’s somersault -- and how this was an undeniable blow to the multilateralists' hopes, as much as we hate to admit it.
“In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.”
Maybe I missed it somewhere in the speech (my apologies if I did), but maybe now is the time for Kerry to mention that, oh, he voted for the resolution authorizing Bush to take action, if necessary, against Iraq. ... And don’t bring up Security Council Resolution 1441 without mentioning the events of recent days: France and Germany. The burden is on them, too. Powell and people like moi had to learn this the hard way.
“As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action. The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.”
Again, the Bush administration has done a lousy job of lining up support, domestically and internationally. Multilateralism wasn’t their first option. Many in the administration despise the word, as we all know. But are we or are we not -- as much as we multilaterists hate to admit it -- close to exhausting our diplomatic remedies? At what point, exactly, do we call it quits and go alone without U.N. and Security Council support? Kerry doesn’t say. ...
... And now, following, is the clincher passage and sound-bite sentence that’s been played on TV over the past 24 hours:
“I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.”
True, Bush has not shown a truly sincere ‘patience in building a genuine coalition,’ like his father did in Gulf War I. But it’s reached an ‘appropriate’ point to start challenging Democrats about what their definition of ‘rush’ is. Timetables and deadlines, please. Be specific.
“And I say to the United Nations, show respect for your own mandates. Do not find refuge in excuses and equivocation. Stand up for the rule of law, not just in words but in deeds. Not just in theory but in reality. Stand up for our common goal: either bringing about Iraq's peaceful disarmament or the decisive military victory of a multilateral coalition.”
Yes, France and Germany, stand up.
“Third, as we continue our focus on the greater Middle East, the U.S. must look beyond stability alone as the linchpin of our relationships. We must place increased focus on the development of democratic values and human rights as the keys to long-term security. If we learned anything from our failure in Vietnam it is that regimes removed from the people cannot permanently endure.They must reform or they will finally crumble, despite the efforts of the United States. We must side with and strengthen the aspirations of those seeking positive change. America needs to be on the side of the people, not the regimes that keep them down."
We all seem to agree on this point. Just disagree on the methods to achieve those goals. Actually, no, I should say ‘all reasonable’ people agree on this point. There are more than a few antiwar protesters -- and a few odd right wingers or so -- who obviously think leaving Saddam and other dictators in place is OK.
“In the 1950s, as the sun was setting on European colonialism, a young Senator named John Kennedy went to the Senate floor and urged the Eisenhower Administration not to back France against a rebellious Algeria. He recognized that the United States could only win the Cold War by staying true to our values, by championing the independence of those aspiring to be free. What's at issue today is not U.S. support for colonial powers out of touch with history, but for autocratic regimes out of touch with their own people.”
Like that last sentence. Don’t like the JFK-mentioning-JFK part. Could have used a much better example: Eisenhower saying ‘no’ to British and French attempts to seize the Suez Canal in the '50s. The forced JFK references get worse later. Keep reading.
“I believe we must reform and increase our global aid to strengthen our focus on the missions of education and health --of freedom for women -- and economic development for all. ... I propose the following policy goals: We should build on the success of Clinton Administration's Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Since the United States reduced tariffs on goods made in ‘qualifying industrial zones,’ Jordan's exports to the US jumped from $16 to $400 million, creating about 40,000 jobs. Let's provide similar incentives to other countries that agree to join the WTO, stop boycotting Israel and supporting Palestinian violence against Israel, and open up their economies. We should also create a general duty-free program for the region, just as we've done in the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Andean Trade Preference Act. Again, we should set some conditions: full cooperation in the war on terror, anti-corruption measures, non-compliance with the Israel boycott, respect for core labor standards and progress toward human rights. Let's be clear: Our goal is not to impose some western free market ideology on the greater Middle East. It's to open up a region that is now closed to opportunity, an outpost of economic exclusion and stagnation in a fast-globalizing world. These countries suffer from too little globalization, not too
much.”
Fine. Completely agree. Free trade is good, when it’s not weighted against Third World countries.
“We must have a new vision and a renewed engagement to reinvigorate the Mideast peace process. This Administration made a grave error when it disregarded almost seventy years of American friendship and leadership in the Middle East and the efforts of every President of the last 30 years. ...”
Might want to mention all the Islamic terrorist groups operating there, Senator.
“(Israel’s) frustration is that they do not see a committed partner in peace on the Palestinian side. Palestinians must stop the violence - this is the fundamental building block of the peace process. The Palestinian leadership must be reformed, not only for the future of the Palestinian people but also for the sake of peace. I believe Israel would respond to this new partner after all, Israel has already indicated its willingness to freeze settlements and to move toward the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a comprehensive peace process.”
He’s now alluding to Islamic terrorism, but he’s still not mentioning it explicitly. ... By the way, Hub Blog is no big fan of Israel’s settlement policies. They are colonial by nature and an obstacle to peace. Period. Hope the Bush administration is stressing this behind the scenes to Israel. Terrorism must go. Then the settlements.
“There (in North Korea) the Bush Administration has offered only a merry go-round policy. They got up on their high horse, whooped and hollered, rode around in circles, and ended right back where they'd started. By suspending talks initiated by the Clinton Administration, then asking for talks but with new conditions, then refusing to talk under the threat of nuclear blackmail, and then reversing that refusal as North Korea's master of brinkmanship upped the ante, the Administration created confusion and put the despot Kim Jong Il in the driver's seat. By publicly taking military force, negotiations, and sanctions all off the table, the Administration tied its own hands behind its back. Now, finally, the Administration is rightly working with allies in the region - acting multilaterally -- to put pressure on Pyongyang. They've gotten off the merry go round - the question is why you'd ever want to be so committed to unilateralist dogma that you'd get on it in the first place.”
Love the first two sentences of that passage. They’re so true! Another classic example of the administration’s unilateralist Talk tough/Put away big stick after it doesn’t work. Now they’re talking again with the North Koreans -- and using a multilateralist approach, too. I do NOT believe in the antiwar crowd’s criticism of the administration’s current policy (talk, while shoving the issue to the backburner) approach toward North Korea. As Lincoln once said when pressed during the Civil War to take action against Britain, one war at a time, gentlemen. Makes perfect sense to me. Wish the Bushies were capable of such devastating quips. Wish Bush critics could understand such devastating quips.
“One of the clearest opportunities missed is the environment. America has not led but fled on the issue of global warming. President Bush's declaration that the Kyoto Protocol was simply Dead on Arrival spoke for itself - and it spoke in dozens of languages as his words whipped instantly around the globe. But what the Administration failed to see was that Kyoto was not just an agreement - it was a product of 160 nations working together over 10 years. It was a good faith effort - and the United States just dismissed it. We didn't aim to mend it. We didn't aim to sit down with our allies and find a compromise. We didn't aim for a new dialogue. The Administration was simply ready to aim and fire, and the target they hit was our international reputation.”
Obviously aimed at the environmental vote. But still partly true. I recently read how many people in the administration now regret, deeply, how they handled the rejection of the Kyoto treaty. It was needless bluster and rudeness. But Kyoto still deserved to be dumped and/or seriously modified. It’s just not workable.
“Let me offer one last example: The threat of disintegration and chaos rises steadily in Africa as the continent is increasingly devastated by HIV/AIDS. More than 29 million people there are afflicted with that disease. Africa has 11% of the world's population but 70% of all the people in the world living with HIV/AIDS. ...Yet the Bush Administration, intent on appeasing its right wing, assails population control while it neglects AIDS control even as that disease threatens to destroy whole populations.”
Not quite sure what this has to do with the thrust of his speech. Yet Hub Blog feels strongly about the issue of AIDS and Africa. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations did/have failed miserably in doing something about this. It’s a shame it took Christian missionaries to convince Jesse Helms to fund anti-AIDS programs in Africa. Kerry should have mentioned Clinton’s weak effort on this front, too. ... The last line in the above passage is pretty damning of the current administration -- and rightly so.
“Taken together, I believe these proposals, that I have put forward today, present a far better vision for how we deal with the rest of the world - a better vision for how we build relationships - and how doing so will make America safer. But there are other things we must do as well. I also believe there is a better vision for military transformation; a better vision for intelligence gathering; and a far more effective way of achieving homeland security and domestic preparedness. I intend to lay out detailed proposals on each of these areas in the coming months.”
Taken together, I think Kerry made some terrific points about multilateralism and its inevitability, but he pulled a lot of punches and omitted some important facts when it came to the necessity of Truman/Kennedy-style unilateralism. Don’t think he has a firm grasp on his own line: ‘Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force.’ ... No mention of France and Germany. ... Also, he was talking too much to Democrats, not to all Americans, and the 'statesmen' like tone of it is hurt as a result. Lots of have-it-both-ways mush. Verdict: Earnest but flawed.
Kerry's concluding line:
“America's resolve to bear the burdens and pay the price of leadership so that we may, as President Kennedy said on a cold January day long ago, ‘assure the survival and success of liberty.’"
Go ahead. Shake your head. He just can’t get away from him. Not exactly a ‘new’ and ‘bold’ way to end a speech.
-- Those of us who favor resorting to war against Iraq as a last resort, but preferred a more multilateralist approach beforehand, definitely have egg on our faces these days. It’s now clear the U.N. route is not working -- and probably never would have worked, judging by France and others’ recent actions. The die is now cast. War is going to happen, unless Saddam is ousted first or some miracle happens. Powell knows this. Those of us who backed him and favored his multilateralist approach -- as opposed to those who favor a multilateralist approach in order to block any and all action against Iraq -- also know it. Reluctantly, we're seeing through the egg yolk.
-- Some conservatives (by the way, I consider myself a moderate conservative) are now chortling over these recent events. But I find it curious that these same people are not acknowledging George Bush’s role in agreeing with this U.N. approach. I maintain going the extra U.N. mile was the right move, diplomatically and for PR purposes, and it certainly appears Bush will probably string it out even longer, for the same diplomatic and PR reasons. Despite what unilaterists say (Billy Kristol has mocked those of us who use the ‘u’ word as ‘faux-hawkish multilateralists’), this president seems to sense, from a gut instinct level, that some sort of multilateralism is necessary -- or at least the appearance of multilateralism. In my opinion, Bush should have tried the multilateralist U.N. approach much, much earlier, even if it was doomed to failure, for it would have taken the edge off his image as someone eager for war. As Peggy Noonan wrote last September:
“Members of the administration, on the other hand, seem lately almost inebriated with a sense of mission. And maybe that's inevitable when the stakes are high and you're sure you're right. But in off-the-cuff remarks and unprepared moments the president and some of his men often seem to have missing within them a sense of the tragic. Which is odd because we're talking about war, after all.”
In other words, there are some of us ‘faux-hawkish multilateralists’ who believe in Winston Churchill’s famous axiom that it’s sometimes “better to jaw-jaw than war-war.” We defintely have egg on our face right now, but at least we tried the “jaw-jaw” before “war-war.” So, please, hold the chortling to a minimum, even though you were proven right in the end.
-- Lastly, this is going to be a different type of Fisking, to wit: Call it a 'disallusioned multilateralist's Fisking.' I still agree with many of Kerry’s multilateralist points. However, the singular failure of Kerry’s speech is that, although he clearly had time, he didn’t bother to address the critical events of the last few days in Paris, Berlin and Washington. The speech ultimately bogs down into a have-it-both-ways mush.
So here goes with the Fisking (FYI, I picked out what I thought were pertinent passages in the speech; you can read it in its entirety here; my responses are in italics following each passage.):
“We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration...."
I don’t know about ‘bold, progressive’ (see rest of speech). I agree about the ‘often billigerent and mypopic’ administration part (see Noonan passage above).
“We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire.”
We’re like imperial Rome and should be proud. We’re not like imperial Rome. Why even bring up Rome? Hmmmm.
“After all, what is today's unilateralism but the right's old isolationist impulse in modern guise? At its core is a familiar and beguiling illusion: that America can escape an entangling world. ...that we can wield our enormous power without incurring obligations to others. ...and that we can pursue our national interests in arrogant ways that make a mockery of our nation's ideals.”
Agreed. It is a form of isolationism. I’m against both Pat Buchanan’s Bunker America and Bill Kristol’s Pax America. Something in the middle is dealing with both our realities and ideals. Go on, Senator.
“I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world.”
I do believe the administration has been engaging in blustering unilateralism. I.e.: ‘We can go it alone, no, wait, let’s try the U.N. option with Iraq.' Or: ‘We won’t talk with North Korea, but, well, let’s talk.’ But I certainly don’t care about ‘alarming our foes’ and don’t believe the Bush administration has caused anti-Americanism. They have exacerbated anti-Americanism, but they didn’t cause it. If the Bush administration is guilty of anything, they’re not doing enough to stem or openly challenge rampant anti-Americanism. How about the president -- not the Secretary of State alluding to -- speaking out against European (and French) hypocrisy? Not to do so seems like an old-fashioned defensive, polite nod to multilateralsim to me. Just pointing it out.
“Too often they've forgotten that energetic global leadership is a strategic imperative for America, not a favor we do for other countries. Leading the world's most advanced democracies isn't mushy multilateralism -- it amplifies America's voice and extends our reach. Working through global institutions doesn't tie our hands -- it invests US aims with greater legitimacy and dampens the fear and resentment that our preponderant power sometimes inspires in others. In a world growing more, not less interdependent, unilateralism is a formula for isolation and shrinking influence. As much as some in the White House may desire it, America can't opt out of a networked world.”
Tony Blair has been saying roughly the same thing. Good enough for me. ... Economic realities usually drive political realities. That's the great irony and wonder of capitalism: Give people economic freedom, they demand political freedom. George Bush understands this. And so: Globalization is unstoppable. And so: Our economies are becoming closer. And so: ... unilateralism or multilateralism? (Or a combination of the two, at the least?)
“We can do better than we are doing today. And those who seek to lead have a duty to offer a clear vision of how we make Americans safer and make America more trusted and respected in the world. That vision is defined by looking to our best traditions -- to the tough-minded strategy of international engagement and leadership forged by Wilson and Roosevelt in two world wars and championed by Truman and Kennedy in the Cold War.”
Leaving out certain key Republicans (such as, oh, Eisenhower and Reagan) seems a bit partisan and myopic, don’t you agree, Senator? Leaving out Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter is a little understandable. Bush Sr.? The Cold War was kind of all but over by the time he took office.
“For Democrats to win America's confidence we must first convince Americans we will keep them safe. You can't do that by avoiding the subjects of national security, foreign policy and military preparedness. Nor can we let our national security agenda be defined by those who reflexively oppose any U.S. military intervention anywhere...who see U.S. power as mostly a malignant force in world politics...who place a higher value on achieving multilateral consensus than necessarily
protecting our vital interests.”
OK, now we’re getting into interesting territory. Kerry should have called it like it is: The people he’s now talking about are largely on the left and to his left. Getting back to the Laborite Tony Blair, he waged (and still wages) an open battle against his own ‘loony left’ (his words, I believe). If Kerry is going to play the statesman-like figure who boldly attacks right-wing isolationists, he should also come out and attack the Democratic left-wing isolationists, for that’s what they are, at least in terms of clipping America’s powers. ... This was also a good point in his speech to more aggressively articulate how many multilateralists (such as Truman and Kennedy, if he had to stick with just those two examples) do believe in a form of American unilateralism when the nation’s safety is at risk. Kerry missed (or fudged) this opportunity.
“Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force.”
Not a bad line.
“... the Bush Administration's erratic unilateralism and reluctant engagement.”
OK, I get the point. Bush has been erratic and reluctant. I also get this point: Kerry is running against Bush and is starting to come across as erratic and reluctant. Swipes like these by Kerry, while holding punches against those on the left, begin to diminish the seriousness and weighty tone of his speech. Not very Tony Blairish.
“We must drain the swamps of terrorists; but you don't have a prayer of doing so if you leave the poisoned sources to gather and flow again. That means we must help the vast majority people of the greater Middle East build a better future. We need to illuminate an alternative path to a futile Jihad against the world ...a path that leads to deeper integration of the greater Middle East into the modern world order.”
Kerry said this in the context of the need to go after terrorists first, before the root-out-the-causes-of-terrorism programs. So, agreed. But doesn’t most everyone generally agree with these points, at least in principle?
“The Bush Administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace.”
Winning a peace would require ‘nation building’ and we all know what some on the right think about that. The events in post-war Afghanistan have been disappointing (the economic aid and security part, not the liberation part). Lots of zigzagging by the administration on the need for peace keepers, etc. Their plans for post-war Iraq, though, seem to have more coherency, albeit they’re more ambitious. Making a democratic nation out of feuding tribal and religious factions in Iraq ain’t going to be easy, for anyone, and it’s arguably unrealistic. We’ll see, apparently.
“NATO is searching for a new mission. What better way to revitalize the most successful and enduring alliance in history, then to reorient it around a common threat to the global system that we have built over more than a half-century of struggle and sacrifice? The Administration has tried to focus NATO on the Middle East, but it's high-handed treatment of our European allies, on everything from Iraq to the Kyoto climate change treaty, has strained relations nearly to the breaking point.”
Here were are. The beginning of true mush. NATO is definitely in search of a new mission. But are the French and Germans on the same page? Yes, the administration has been high-handed in treating just about everyone (that’s the mindset of go-it-alone, Pax America types, after all ), but -- there’s the old ‘but’ again -- the Germans and French just taught us a hard lesson that they will march to the beat of their own EU, NATO and domestic-policy drums. It isn’t all about us alienating them. ... P.S. I stand by a blog item I wrote a few days ago: If NATO does collapse as a result of the Iraq crisis, the president owes it to his countrymen to explain why Iraq was worth it, how we’ll get along without NATO, whether this was envisioned at the outset, what his long-term views are in general on future alliances, the U.N. and Security Council. Doubt we’ll get such an explanation.
“Destroying al Qaeda and other anti-American terror groups must remain our top priority. While the Administration has largely prosecuted this war with vigor, it also has made costly mistakes. The biggest, in my view, was their reluctance to translate their robust rhetoric into American military engagement in Afghanistan. They relied too much on local warlords to carry the fight against our enemies and this permitted many al Qaeda members, and according to evidence, including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip through our fingers. Now the Administration must redouble its efforts to track them down. ...”
Stop right there. The Bush administration’s handling of Afghanistan (during the war, not the peace) was astounding. Remember all the talk on TV -- before the war began there -- about how the Soviets got bogged down in those horrible Afghan mountains and gorges? How Afghanistan was the Soviet’s own Vietnam and how a certain NYT ‘analyst’ brought up the ‘quagmire’ word just prior to the Taliban’s fspectacular fall? The swift victory in Afghanistan was the result of imaginative, bold and brilliant tactics and strategy. It was the Bush administration’s shining moment. The failure at Tora Bora was disappointing. No doubt. Think it had more to do with the modern military’s aversion to risk, not the administration’s aversion to risk. Failure to capture Osama has been a cheap-shot argument for Dems for a while now. Question: Could they have done better? Doubt it. ... The administration had a legimate reason to move to the next phase after the fall of the Taliban about a year ago.
“Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. ....”
Agreed.
“...That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.”
No mention about France and Germany’s unilateralist actions, here or elsewhere in the speech. They’re both members of the Security Council.
“So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament.”
Actually, I’m glad they didn’t bring up Iraq immediately after Sept. 11. It was initially pushed by neo-conservatives and debated in the administration, and then shoved to the backburner, and appropriately so. The initial target became Afghanistan, and appropriately so. As for going to the U.N. a year ago after the Axis of Evil speech, true. That was the time. But we’re not dealing with a year ago. We’re talking about today. Think: France and Germany -- and Powell’s somersault -- and how this was an undeniable blow to the multilateralists' hopes, as much as we hate to admit it.
“In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.”
Maybe I missed it somewhere in the speech (my apologies if I did), but maybe now is the time for Kerry to mention that, oh, he voted for the resolution authorizing Bush to take action, if necessary, against Iraq. ... And don’t bring up Security Council Resolution 1441 without mentioning the events of recent days: France and Germany. The burden is on them, too. Powell and people like moi had to learn this the hard way.
“As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action. The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.”
Again, the Bush administration has done a lousy job of lining up support, domestically and internationally. Multilateralism wasn’t their first option. Many in the administration despise the word, as we all know. But are we or are we not -- as much as we multilaterists hate to admit it -- close to exhausting our diplomatic remedies? At what point, exactly, do we call it quits and go alone without U.N. and Security Council support? Kerry doesn’t say. ...
... And now, following, is the clincher passage and sound-bite sentence that’s been played on TV over the past 24 hours:
“I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.”
True, Bush has not shown a truly sincere ‘patience in building a genuine coalition,’ like his father did in Gulf War I. But it’s reached an ‘appropriate’ point to start challenging Democrats about what their definition of ‘rush’ is. Timetables and deadlines, please. Be specific.
“And I say to the United Nations, show respect for your own mandates. Do not find refuge in excuses and equivocation. Stand up for the rule of law, not just in words but in deeds. Not just in theory but in reality. Stand up for our common goal: either bringing about Iraq's peaceful disarmament or the decisive military victory of a multilateral coalition.”
Yes, France and Germany, stand up.
“Third, as we continue our focus on the greater Middle East, the U.S. must look beyond stability alone as the linchpin of our relationships. We must place increased focus on the development of democratic values and human rights as the keys to long-term security. If we learned anything from our failure in Vietnam it is that regimes removed from the people cannot permanently endure.They must reform or they will finally crumble, despite the efforts of the United States. We must side with and strengthen the aspirations of those seeking positive change. America needs to be on the side of the people, not the regimes that keep them down."
We all seem to agree on this point. Just disagree on the methods to achieve those goals. Actually, no, I should say ‘all reasonable’ people agree on this point. There are more than a few antiwar protesters -- and a few odd right wingers or so -- who obviously think leaving Saddam and other dictators in place is OK.
“In the 1950s, as the sun was setting on European colonialism, a young Senator named John Kennedy went to the Senate floor and urged the Eisenhower Administration not to back France against a rebellious Algeria. He recognized that the United States could only win the Cold War by staying true to our values, by championing the independence of those aspiring to be free. What's at issue today is not U.S. support for colonial powers out of touch with history, but for autocratic regimes out of touch with their own people.”
Like that last sentence. Don’t like the JFK-mentioning-JFK part. Could have used a much better example: Eisenhower saying ‘no’ to British and French attempts to seize the Suez Canal in the '50s. The forced JFK references get worse later. Keep reading.
“I believe we must reform and increase our global aid to strengthen our focus on the missions of education and health --of freedom for women -- and economic development for all. ... I propose the following policy goals: We should build on the success of Clinton Administration's Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Since the United States reduced tariffs on goods made in ‘qualifying industrial zones,’ Jordan's exports to the US jumped from $16 to $400 million, creating about 40,000 jobs. Let's provide similar incentives to other countries that agree to join the WTO, stop boycotting Israel and supporting Palestinian violence against Israel, and open up their economies. We should also create a general duty-free program for the region, just as we've done in the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Andean Trade Preference Act. Again, we should set some conditions: full cooperation in the war on terror, anti-corruption measures, non-compliance with the Israel boycott, respect for core labor standards and progress toward human rights. Let's be clear: Our goal is not to impose some western free market ideology on the greater Middle East. It's to open up a region that is now closed to opportunity, an outpost of economic exclusion and stagnation in a fast-globalizing world. These countries suffer from too little globalization, not too
much.”
Fine. Completely agree. Free trade is good, when it’s not weighted against Third World countries.
“We must have a new vision and a renewed engagement to reinvigorate the Mideast peace process. This Administration made a grave error when it disregarded almost seventy years of American friendship and leadership in the Middle East and the efforts of every President of the last 30 years. ...”
Might want to mention all the Islamic terrorist groups operating there, Senator.
“(Israel’s) frustration is that they do not see a committed partner in peace on the Palestinian side. Palestinians must stop the violence - this is the fundamental building block of the peace process. The Palestinian leadership must be reformed, not only for the future of the Palestinian people but also for the sake of peace. I believe Israel would respond to this new partner after all, Israel has already indicated its willingness to freeze settlements and to move toward the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a comprehensive peace process.”
He’s now alluding to Islamic terrorism, but he’s still not mentioning it explicitly. ... By the way, Hub Blog is no big fan of Israel’s settlement policies. They are colonial by nature and an obstacle to peace. Period. Hope the Bush administration is stressing this behind the scenes to Israel. Terrorism must go. Then the settlements.
“There (in North Korea) the Bush Administration has offered only a merry go-round policy. They got up on their high horse, whooped and hollered, rode around in circles, and ended right back where they'd started. By suspending talks initiated by the Clinton Administration, then asking for talks but with new conditions, then refusing to talk under the threat of nuclear blackmail, and then reversing that refusal as North Korea's master of brinkmanship upped the ante, the Administration created confusion and put the despot Kim Jong Il in the driver's seat. By publicly taking military force, negotiations, and sanctions all off the table, the Administration tied its own hands behind its back. Now, finally, the Administration is rightly working with allies in the region - acting multilaterally -- to put pressure on Pyongyang. They've gotten off the merry go round - the question is why you'd ever want to be so committed to unilateralist dogma that you'd get on it in the first place.”
Love the first two sentences of that passage. They’re so true! Another classic example of the administration’s unilateralist Talk tough/Put away big stick after it doesn’t work. Now they’re talking again with the North Koreans -- and using a multilateralist approach, too. I do NOT believe in the antiwar crowd’s criticism of the administration’s current policy (talk, while shoving the issue to the backburner) approach toward North Korea. As Lincoln once said when pressed during the Civil War to take action against Britain, one war at a time, gentlemen. Makes perfect sense to me. Wish the Bushies were capable of such devastating quips. Wish Bush critics could understand such devastating quips.
“One of the clearest opportunities missed is the environment. America has not led but fled on the issue of global warming. President Bush's declaration that the Kyoto Protocol was simply Dead on Arrival spoke for itself - and it spoke in dozens of languages as his words whipped instantly around the globe. But what the Administration failed to see was that Kyoto was not just an agreement - it was a product of 160 nations working together over 10 years. It was a good faith effort - and the United States just dismissed it. We didn't aim to mend it. We didn't aim to sit down with our allies and find a compromise. We didn't aim for a new dialogue. The Administration was simply ready to aim and fire, and the target they hit was our international reputation.”
Obviously aimed at the environmental vote. But still partly true. I recently read how many people in the administration now regret, deeply, how they handled the rejection of the Kyoto treaty. It was needless bluster and rudeness. But Kyoto still deserved to be dumped and/or seriously modified. It’s just not workable.
“Let me offer one last example: The threat of disintegration and chaos rises steadily in Africa as the continent is increasingly devastated by HIV/AIDS. More than 29 million people there are afflicted with that disease. Africa has 11% of the world's population but 70% of all the people in the world living with HIV/AIDS. ...Yet the Bush Administration, intent on appeasing its right wing, assails population control while it neglects AIDS control even as that disease threatens to destroy whole populations.”
Not quite sure what this has to do with the thrust of his speech. Yet Hub Blog feels strongly about the issue of AIDS and Africa. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations did/have failed miserably in doing something about this. It’s a shame it took Christian missionaries to convince Jesse Helms to fund anti-AIDS programs in Africa. Kerry should have mentioned Clinton’s weak effort on this front, too. ... The last line in the above passage is pretty damning of the current administration -- and rightly so.
“Taken together, I believe these proposals, that I have put forward today, present a far better vision for how we deal with the rest of the world - a better vision for how we build relationships - and how doing so will make America safer. But there are other things we must do as well. I also believe there is a better vision for military transformation; a better vision for intelligence gathering; and a far more effective way of achieving homeland security and domestic preparedness. I intend to lay out detailed proposals on each of these areas in the coming months.”
Taken together, I think Kerry made some terrific points about multilateralism and its inevitability, but he pulled a lot of punches and omitted some important facts when it came to the necessity of Truman/Kennedy-style unilateralism. Don’t think he has a firm grasp on his own line: ‘Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force.’ ... No mention of France and Germany. ... Also, he was talking too much to Democrats, not to all Americans, and the 'statesmen' like tone of it is hurt as a result. Lots of have-it-both-ways mush. Verdict: Earnest but flawed.
Kerry's concluding line:
“America's resolve to bear the burdens and pay the price of leadership so that we may, as President Kennedy said on a cold January day long ago, ‘assure the survival and success of liberty.’"
Go ahead. Shake your head. He just can’t get away from him. Not exactly a ‘new’ and ‘bold’ way to end a speech.
Friday, January 24, 2003
More on Kerry: Tom Keane doesn’t understand why Massachusetts isn’t lining up to support its junior senator, John Kerry. “It wouldn't hurt if we could cheer the guy along.” You cheer, Tom. The rest of us, though, are still trying to figure the guy out, as Keane alluded to in his column: “When it comes to Kerry, our response is sort of ho-hum. It's been that way for most of Kerry's career: Massachusetts may elect him but it's the other 49 states that actually like him.” ... But that’s the problem: Most of Kerry’s supporters are only ho-hum about him. Most of his critics are also only ho-hum about him. (They prefer juicier targets, like Billy or Tommy.) Why this widespread ho-hum attitude? Pull on the old ho-hum thread -- and all you get is more ho-hum explanations about why we feel ho-hum about him. Maybe the answer is: When you put his good points and bad points together, Kerry might be just ho-hum. ... And don’t forget the last time we cheered for a local pol running for president. ...
... An interesting discussion took place over at Instapundit last night on John Kerry and Heinz Ketchup. ...
Kerry and Joseph Lieberman are catching flak from the left and African Americans for their previous statements about affirmative action. Another example of people insisting affirmative action is a clear-cut issue and there’s no middle ground. Kerry and Lieberman are caving (sort of). Derrick Jackson weighs in on the issue. Derrick doesn’t see much middle ground, but his column is excellent because he quotes people who feel squeamish about affirmative action but still support it, such as former U.S. Rep. J.C. Watts, the conservative African-American Republican, who said: ''Look, in principle, I don't agree with affirmative action. But in practice, we still don't have a level playing field.'' ... ‘I don’t agree ... but in practice.’... Hub Blog will now drop the subject. Beat up on it too much in recent days. Yet I’ll leave with this overly reiterated point of mine: It’s OK to have a moderate position on affirmative action, believing it’s flawed and gone too far but still defensible.
... An interesting discussion took place over at Instapundit last night on John Kerry and Heinz Ketchup. ...
Kerry and Joseph Lieberman are catching flak from the left and African Americans for their previous statements about affirmative action. Another example of people insisting affirmative action is a clear-cut issue and there’s no middle ground. Kerry and Lieberman are caving (sort of). Derrick Jackson weighs in on the issue. Derrick doesn’t see much middle ground, but his column is excellent because he quotes people who feel squeamish about affirmative action but still support it, such as former U.S. Rep. J.C. Watts, the conservative African-American Republican, who said: ''Look, in principle, I don't agree with affirmative action. But in practice, we still don't have a level playing field.'' ... ‘I don’t agree ... but in practice.’... Hub Blog will now drop the subject. Beat up on it too much in recent days. Yet I’ll leave with this overly reiterated point of mine: It’s OK to have a moderate position on affirmative action, believing it’s flawed and gone too far but still defensible.
James Freedman, a long good-bye: He infuriated you when you disagreed with him. He inspired you when you agreed with him. James Freedman, the retired president of Dartmouth who recently took on campus critics of Israel, is slowly dying of cancer (and he knows it) and the Globe’s profile of him is definitely worth the read.
Using the reserve funds: More groups are calling on Mitt to dip into the state’s reserves to avoid spending cuts. Mitt is wisely resisting. His position (as paraphrased by the Globe) is: “He has noted that using reserves to close the deficit this year would make the problem worse next fiscal year, since the gap between spending and revenues would remain unaddressed.” ... Yes, using reserves now is only forestalling the inevitable -- and it will arguably make things worse. ... Wasn't it only yesterday that we were talking about a mix of cuts and taxes?
The stock options game, alive and well at Tyco: Tyco International Ltd., New England’s very own contribution to the list of disgraced corporations of the ‘90s, has given its new CEO, less than six months on the job, a $4 million bonus and stock options now valued at $49 million. Echoing Warren Buffett’s criticism of the use of stock options, one expert is quoted in the story: ''If Tyco were charging its earnings for this kind of compensation, they'd think twice about giving a grant of that size because their earnings can't bear much loading as it is.'' ... Can’t find Warren Buffett’s past criticism of corporations that don't count stock options as a bottom-line expense. But here’s his Berkshire Hathaway site. Buffett’s annual reports to shareholders, as you probably know, are classics. Read some of them when you have a chance.
Update - 1:20 p.m. - TC sends in this link to a Warren Buffett op-ed that originally appeared in the NYT. Thanks.
Update - 1:20 p.m. - TC sends in this link to a Warren Buffett op-ed that originally appeared in the NYT. Thanks.
Development updates: The Globe’s editorial ('Yellow Alert') nails it on the Hotel Commonwealth debacle: “The city must make sure the building matches the design as originally approved, even if it means a total refinishing of the facade, not just a paint job. To demand less would tempt other developers to cut corners in the expectation that the city will bend its design requirements once a building is finished.” ...
... Steve Bailey is advocating a sort of ‘trust but verify’ approach toward the proposed $400 million Columbus Center, which would straddle the Massachusetts Turnpike between Clarendon and Berkeley streets. After what happened at the Hotel Commonwealth, it’s a sound idea. More numbers and facts before construction, please. ...
And Cosmo Macero takes a look at the Massachusetts Horticultural Society’s plan for enclosed, glass-covered gardens at Dewey Square after the Big Dig. Cosmo’s conclusion. “With 12 years behind them, it's not unfair to say Mass. Hort squandered time and opportunity.” Exactly. It’s a great idea. People love it. But the society has lost a lot of credibility in recent years. No one wants a 15-year ‘temporary’ garden there once the Central Artery comes down. They want and deserve the real thing. The society better get cracking or else ...
... Steve Bailey is advocating a sort of ‘trust but verify’ approach toward the proposed $400 million Columbus Center, which would straddle the Massachusetts Turnpike between Clarendon and Berkeley streets. After what happened at the Hotel Commonwealth, it’s a sound idea. More numbers and facts before construction, please. ...
And Cosmo Macero takes a look at the Massachusetts Horticultural Society’s plan for enclosed, glass-covered gardens at Dewey Square after the Big Dig. Cosmo’s conclusion. “With 12 years behind them, it's not unfair to say Mass. Hort squandered time and opportunity.” Exactly. It’s a great idea. People love it. But the society has lost a lot of credibility in recent years. No one wants a 15-year ‘temporary’ garden there once the Central Artery comes down. They want and deserve the real thing. The society better get cracking or else ...
‘Blog Day for Venezuela’: Local blogger Politica Obscura has been getting much deserved attention in recent days for his coverage of events in Venezuela, specifically his ‘Blog Day for Venezuela’ campaign. Check him out.
Thursday, January 23, 2003
Weighty International Issues, Part III: Is no one interested in my 'Frank Salemme, murderous slimeball done good' item? I'm hurt. Still, have gotten lots of emails on my weighty international and geopolitical items (see directly below to 'Weighty International Issues, Part II and Part I,' and the links that link to links). First, Brighton Reader, and then my response, followed by other responses and links in other items etc. From Brighton Reader:
"So far as I know, neither you nor William Safire has any foreign policy experience. Mr. Safire was a speechwriter in the Nixon White House (I believe he coined ‘nattering nabobs of negativism,’), not a foreign policy apparatchik. Gotta defend Hub Blog from unfair criticism!
"Overall , I agree with your comments.
"Right now the most cogent voice on the threat of terrorism and Iraq is Tony Blair. His arguments are compelling, thoughtful and realistic. I lean to the need for a regime change in Iraq, by war if neccessary, althought am still not persuaded on the timing. I wish it was Bush who had been making this case to the UN and allies, and from the beginning, rather than at the end. It was disturbing that the administration seemed to initially ignore the most successful alliance in history, one that had given us -- and still does -- a huge amount of security. Anti-Americanism has existed since 1776. Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior, along with other post-war U.S. presidents, set out their objectives and found ways to win support and overcome it. I think George W. could have done the same. We may not need allied assistance in a war against Iraq but we absolutely need it in the war on terror."
Hub Blog's response: Nation building? Remember that? Rejecting international help on overseeing/guarding Afghanistan after our triumph? Bush’s response a year ago: Nation building? Help? You’ll just get in our way! We can do it! A year later: Wish we had more help. ... A year ago: Asking the UN for permission to take on Iraq? Forget it! We can do it! A year later: Ask the UN’s permission and whine afterward that France (France! As if we didn’t know) is betraying our secret UN agreement! ... The blustering, blundering, bombastic Bush policy (Speak toughly/Put away big stick after it doesn’t work/Grab big stick again) approach to foreign policy is leading toward historic disaster: Isolationism. Unilateralism. Empire. Bunker America. Fighting to promote democracy. Pax America. Whatever you want to call it. ... Not making excuses for the French. God, they’re such vile, immoral, ammoral, selfish, undependable pricks. (Join NATO, quit NATO, rejoin NATO, threaten NATO. ... The French had the nerve to call us ‘arrogant’ today? The French!) But do we literally have to lower ourselves to the French level? We can rhetorically and gently swat them away like flies. ... Apparently the Bush folks can’t talk around it. Think around it. Rationalize around it. No, they have to bluster around it. Ugh. ... Suppose I’ll be accused of anti-Americanism. ... In his State of the Union address, Bush needs to make one thing clear: all steam ahead with Pax America, or all steam ahead with cooperating with the rest of the democratic world. (The latter, preferably, with snide and digging remarks at the two twits of Europe, France and Germany -- with oblique Vichy France and Nazi Germany references, while he’s at it.) But, please, no more straddling the fense. Make up your mind, George. Powell or Rumsfeld, to put it simply. Or at least put a stop to adminstration leaks about policy coherency/incoherency, if that’s how you view it in a PR way. Do something! ... Hoodwinked by the French. That’s how bad these guys are.
Update - 01-24-03, 8:45 a.m. -- Without making any comments, reader BK sent these links in response to my tirade directly above. I get his message. Here are the links: Charles Krauthhammer’s ‘No going back’ piece from this morning; the second on how the French have taught us a painful diplomatic lesson and how we can’t back down now; and another from NRO on ‘The Tyranny of ‘Buts.’
Hub Blog’s response: A.) If the NATO alliance indeed collapses because of the Iraq crisis, the president owes it to the country to fully explain why it was worth it, how we’re going to get by without NATO after Iraq, his vision of a post-Iraq world with potential enemies (such as China) taking advantage of divisions within the West, and his long-term vision in general of world alliances, the UN and the security council, etc. B.) Yes, there probably is ‘no going back,’ for the die is indeed cast. That’s obvious from the second link above. But a lot of us are wondering how we got to the point of no going back; whether the possible break up of NATO was envisioned when we set off on this course and whether we just bumbled into it by walking into a French trap; C.) I don’t like the overuse of the word ‘but’ either, ‘but’ nuanced qualifiers are often necessary when arguing with people you sort of agree with ‘but’ disagree with on certain details because you don't accept their no-gray-area, no-buts views. ... Thanks to BK for all the input.
"So far as I know, neither you nor William Safire has any foreign policy experience. Mr. Safire was a speechwriter in the Nixon White House (I believe he coined ‘nattering nabobs of negativism,’), not a foreign policy apparatchik. Gotta defend Hub Blog from unfair criticism!
"Overall , I agree with your comments.
"Right now the most cogent voice on the threat of terrorism and Iraq is Tony Blair. His arguments are compelling, thoughtful and realistic. I lean to the need for a regime change in Iraq, by war if neccessary, althought am still not persuaded on the timing. I wish it was Bush who had been making this case to the UN and allies, and from the beginning, rather than at the end. It was disturbing that the administration seemed to initially ignore the most successful alliance in history, one that had given us -- and still does -- a huge amount of security. Anti-Americanism has existed since 1776. Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior, along with other post-war U.S. presidents, set out their objectives and found ways to win support and overcome it. I think George W. could have done the same. We may not need allied assistance in a war against Iraq but we absolutely need it in the war on terror."
Hub Blog's response: Nation building? Remember that? Rejecting international help on overseeing/guarding Afghanistan after our triumph? Bush’s response a year ago: Nation building? Help? You’ll just get in our way! We can do it! A year later: Wish we had more help. ... A year ago: Asking the UN for permission to take on Iraq? Forget it! We can do it! A year later: Ask the UN’s permission and whine afterward that France (France! As if we didn’t know) is betraying our secret UN agreement! ... The blustering, blundering, bombastic Bush policy (Speak toughly/Put away big stick after it doesn’t work/Grab big stick again) approach to foreign policy is leading toward historic disaster: Isolationism. Unilateralism. Empire. Bunker America. Fighting to promote democracy. Pax America. Whatever you want to call it. ... Not making excuses for the French. God, they’re such vile, immoral, ammoral, selfish, undependable pricks. (Join NATO, quit NATO, rejoin NATO, threaten NATO. ... The French had the nerve to call us ‘arrogant’ today? The French!) But do we literally have to lower ourselves to the French level? We can rhetorically and gently swat them away like flies. ... Apparently the Bush folks can’t talk around it. Think around it. Rationalize around it. No, they have to bluster around it. Ugh. ... Suppose I’ll be accused of anti-Americanism. ... In his State of the Union address, Bush needs to make one thing clear: all steam ahead with Pax America, or all steam ahead with cooperating with the rest of the democratic world. (The latter, preferably, with snide and digging remarks at the two twits of Europe, France and Germany -- with oblique Vichy France and Nazi Germany references, while he’s at it.) But, please, no more straddling the fense. Make up your mind, George. Powell or Rumsfeld, to put it simply. Or at least put a stop to adminstration leaks about policy coherency/incoherency, if that’s how you view it in a PR way. Do something! ... Hoodwinked by the French. That’s how bad these guys are.
Update - 01-24-03, 8:45 a.m. -- Without making any comments, reader BK sent these links in response to my tirade directly above. I get his message. Here are the links: Charles Krauthhammer’s ‘No going back’ piece from this morning; the second on how the French have taught us a painful diplomatic lesson and how we can’t back down now; and another from NRO on ‘The Tyranny of ‘Buts.’
Hub Blog’s response: A.) If the NATO alliance indeed collapses because of the Iraq crisis, the president owes it to the country to fully explain why it was worth it, how we’re going to get by without NATO after Iraq, his vision of a post-Iraq world with potential enemies (such as China) taking advantage of divisions within the West, and his long-term vision in general of world alliances, the UN and the security council, etc. B.) Yes, there probably is ‘no going back,’ for the die is indeed cast. That’s obvious from the second link above. But a lot of us are wondering how we got to the point of no going back; whether the possible break up of NATO was envisioned when we set off on this course and whether we just bumbled into it by walking into a French trap; C.) I don’t like the overuse of the word ‘but’ either, ‘but’ nuanced qualifiers are often necessary when arguing with people you sort of agree with ‘but’ disagree with on certain details because you don't accept their no-gray-area, no-buts views. ... Thanks to BK for all the input.
Weighty International Issues, Part II: Week after week, month after month, Hub Blog slaves away, trying to carve out a unique niche and stick to Hub related issues. And what’s the No. 1 topic (and email getter) in recent weeks? My geopolitical views on the implications of France and Germany parting ways with the US. (Actually, it’s quite flattering; I knew my Modern European History major at Tufts would come in handy one day.) Anyway, I originally updated my earlier item on the subject, but now I’m moving all the responses up into this separate item. Here goes:
Update 1-23-03, 12:10 p.m. -- Someone just emailed me a William Safire column, with the following comment, ‘He has more experience than you” in foreign policy and berating me, gently, for my criticism of US unilateralism. Well, first, Safire is more experienced than me on foreign matters. No argument there. But I maintain my point, coming from one angle, is not entirely different from Safire’s point, coming from another angle. The angled lines intersect at this point: “The Iraq issue is not war vs. peace. It is collective security vs. every nation for itself.” ... Germany and France (in particular) are playing a very dangerous ‘every nation for itself’ game. And the US, with its dismissive Pax America talk of going it alone, is playing its own dangerous ‘every nation for itself’ game. Who started the fight? I think you’d have to trace it, first, to anti-Americanism and, in France’s case, its envious attempt for 19th Century ‘balance of power,’ etc. (As for Deutschland, what can one say?) Anti-Americanism predates George Bush, Jr. But the Bush administration’s blustering unilateralism, while not the cause of anti-Americanism, is certainly exacerbating the problem. Tony Blair has it right, but not too many people are paying attention to his warnings.
Update II, 1-23-03 -- 12:40 p.m.: Reader BK sends along this piece from historian Robert Kagan. Opening lines from Kagan:
“It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power — the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power — American and European perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Kant’s 'Perpetual Peace.' The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might. That is why on major strategic and international questions today, Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus....”
Hub Blog’s response: Well, Safire and I are at least on the same page: We’re bemoaning the divergence Kagan is writing about. ... And thanks to everyone who's been writing in. As they say: Great stuff.
Update 1-23-03, 12:10 p.m. -- Someone just emailed me a William Safire column, with the following comment, ‘He has more experience than you” in foreign policy and berating me, gently, for my criticism of US unilateralism. Well, first, Safire is more experienced than me on foreign matters. No argument there. But I maintain my point, coming from one angle, is not entirely different from Safire’s point, coming from another angle. The angled lines intersect at this point: “The Iraq issue is not war vs. peace. It is collective security vs. every nation for itself.” ... Germany and France (in particular) are playing a very dangerous ‘every nation for itself’ game. And the US, with its dismissive Pax America talk of going it alone, is playing its own dangerous ‘every nation for itself’ game. Who started the fight? I think you’d have to trace it, first, to anti-Americanism and, in France’s case, its envious attempt for 19th Century ‘balance of power,’ etc. (As for Deutschland, what can one say?) Anti-Americanism predates George Bush, Jr. But the Bush administration’s blustering unilateralism, while not the cause of anti-Americanism, is certainly exacerbating the problem. Tony Blair has it right, but not too many people are paying attention to his warnings.
Update II, 1-23-03 -- 12:40 p.m.: Reader BK sends along this piece from historian Robert Kagan. Opening lines from Kagan:
“It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power — the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power — American and European perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Kant’s 'Perpetual Peace.' The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might. That is why on major strategic and international questions today, Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus....”
Hub Blog’s response: Well, Safire and I are at least on the same page: We’re bemoaning the divergence Kagan is writing about. ... And thanks to everyone who's been writing in. As they say: Great stuff.
‘A mix’ of taxes and cuts: Well, at least Mitt’s critics are talking about a mix of cuts and taxes to solve the budget crisis. It’s a start. Suggestion: Will they kindly give Mitt a list of proposed cuts, rather than shrieking from the sidelines each time someone actually does something about spending? ...
... OK, Mitt isn’t accepting a salary. His press boss is consolidating government’s communications offices. Now they’re going after SUVs. Fine. But can we have something more substantive in the next few days or weeks? Know Mitt will probably outline new ‘restructuring’ ideas in his budget address. Etc. But, really, the symbolic moves are getting a little trite. ...
... OK, Mitt isn’t accepting a salary. His press boss is consolidating government’s communications offices. Now they’re going after SUVs. Fine. But can we have something more substantive in the next few days or weeks? Know Mitt will probably outline new ‘restructuring’ ideas in his budget address. Etc. But, really, the symbolic moves are getting a little trite. ...
Ambivalence and affirmative action, Part II: After Brian McGrory took a whack at the subject the other day, now Joan Vennochi makes a lot of sense about race in America-- to a point (as usual). What I like about Joan’s column is the way she portrays the small, daily indignities blacks go through each day. The anecdotes are terrific and telling, especially the one about Greg Moore. But, typically, Joan takes it too far, portraying opponents of her views in the most extreme way, similar to her outburst against those who dared to vote for Question 2 in November: Joan: “That is the unspoken goal of affirmative action opponents. They pretend that it's about their commitment to a meritocracy when it is really about retaining their superior status. Affirmative action programs are flawed and frustrating. But without them, the power elite would never unlock the door to the powerless.” ... No hint that some (many) people who oppose affirmative action are not pretending and might actually be taking a principled stand against a ‘flawed and frustrating’ institution. Nope. Gotta portray them all as villains. No middle ground. No elaboration on the ‘flawed and frustrating’ part because that might lead to ambivalence and ambiguity in thought and prose. Can’t have that, on the left or the right.
Economic and business tidbits: Hub Blog likes the free market. Hub Blog doesn’t like centralized, overly regulated economies. But there are times when corporations act abominably and need reining in, such as the Wall Street hucksters of the ‘90s and the Enrons of the world. Now, here in Massachusetts, we’ve faced the same thing on a smaller scale, such as the monopolization of the dairy industry and, it now appears, the monopolization of the electric industry. Read the article carefully. Look at the name of the Chicago-based company, its control of the market here (70 percent of the local generating capacity) and wince, dear consumers. And note how the energy companies are not talking about lack of electric plants in the region to justify their proposed rate increases. It’s all about a lack of competition. Pay close attention to this one. These type of characters screwed consumers in California and they’ll do it here, if given the chance. ....
... They’re still working out changes to the dreadful-looking Hotel Commonwealth at Kenmore Square, which didn’t exactly turn out as planned (deliberately, as one strongly suspects). And, no, Frank, it’s still not about the colors. ...
Adrian Walker, for whatever thankful and eccentric reason, decided to poke around the issue of the Worcester Airport. So, whadda ya think, Adrian? “If someone is filming a disaster movie and needs an airport that can be blown up without being missed, I have one to recommend.”
... They’re still working out changes to the dreadful-looking Hotel Commonwealth at Kenmore Square, which didn’t exactly turn out as planned (deliberately, as one strongly suspects). And, no, Frank, it’s still not about the colors. ...
Adrian Walker, for whatever thankful and eccentric reason, decided to poke around the issue of the Worcester Airport. So, whadda ya think, Adrian? “If someone is filming a disaster movie and needs an airport that can be blown up without being missed, I have one to recommend.”
Frank Salemme, murderous slimeball done good?: There has to be some crazy, selfish, cover-up angle the feds are playing on this one. Just haven’t figured it out yet.
Hub Blog on weighty international issues!: Excellent piece in this morning’s Globe by John Donnelly and Robert Schlesinger on Germany and France’s stance on the coming war against Iraq. From the article: “Charles A. Kupchan, a European analyst at the Council of Foreign Relations, said he believed the split between the United States and France and Germany was
potentially a 'historical watershed.’ ... ‘Assuming we are where we are today, which is in a massive gray zone, I believe an attack by the US really does hit at the underpinnings of the international order that has emerged since World War II. Effectively, it would bring the Atlantic alliance to an end. It would send a strong message to the Europeans that they are on their own, and vice versa.’ ''
And we all know what happened the last time when the Europeans were on their own, and vice versa. Unfortunately, there are some who would cheer a U.S.-go-alone-it policy in foreign matters, such as Jeff Jacoby and others. But, despite what critics say, I happen to believe in the UN and NATO, as flawed as they are, and it’s a very dangerous game the US, Germany and France (in particular) are playing right now. Neo-conservatives love quoting Tony Blair, a staunch supporter of the US, on most issues, usually when he’s talking tough against a common foe or anti-American critics. But they usually don’t quote Blair when he warns of disunity, anti-Americanism and U.S. unilateralism. Here’s what Blair also said earlier this month: “Warning of the causes and consequences if the ‘common threat of chaos’ overwhelms us, Blair said: ‘It can come from the world splitting into rival poles of power; the US in one corner; anti-US forces in another. It can come from pent-up feelings of injustice and alienation, from divisions between the world's richer and its poorer nations.’ ” ... And there’s this column from the CSM this morning. ... And that’s Hub Blog’s lame foray into foreign affairs for the day.
potentially a 'historical watershed.’ ... ‘Assuming we are where we are today, which is in a massive gray zone, I believe an attack by the US really does hit at the underpinnings of the international order that has emerged since World War II. Effectively, it would bring the Atlantic alliance to an end. It would send a strong message to the Europeans that they are on their own, and vice versa.’ ''
And we all know what happened the last time when the Europeans were on their own, and vice versa. Unfortunately, there are some who would cheer a U.S.-go-alone-it policy in foreign matters, such as Jeff Jacoby and others. But, despite what critics say, I happen to believe in the UN and NATO, as flawed as they are, and it’s a very dangerous game the US, Germany and France (in particular) are playing right now. Neo-conservatives love quoting Tony Blair, a staunch supporter of the US, on most issues, usually when he’s talking tough against a common foe or anti-American critics. But they usually don’t quote Blair when he warns of disunity, anti-Americanism and U.S. unilateralism. Here’s what Blair also said earlier this month: “Warning of the causes and consequences if the ‘common threat of chaos’ overwhelms us, Blair said: ‘It can come from the world splitting into rival poles of power; the US in one corner; anti-US forces in another. It can come from pent-up feelings of injustice and alienation, from divisions between the world's richer and its poorer nations.’ ” ... And there’s this column from the CSM this morning. ... And that’s Hub Blog’s lame foray into foreign affairs for the day.
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
‘He is hot; he is real hot’: Ah, well, no, it’s not what you might think. It’s actually Mayor Menino, interviewed for the CSM’s ‘Morning Breakfast,’ on John Kerry’s candidacy. Before running the quote, note how many people (including Kerry) now acknowledge his shortcomings in past years. Now the questions are: Do we really know this man yet? What has he changed into? And when, exactly, did he change? Again, this kind of backhanded compliment (no, really, he’s ‘changed’ -- look how many times Menino refers to him changing) isn’t exactly reassuring. Forget about Kerry’s womanizing (when he was a single man, FYI) in the past. God bless him. Wish I had the U.S. Senator rap to throw at chicks. (And I’d use it, too, believe me.) But these are some of the words people are hinting at but not saying when describing the ‘old’ Kerry: opportunistic, selfish, distant, arrogant, enigmatic, plastic etc. Here’s the quote from the mayor:
"Oh, he is really warm. He is hot; he is real hot. Honestly I tell you, Senator Kerry has come a long way. He did have the appearance several years ago of being standoffish. He is reaching out to more folks than he has in the past.... Senator Kerry has been out there listening much better than he has in the past. He has a wealth of knowledge and the team that he is putting in place ... is a good team. He is more responsive than he has [been] - and not just this year, last year and the year before. I have seen over the last four years a real change in his attitude."
Despite all of this, I still think Kerry's one hell of a candidate in a tough fight. Anyone who saw him against Bill Weld knows he’s damn good in a political brawl. But, again, look at all the references to 'change' ... He's made it a legitmate question to ask: Has he really changed? And to what? Just like it was legitimate to ask George Bush Jr. and Richard Nixon the same questions.
"Oh, he is really warm. He is hot; he is real hot. Honestly I tell you, Senator Kerry has come a long way. He did have the appearance several years ago of being standoffish. He is reaching out to more folks than he has in the past.... Senator Kerry has been out there listening much better than he has in the past. He has a wealth of knowledge and the team that he is putting in place ... is a good team. He is more responsive than he has [been] - and not just this year, last year and the year before. I have seen over the last four years a real change in his attitude."
Despite all of this, I still think Kerry's one hell of a candidate in a tough fight. Anyone who saw him against Bill Weld knows he’s damn good in a political brawl. But, again, look at all the references to 'change' ... He's made it a legitmate question to ask: Has he really changed? And to what? Just like it was legitimate to ask George Bush Jr. and Richard Nixon the same questions.
The Atlantic (sort of) Monthly buzz: The Boston-based Atlantic Monthly is getting more positive attention, this time in the Hartford Courant via the Chicago Tribune via Romenesko. ... For the record, I read the RFK Jr. piece (not online) on the Michael Skakel trial. I wasn’t convinced. But I was impressed. I already had doubts about the verdict, as did a lot of other people. The article confirmed and heightened those doubts. Pooh-pooh the author -- and whether you think it’s an appropriate piece for the august Atlantic to run (other mags had rejected it before the Atlantic picked it up) -- but RFK Jr. handled it quite well. Read it before criticizing it. It deserves the buzz. ...
... The magazine has seen a boost in circulation, advertising, and attention since the recent ownership change. But it still isn’t making a profit. In my January/February issue, there’s this note from the editors at the bottom of page 12:
“With this issue of the magazine we begin publishing two double issues a year -- one in January/February, and one in July/August. Readers can expect that the amount and the variety of the writing that appears in the magazine will not change. -- The Editors.”
Make of it what you want, but the Atlantic Monthly is now published only 10 times per year (down from 11, apparently).
... Speaking of the local press, the Metro Boston paper has reportedly rejected an ad by the New Repertory Theatre in Newton for its new play "No Niggers, No Jews, No Dogs." The problem: Ah, the old ‘n’ word you see there. The Globe and Herald are reportedly still undecided about running the ad. (Also via Romenesko.)
... The magazine has seen a boost in circulation, advertising, and attention since the recent ownership change. But it still isn’t making a profit. In my January/February issue, there’s this note from the editors at the bottom of page 12:
“With this issue of the magazine we begin publishing two double issues a year -- one in January/February, and one in July/August. Readers can expect that the amount and the variety of the writing that appears in the magazine will not change. -- The Editors.”
Make of it what you want, but the Atlantic Monthly is now published only 10 times per year (down from 11, apparently).
... Speaking of the local press, the Metro Boston paper has reportedly rejected an ad by the New Repertory Theatre in Newton for its new play "No Niggers, No Jews, No Dogs." The problem: Ah, the old ‘n’ word you see there. The Globe and Herald are reportedly still undecided about running the ad. (Also via Romenesko.)
Celebrity activists: Local blogger John Farrell has some interesting thoughts about celebrity activists and those writing about celebrity activists (re: Alex Beam).
Televised FBI/Bulger hearings? Can’t wait!: Howie Carr is pushing for televised hearings of the Bulger/FBI investigation. Good idea. One of Howie’s first witnesses would be: “Francis X. Joyce, the corpulent boss of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (MCCA) and one-time tin-whistle player in Billy Bulger's band. When the MCCA was set up, among Franny's first hires was the daughter (or niece) of Whitey Bulger's top hitman, John Martorano. Joyce also hired the daughter of Whitey's top girlfriend, as well as a plug-ugly named Goss who used to work for Steve Flemmi's first underworld boss, Wimpy Bennett.” ... Howie has more on the legislative shenanigans pulled off on Whitey’s behalf, though he's way too hard on Dukakis and Chet Atkins. They're not the issue. Hmmmm. Wonder who really orchestrated the legislative maneuverings, not to mention all those convenient Boston Edison jobs etc.
Those tricky poll numbers: Mark Jurkowitz has a nice piece on all those polls showing varying degrees of support for war against Iraq. There’s something in here for everyone to love or hate. Want to prove that the anti-war movement is growing? Find a poll that supports your view. Want to prove that Americans support action against Saddam? Find a poll that supports your view. ... Still, there are some broad conclusions you can derive from all the polls (and stories on polls): 1.) The majority of Americans view Saddam as a menace. 2.) The majority of Americans will support war under the right conditions. 3.) Many, if not most, Americans, have “nuanced” or “ambivalent” views -- and have “reservations” -- about going to war, words you don’t often hear in the lexicon of hard-core leftists and hard-core rightists as they shout at each over the heads of the left-right weary citizenry. Thank God for the average American.
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
Immigrants and state aid and property taxes: I don’t know about you, but MLK Day has turned into a real nice, oddly timed holiday that I appreciate and enjoy. Anyway, Brighton Reader has some interesting observations on Boston-area immigrants and Mitt’s budget cuts/state aid/policy-wonk challenges ahead:
Immigration and the Boston economy:
“There was an interview with this professor at Northeastern in Sunday's Globe magazine. I knew immigrants had become a big part of the regional workforce, but I did not realize how important they were until I read this piece. Our workforce would have actually shrunk without them. He makes the additional point that the high cost of living is making people leave, particularly the better educated, although he does not provide any evidence of this. I think it varies quite a bit within New England, with some areas gaining, others losing. Seems to me the Boston area continues to have a huge number of people from outside who arrive to go to school and stay after they graduate.”
And ...
Local aid, state taxes and property taxes:
“You are right, Mitt has some tough decisions to make in local aid. There are so many variables at play. Is a town having a tough time because it overspent? Because it took an anti-growth tack and opposed new development, and thus limited its own revenue? Do they just have trouble attracting new business, or have a population requiring more services? Poor people have to live somewhere.
“The reason localities are so dependent on state assistance is Proposition 2 1/2. Most cities and towns simply cannot operate on their property tax revenues. 2 1/2 works pretty well, I think. Limits on taxes, incentives for allowing new development, and it tends to lessen reliance on a tax that is regressive. The value of your home and what you make often have no relationship at all, especially in the boom-and-bust real estate market of the last twenty years. Any changes to 2 1/2 could cause lots of political problems; it was the original Massachusetts tax revolt (not including the Boston Tea Party, of course). People really feel it when their property taxes go up, more than an increase in the amount the state takes out of their weekly paychecks.”
Immigration and the Boston economy:
“There was an interview with this professor at Northeastern in Sunday's Globe magazine. I knew immigrants had become a big part of the regional workforce, but I did not realize how important they were until I read this piece. Our workforce would have actually shrunk without them. He makes the additional point that the high cost of living is making people leave, particularly the better educated, although he does not provide any evidence of this. I think it varies quite a bit within New England, with some areas gaining, others losing. Seems to me the Boston area continues to have a huge number of people from outside who arrive to go to school and stay after they graduate.”
And ...
Local aid, state taxes and property taxes:
“You are right, Mitt has some tough decisions to make in local aid. There are so many variables at play. Is a town having a tough time because it overspent? Because it took an anti-growth tack and opposed new development, and thus limited its own revenue? Do they just have trouble attracting new business, or have a population requiring more services? Poor people have to live somewhere.
“The reason localities are so dependent on state assistance is Proposition 2 1/2. Most cities and towns simply cannot operate on their property tax revenues. 2 1/2 works pretty well, I think. Limits on taxes, incentives for allowing new development, and it tends to lessen reliance on a tax that is regressive. The value of your home and what you make often have no relationship at all, especially in the boom-and-bust real estate market of the last twenty years. Any changes to 2 1/2 could cause lots of political problems; it was the original Massachusetts tax revolt (not including the Boston Tea Party, of course). People really feel it when their property taxes go up, more than an increase in the amount the state takes out of their weekly paychecks.”
The tortoise and the hare: Interesting article by D.C. Denison over the weekend about the economic plight of Silicon Valley and Route 128 in the current recession. Verdict: We’re better off. My question: But what about during an economic boom? Hands down, Silicon Valley, an old-fashioned, boom-or-bust economic agglomeration. The Economist published a piece a year or so ago about Silicon Valley and Boston’s high-tech rivalry. (Didn’t know there was still a rivalry, but they wrote about it anyway.) It was a very flattering article about both regions. Can’t find the link now, obviously; it was pre-Hub Blog. But the point: They’re the risk-taking, pay-the-price, look-at-me hare. We’re the more conservative, sweating, plodding-to-the-goal-line tortoise. I’ll take the comparison any day.
‘88 and ‘04: This is not the spin the Kerry folks want out there, even though they’re indeed carefully following the Duke’s handbook, as Joan Vennochi says: “It really does look like 1988 in 2004. Mike Dukakis is running for president with longer legs, more expensive hair, and an even greater penchant for equivocating about being a liberal from Massachusetts.” ... One quibble: George Jr. is much more politically astute and focused than his dad. Underestimate him at your peril.
Ambivalence and affirmative action: Until I read Brian McGrory’s column this morning, I never heard of someone making a distinction like this: Affirmative action in the workplace is dubious, but affirmative action in education is defensible. I’ll let Brian explain. ... As for my own views on affirmative action, this is one of those issues -- along with abortion, the death penalty, gay rights, no-new taxes -- where I part with most conservatives, to wit: I’m ambivalent about affirmative action. Intellectually and morally, affirmative action is a hard position to defend. I respect conservatives’ views on the issue. But African Americans have been getting screwed in this country for a long, long time. Please, don’t tell me how it’s all about ‘equal opportunity’ and ‘color blindness.’ It ain’t. Each and every day, African Americans are subjected to both overt and subtle racism, from getting pulled over by cops to some yahoo rejecting a job application of a black male because he looks ‘scary.’ What I like about McGrory’s argument -- one that I’m sure will be denounced as ‘having it both ways’ and being ‘all over the map’ -- is that, well, it’s having it both ways and it’s all over the map. Specifically, I like the part about concentrating on access to education, historically the great equalizer in American society. Returning GIs after WWII were given the GI Bill as a reward for their service. Why a GI bill? Because far-sighted leaders understood the vital importance of education in giving vets an extra leg up as they tried to reassimilate back into society. ...
Ptech and al-Qaeda update: Let me get this straight: Most of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudis; most of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist money comes from Saudis; Ptech’s original backers were Saudis, one of them tied to the financing of Osama’ al-Qaeda network; Ptech makes sensitive software used by our national security agencies; some of Ptech’s sensitive software programs have been sent to Osama’s half brother; funds controlled by some Saudi connected with Ptech have been frozen by the U.S. and Saudi governments following Sept. 11. Even before Sept. 11, some Ptech employees were so nervous about selling software to Osama’s half brother, the company’s CEO had to intervene and called the State Department. ``They laughed at us,'' Ziade said. ``They told us there is no problem with selling to the (Saudi) Binladin Group or the family.'' ... And now they're investigating the company. Hmmmmm. Question: Are they still laughing?
Centralization usually doesn’t work, Mitt: Wayne Woodlief takes the Romney administration -- and Eric Fehrnstrom, a former Herald reporter, in particular -- to task for its new communications strategy. The delicious irony: Someone leaked the memo about not leaking memos.
Update -- Where are Mitt's other restructuring plans? Just asking.
Update -- Where are Mitt's other restructuring plans? Just asking.
Sunday, January 19, 2003
Yawn. The anti-war protests: Can’t get too excited about yesterday’s anti-war protests. All very predictable -- the ‘we’re really patriotic,’ ‘we’re growing in numbers,’ the same signs, slogans, blah, blah, blah. No major complaints about the coverage by either the Globe or Herald. A few snippets:
-- The Herald on an activist at a Watertown rally: “Palomba said many motorists honked their horn in a gesture of support. But some horn blowers eschewed giving a thumbs-up signal to the protesters, instead opting for a middle finger.”
-- Also from the Herald: “A current Newsweek poll indicates that overall support among the American people for military action against Iraq remains steady at 63 percent, in line with the 64 percent recorded at the end of October 2002. However, 81 percent of Americans support military action against Iraq if the U.S. joins together with its major allies and has the full backing of the U.N. Security Council.” ... Count Hub Blog among those hovering between the 63 percent figure and the 81 percent figure. As for the leftovers, well, they’re truly leftovers. But they’re growing!
-- ‘60s nostalgia alert: ``We stand here today, a new generation of anti-war activists,'' said Peta Lindsay from International Answer, the main organizers behind the protest in Washington.
-- The award for “Tying It All Together In One Big Bow” goes to actress Jessica Lange. ''All this talk of war, all this rhetoric, has been an excellent cover, an excellent camouflage, to turn back the clock on civil rights, on women's rights, on social justice, and on environmental policies.''
-- Check out Instapundit. Glenn is having a grand old time covering the protests. He even dropped this dead skunk into their party: The UK’s Guardian has endorsed the use of force against Saddam. The Guardian. Who would have thought?
-- The Herald on an activist at a Watertown rally: “Palomba said many motorists honked their horn in a gesture of support. But some horn blowers eschewed giving a thumbs-up signal to the protesters, instead opting for a middle finger.”
-- Also from the Herald: “A current Newsweek poll indicates that overall support among the American people for military action against Iraq remains steady at 63 percent, in line with the 64 percent recorded at the end of October 2002. However, 81 percent of Americans support military action against Iraq if the U.S. joins together with its major allies and has the full backing of the U.N. Security Council.” ... Count Hub Blog among those hovering between the 63 percent figure and the 81 percent figure. As for the leftovers, well, they’re truly leftovers. But they’re growing!
-- ‘60s nostalgia alert: ``We stand here today, a new generation of anti-war activists,'' said Peta Lindsay from International Answer, the main organizers behind the protest in Washington.
-- The award for “Tying It All Together In One Big Bow” goes to actress Jessica Lange. ''All this talk of war, all this rhetoric, has been an excellent cover, an excellent camouflage, to turn back the clock on civil rights, on women's rights, on social justice, and on environmental policies.''
-- Check out Instapundit. Glenn is having a grand old time covering the protests. He even dropped this dead skunk into their party: The UK’s Guardian has endorsed the use of force against Saddam. The Guardian. Who would have thought?
The German question: The Globe’s 'Ideas’ section has an excellent story this morning that tackles the current debate (and focus) in Germany on the Allies’ aerial bombing campaigns of World War II. Christopher Hitchens tackles the same subject in the current issue of the Boston-based Atlantic Monthly. No one seriously disputes the fact that the Allies’ campaigns against German cities were A.) Prompted by a war of aggression (including an air war) initiated by the Nazis. B.) horrific, as the campaigns were intended, and C.) arguably unnecessary in some circumstances (such as the late-war fire bombing of Dresden). Here and in Britain, the debate over our aerial strategy has been both healthy and welcome. We’re still debating the aerial-combat issue -- a debate that has led to, among other things, a refinement of our tactics in order to minimize civilian and friendly fire casualties.
However, the controversy takes on an entirely different meaning when Germans debate the issue. Are the Germans trying to portray themselves as sufferers or as victims? If it’s the former, fine. They did suffer. If it’s the latter, then it’s scary. The main question: Are some Germans trying to turn the debate into a moral relativist argument (i.e., we killed and you killed during World War II -- and therefore we’re all the same)? Unfortunately, one gets the very disturbing feeling that, yes, they are trying to turn this into moral relativist debate about Nazi atrocities versus the Allies’ war tactics. As quoted in the Globe article, here’s Jrg Friedrich, the German author of a book on the subject and described as a ‘jovial, aging left-winger’: “The idea for the book, he says, evolved from his work on the Holocaust, which led him to examine the Nazi war-crimes trials. ‘One of the military commanders accused of civilian massacres in the Ukraine asked the question, 'What's the difference between lining people up against a wall and dropping bombs on them?' I tried to find an answer and couldn't, other than the fact that the one killing took place horizontally, and the other vertically.’ " .... ‘I tried to find an answer and couldn't.’ ... Wow. This is not good. ... Combined with the strong whiff of self-righteous anti-Americanism coursing through the subject matter and through German politics today, it becomes even more disturbing.
However, the controversy takes on an entirely different meaning when Germans debate the issue. Are the Germans trying to portray themselves as sufferers or as victims? If it’s the former, fine. They did suffer. If it’s the latter, then it’s scary. The main question: Are some Germans trying to turn the debate into a moral relativist argument (i.e., we killed and you killed during World War II -- and therefore we’re all the same)? Unfortunately, one gets the very disturbing feeling that, yes, they are trying to turn this into moral relativist debate about Nazi atrocities versus the Allies’ war tactics. As quoted in the Globe article, here’s Jrg Friedrich, the German author of a book on the subject and described as a ‘jovial, aging left-winger’: “The idea for the book, he says, evolved from his work on the Holocaust, which led him to examine the Nazi war-crimes trials. ‘One of the military commanders accused of civilian massacres in the Ukraine asked the question, 'What's the difference between lining people up against a wall and dropping bombs on them?' I tried to find an answer and couldn't, other than the fact that the one killing took place horizontally, and the other vertically.’ " .... ‘I tried to find an answer and couldn't.’ ... Wow. This is not good. ... Combined with the strong whiff of self-righteous anti-Americanism coursing through the subject matter and through German politics today, it becomes even more disturbing.
‘I have very good news’: Saw this Howie Carr column and I thought to myself, ‘No, no, no! No more broken-record Howie columns about hacks!’ Than I read the part about Tommy getting a job for his daughter. Keep at ‘em, Howie.
Saturday, January 18, 2003
Off to war they go: As the antiwar protest in Washington gets under way, remember this extraordinary NYT article about U.S. naval ships leaving San Diego for the Gulf (via John Ellis). What a story. So much is in it: the sadness, the stoicism, the patriotism, the common-sense world and national views of the sailors and Marines, the ‘modern American military,’ the social-economic makeup of the personnel, the opinion of an Afghan taxi driver as he transports crew and family members to the docks. The reporter who wrote it is Charlie LeDuff.
‘Class war’ and policy-wonk hell: Policy-wonk observation of the day: Wouldn’t want to be in Mitt’s shoes right now. Do you cut local aid across the board, opening yourself up to charges of ‘class war’? Or do you ‘cherry-pick’ who gets cut at different rates, opening yourself up to charges of favoritism? The other day, I said ‘no means testing’ when it came to cutting local aid. Stand by that statement. Sort of. Let me explain: Boston is, technically, in worse financial shape than its across-the-river sister city, Cambridge, which is in surprisingly good financial shape. If you ‘means tested’ the two, Boston should be spared the budget ax more than Cambridge, right? I mean, Boston can’t absorb across-the-board cuts as well as Cambridge ... But Boston’s spending from ‘94 through 2002 (the Menino years) increased by a whopping 50 percent. Cambridge, saddled for years with the image as a big-spending utopia wannabe, actually kept its overall spending increase to less than 3 percent and built up a hefty reserve. An astounding difference. Should Boston get rewarded for its overspending in the ‘90s while Cambridge gets punished for its penny pinching? No. ‘Means testing’ sounds fair and noble on paper, but in reality it can be unfair and irrational. ...
... But, ah, such simple comparisons fall apart (a bit) in the current budget debate because there are cities and towns that are now more reliant on state aid, such as New Bedford, Lawrence, Brockton and rural communities. One can argue whether the state should have been subsidizing them so much, but the fact is it has. These poorer communities depend upon -- one can also say they’re addicted to -- state aid. Across-the-board state-aid cuts would really hurt these communities. Where does this leave us? In Mitt’s shoes -- and, as I said, I wouldn’t want to be in them right now. Some sort of compromise formula has to be worked out. Perhaps, say, the first $50 million of state-aid cuts can be based on the percentage of state aid a given city receives on an annual basis. (But NOT on whether they have adequate cash reserves or not.) The rest of the cuts would be across the board. ... And, please, don’t tell me evil suburban towns like Lincoln should be paying more. They already have been. And they will continue to do so. Who’s been paying for the subsidies to the New Bedfords and Lawrences of Massachusetts? Where did the money magically come from? The suburbs.
... But, ah, such simple comparisons fall apart (a bit) in the current budget debate because there are cities and towns that are now more reliant on state aid, such as New Bedford, Lawrence, Brockton and rural communities. One can argue whether the state should have been subsidizing them so much, but the fact is it has. These poorer communities depend upon -- one can also say they’re addicted to -- state aid. Across-the-board state-aid cuts would really hurt these communities. Where does this leave us? In Mitt’s shoes -- and, as I said, I wouldn’t want to be in them right now. Some sort of compromise formula has to be worked out. Perhaps, say, the first $50 million of state-aid cuts can be based on the percentage of state aid a given city receives on an annual basis. (But NOT on whether they have adequate cash reserves or not.) The rest of the cuts would be across the board. ... And, please, don’t tell me evil suburban towns like Lincoln should be paying more. They already have been. And they will continue to do so. Who’s been paying for the subsidies to the New Bedfords and Lawrences of Massachusetts? Where did the money magically come from? The suburbs.
Big Dig, big applause for Fred: Frederick P. Salvucci, the former transportation secretary, got the biggest round of applause yesterday during the historic opening festivities of the new Turnpike tunnel. Fred richly deserved it. Salvucci ranks right up there with William F. Callahan and Ed Logue as one of the giants of modern urban planning in Massachusetts.
Theo, reconsidered: When Theo was appointed the Sox’ GM last year, Hub Blog guffawed along with other cynics. I was then taken to task by some readers who said I was being too rash. Know what? They’re right. Gerry Callahan had a superb piece yesterday that argued Theo has admirably resisted the sports talk-show mob’s call to to do ‘something’ to counter the Yankees. Callahan’s argument: Wasn’t doing ‘something’ the Duke’s strategy and do we really want to return to that?
A Bostonian living in Quebec writes on Boston’s ‘inferiority complex,’ anti-Americanism, the ‘Daisy’ ad, and the NHL: Got a long and interesting email with observations on various items I’ve posted lately. Take your pick. And pay attention to her views, not necessarily mine. Here goes:
“I thought I would share a couple quick thoughts about some recent bloggings. ...
1. “On Boston and the 'inferiority complex’: With regards to your recent post on Tom Keane's article lamenting the fact that Boston is no New York, I can't remember how many times people have said to me how much they ‘adore’ Boston (read that with a French accent!). Keane makes it seem like Boston is such a fuddy-dud place to be. I've lived and traveled in several different countries and people around the world often remark how much they love the city's history, architecture, waterfront, universities, etc. A lot of people really like the city because it has a European feel to it. It's classy, it's charming. This doesn't mean that they don't appreciate New York. I don't think they really even compare the two cities. They are just so different.”
Hub Blog’s response: I’m beginning to think people with a New York inferiority complex are just plain stupid. Those without an inferiority complex -- the ones who recognize that New York is one of the truly great cities of the world, while Boston is one of the truly great cities of America -- are not so stupid precisely because they can accept NYC and Boston for what they are. Next time you hear someone in Boston bemoaning how Boston ain’t NYC, turn to them and say, ‘You are truly stupid!’
2.) “On anti-Americanism: There was an interesting piece in the Ottawa Citizen the other day about the rise of anti-Americanism by Robert Sibley, a member of the paper's editorial board. This was different because it was not another US-bashing article but rather one that expressed dismay at how the ‘anti-Americanism we see now ... seems particularly virulent and widespread.’ The author notes that ‘many nations would rather take out their frustrations on the all-powerful United States, instead of admitting their own shortcomings,’ and even takes a poke at his fellow Canadians: ‘ ... the sanctimoniousness of Canadians who, even as they pretend to be a moral superpower, shelter beneath the US military and economic umbrella.’ Ouch!”
Hub Blog’s response: There are lots of other excellent observations in Sibley’s piece, so read it. ... Don’t fully believe in his American unilateralist argument (though I appreciate his general support) because I don’t believe in Pax America. But his anti-American points are dead on target.
3.) “On the ‘Daisy’ anti-war ad: Did you see an article the other day, in the Times I think, about how Republican businessmen published a letter/ad to express their discomfort with the prospects of going to war? It discusses the point that anti-war advocates are not unpatriotic and are not all left-leaning liberals. These businessmen feel that the Bush administration has not made a strong enough case for going to war.”
Hub Blog’s response: Didn’t see (nor find) the NYT piece/ad, but did notice this story the other day in the Christian Science Monitor. OK, I’ll concede the point: There ARE reasonable people with deep reservations about the coming war with Iraq. Among them, me. I certainly wouldn’t put myself in the “not important” category in the CSM poll cited in the story. I’d put myself in the “somewhat important” category about the need to take on Iraq, though I’m definitely moving toward the “very important” category with each passing minute. The same poll shows that the “not important” opposition to the war has risen from 20 percent to 27 percent. The interesting figure is ‘20 percent.’ I’ll bet, though I can never confirm it, that the 20-percent figure is overwhelmingly made up of hard-core, automatic anti-Bush, blame-America-first members of the “the liberal left or the theological left or the political left.” We all know it to be true. Such people were long ago preprogrammed to their views. The Republican businessmen weren’t. There’s a difference in temperaments that I respect in one group but not the other.
4. “On the NHL: Of course, here in Hull/Ottawa, a lot of the news is on the financial problems of the NHL and the Senators. It's a big deal in any city about to lose a major league team but hockey in Canada is practically sacred so it seems that it would be a real blow, especially the nation's capital, to lose theirs. There are some who feel that the city and hockey fans should try to ‘pitch in’ to bail them out (presumably with taxes, increased prices for tickets, etc.), but then there are others who do not feel too sorry for players with multi-million dollar contracts. There is also the worry about the debt that the city took on as part of the negotiations to get the team here. If the team leaves, the city is stuck with a stadium, the Corel Center, and millions of dollars to pay off -- with little chance of finding another popular revenue-generating tenant like the Senators. It kind of reminds me of a couple years ago when the Patriots were thinking of leaving Foxboro for Hartford or Providence (or even the issue of replacing Fenway Park for the Red Sox) -- different situations, of course, but the fears of losing a beloved team and not being a ‘world class’ city ...”
Hub Blog’s response: The dreaded ‘world class city’ mantra/inferiority complex hits Ottawa.
“I thought I would share a couple quick thoughts about some recent bloggings. ...
1. “On Boston and the 'inferiority complex’: With regards to your recent post on Tom Keane's article lamenting the fact that Boston is no New York, I can't remember how many times people have said to me how much they ‘adore’ Boston (read that with a French accent!). Keane makes it seem like Boston is such a fuddy-dud place to be. I've lived and traveled in several different countries and people around the world often remark how much they love the city's history, architecture, waterfront, universities, etc. A lot of people really like the city because it has a European feel to it. It's classy, it's charming. This doesn't mean that they don't appreciate New York. I don't think they really even compare the two cities. They are just so different.”
Hub Blog’s response: I’m beginning to think people with a New York inferiority complex are just plain stupid. Those without an inferiority complex -- the ones who recognize that New York is one of the truly great cities of the world, while Boston is one of the truly great cities of America -- are not so stupid precisely because they can accept NYC and Boston for what they are. Next time you hear someone in Boston bemoaning how Boston ain’t NYC, turn to them and say, ‘You are truly stupid!’
2.) “On anti-Americanism: There was an interesting piece in the Ottawa Citizen the other day about the rise of anti-Americanism by Robert Sibley, a member of the paper's editorial board. This was different because it was not another US-bashing article but rather one that expressed dismay at how the ‘anti-Americanism we see now ... seems particularly virulent and widespread.’ The author notes that ‘many nations would rather take out their frustrations on the all-powerful United States, instead of admitting their own shortcomings,’ and even takes a poke at his fellow Canadians: ‘ ... the sanctimoniousness of Canadians who, even as they pretend to be a moral superpower, shelter beneath the US military and economic umbrella.’ Ouch!”
Hub Blog’s response: There are lots of other excellent observations in Sibley’s piece, so read it. ... Don’t fully believe in his American unilateralist argument (though I appreciate his general support) because I don’t believe in Pax America. But his anti-American points are dead on target.
3.) “On the ‘Daisy’ anti-war ad: Did you see an article the other day, in the Times I think, about how Republican businessmen published a letter/ad to express their discomfort with the prospects of going to war? It discusses the point that anti-war advocates are not unpatriotic and are not all left-leaning liberals. These businessmen feel that the Bush administration has not made a strong enough case for going to war.”
Hub Blog’s response: Didn’t see (nor find) the NYT piece/ad, but did notice this story the other day in the Christian Science Monitor. OK, I’ll concede the point: There ARE reasonable people with deep reservations about the coming war with Iraq. Among them, me. I certainly wouldn’t put myself in the “not important” category in the CSM poll cited in the story. I’d put myself in the “somewhat important” category about the need to take on Iraq, though I’m definitely moving toward the “very important” category with each passing minute. The same poll shows that the “not important” opposition to the war has risen from 20 percent to 27 percent. The interesting figure is ‘20 percent.’ I’ll bet, though I can never confirm it, that the 20-percent figure is overwhelmingly made up of hard-core, automatic anti-Bush, blame-America-first members of the “the liberal left or the theological left or the political left.” We all know it to be true. Such people were long ago preprogrammed to their views. The Republican businessmen weren’t. There’s a difference in temperaments that I respect in one group but not the other.
4. “On the NHL: Of course, here in Hull/Ottawa, a lot of the news is on the financial problems of the NHL and the Senators. It's a big deal in any city about to lose a major league team but hockey in Canada is practically sacred so it seems that it would be a real blow, especially the nation's capital, to lose theirs. There are some who feel that the city and hockey fans should try to ‘pitch in’ to bail them out (presumably with taxes, increased prices for tickets, etc.), but then there are others who do not feel too sorry for players with multi-million dollar contracts. There is also the worry about the debt that the city took on as part of the negotiations to get the team here. If the team leaves, the city is stuck with a stadium, the Corel Center, and millions of dollars to pay off -- with little chance of finding another popular revenue-generating tenant like the Senators. It kind of reminds me of a couple years ago when the Patriots were thinking of leaving Foxboro for Hartford or Providence (or even the issue of replacing Fenway Park for the Red Sox) -- different situations, of course, but the fears of losing a beloved team and not being a ‘world class’ city ...”
Hub Blog’s response: The dreaded ‘world class city’ mantra/inferiority complex hits Ottawa.
Friday, January 17, 2003
Oh, mayor ...: Spending since he took office, up $600 million. Payroll, up 1,900 (500 of them from Hyde Park). Spending this year, up 2.4 percent. Read all about it. ... Favorite line in the story on why the mayor is reworking his layoff plans: “... sources say the mayor backed away from hasty layoffs after he realized that union contracts require him to follow strict seniority rules -- and get rid of his own people rather than Flynn holdovers.” ...
... Did Tom Keane really write what I think he wrote in the last sentence of his column this morning?
... Did Tom Keane really write what I think he wrote in the last sentence of his column this morning?
Housing crisis? What housing crisis?: Though I can’t access my archives right now to prove it (blogger problems), let my just say: Hub Blog called this one. Faced with a choice between more office space or more housing, the Mayor For Life, the mayor who has bemoaned the lack of housing in the city, the mayor who has attacked developers for not coming through with more housing, the mayor who pushed rent control in response to the housing crisis and denounced anyone who opposed it, the mayor who has said housing was his No. 1 priority, this same mayor came down on the side of ... more office space at Hayward Place. ... Oh, the mayor’s water carriers over at the BRA are saying that, well, yes, OK, uh, the office market sucks right now. And it does. But it will come around in the next cycle, right? Right. It will. But will housing come around? There’s a demand now for housing. There will be demand next year and the year after for housing, too. ... The writing was on the wall on this one a long, long time ago. ... Housing crisis? What housing crisis? ...
Update: Well, maybe I didn't explicitly call it (though I'll keep searching my archives, for I thought I did), but here's what I posted when the mayor's office started tinkering in October with the 'supplemental second stage submission requirements' for the development. As I said, the deal was fixed a long, long time ago. (Note: The item's links to story sources have since expired.)
... Speaking of the BRA, check out this story. Remember all the high hopes for the grand, neighborhood-changing Hotel Commonwealth at Kenmore Square? The one with beautiful pre-construction design sketches and “billed as French Second Empire style, bulk-of-a-block attraction?” Yeah, that one. Well, the tarp was finally pulled off the exterior, revealing a ... a ‘Western saloon stagefront,’ according to Robert Kroin, chief urban design architect for the BRA. ... ''It should have occurred to us, `Why is the building wrapped all summer?''' said BRA spokeswoman Susan Elsbree. ''They didn't want us to see it.'' ... Says Frank Keefe, one of the developers: ''There are legitimate issues. We're not happy with the color.” Frank, it’s not just the color.
Update: Well, maybe I didn't explicitly call it (though I'll keep searching my archives, for I thought I did), but here's what I posted when the mayor's office started tinkering in October with the 'supplemental second stage submission requirements' for the development. As I said, the deal was fixed a long, long time ago. (Note: The item's links to story sources have since expired.)
... Speaking of the BRA, check out this story. Remember all the high hopes for the grand, neighborhood-changing Hotel Commonwealth at Kenmore Square? The one with beautiful pre-construction design sketches and “billed as French Second Empire style, bulk-of-a-block attraction?” Yeah, that one. Well, the tarp was finally pulled off the exterior, revealing a ... a ‘Western saloon stagefront,’ according to Robert Kroin, chief urban design architect for the BRA. ... ''It should have occurred to us, `Why is the building wrapped all summer?''' said BRA spokeswoman Susan Elsbree. ''They didn't want us to see it.'' ... Says Frank Keefe, one of the developers: ''There are legitimate issues. We're not happy with the color.” Frank, it’s not just the color.
The crackdown begins: The amazing thing about this Vatican document is that you know it’s related to the church’s sex-abuse scandals. It’s not hard to picture the big Vatican honchos huddling together in Rome, looking at all the newspaper clippings coming out of America about their pervert priests, seething and thinking, “This is outrageous. They’re out of control. We have to do something. The laity is starting to criticize us. The problem is we haven’t been strict enough with the laity and their leaders.” ... Andrew Sullivan put it in a more sophisticated way.
Thursday, January 16, 2003
'Lights, camera, auction': A 110-acre film and television production site at the old Fore River Shipyard? It's a nice dream. Fascinating idea. Great for the area's art and film industries. But it ain't going to happen.
Update 1-17-03 -- And it didn't happen.
Update 1-17-03 -- And it didn't happen.
More on that quote (and spelling of a last name): Dan Kennedy has more on the ‘That Kennedy quote’ subject I wrote about the other day. ... Embarrassing correction: It appears in my item the other day I misspelled Charlie’s last name throughout. It’s ‘Pierce.’ Could have sworn I checked the spelling a couple of times. Anyway, my apologies.
‘The Daisy ad’: Rock bottom. That’s where the antiwar movement just landed. With money raised over the Internet at MoveOn.org, a new antiwar TV ad is about to air that shows a “little girl pulling petals off a daisy and ends with a mushroom cloud.” Sound familiar? Of course. It’s a knockoff of the ‘infamous’ (the Globe’s appropriate word, not mine) 1964 ad campaign by Lyndon B. Johnson against Republican Barry Goldwater, whose election, the '64 ad suggested, would led to the end of the world. From the Globe article: “That (LBJ) ad ran only once before being pulled, but it has been rerun countless times as a classic of negative political advertising.” ... Yep, a classic of negative political advertising. ... It's bad enough the antiwar movement is mired in '60s nostalgia -- the same slogans, signs, clothes. Now they're lifting TV ads from the '60s. ... From one of the activists pushing the ad: ''We felt like we're in a very similar situation right now. With the prospect of this war in Iraq, we are playing with matches in a tinderbox.'' Sounds like he assumes Saddam already has nuclear and other mass-destruction weapons. So why do these people keep harping in favor of giving weapons inspections more time? Doesn’t make sense. Then again, not much of what they say makes sense. ... Read to the end. There’s a classic line from a peace activist over at the National Council of Churches arguing, typically, that the antiwar movement is “not just the liberal left or the theological left or the political left that is organizing.” ...‘Not just.’
Wednesday, January 15, 2003
Budget hysteria and reality: After the shouting and dire warnings, it seems like the good Commonwealth is finally getting down to tackling the state’s budget deficit. The House has passed a sensible bill giving Mitt emergency powers to cut spending, within sensible limits and within a sensible time frame. The Senate is soon expected to pass a similar bill. .... Meanwhile, the Globe looked at the history of local aid in the ‘90s and found ... and found it dramatically increased in the ‘90s. Surprise, surprise. And it also found that a lot of communities -- but not all -- had set aside cash reserves during the ‘90s in anticipation of a downturn. Even the city of Boston has a cash reserve of some sort, though it’s unclear whether the mayor will reveal its true size and whether he will use its funds to offset state cuts. (Curious point: the People’s Republic of Cambridge has actually managed its budget quite wisely over the years, unlike other cities and towns, and is in good shape. Leaders there, who are rightly proud of their budget management, say they shouldn’t be hit harder in local aid cuts just because they were fiscally smart and set aside a larger reserve. They’re right, of course. No ‘means testing’ in local aid cuts, please. Don’t reward the big ‘90s spenders, etc.) ... Scot Lehigh writes a great ‘Chicken Little’ column about local aid, the increase in local spending over the past decade, the reserves, how a 5 percent cut in state aid will still keep state assistance well above 2000 (pre-recession) levels. ... The Globe gently takes Mayor Menino to task for his hyperbole (my words, not the Globe’s). ...
... And, so, where does this leave us? It means we’re emerging from the “People will die!” stage of the budget debate and entering the more serious, hard phase of actual budget negotiations and realistic proposals for solutions. More cuts will be necessary. More revenue will be necessary. More streamlining and restructuring have to be implemented.
... And, so, where does this leave us? It means we’re emerging from the “People will die!” stage of the budget debate and entering the more serious, hard phase of actual budget negotiations and realistic proposals for solutions. More cuts will be necessary. More revenue will be necessary. More streamlining and restructuring have to be implemented.
‘Fix it first’: A good nuts-and-bolts approach by the Romney administration regarding fixing our infrastructure. Needs to be done. However, Hub Blog has been conducting an informal survey of friends’ views on raising the state’s gasoline tax in order to pay for an aggressive expansion of our transportation system, specifically expanding the rail and subway systems. Not one -- repeat: not one -- person objected to the idea. (* Note: A Hub Blog survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 50 points.) Mitt may have made a no-new-taxes pledge on the deficit (which he’s now in the act of artfully dodging), but he never made a no-new-taxes pledge in other areas of state spending. Because most everyone loves choo-choo trains and has a Tonka Truck gene imbedded in them, Hub Blog thinks my transit idea would be a popular and beneficial way to show Mitt isn't a one-dimensional cut, cut, cut pol and knows how to look ahead.
A reader, Matt, responds:
"... I think you should champion your ‘no reforms, no new taxes' approach when it comes to funding big capital projects for the T. That place is a cesspool of mismanagement and waste. They should see their capital projects slashed to the bone until they can SUBSTANTIALLY reduce the percentage of operating expenses subsidized by the state."
Hub Blog's response:
Two points: 1.) Matt isn't a supporter of Hub Blog's idea, showing the Hub Blog survey's margin of error was accurate. 2.) Agree 100 percent that we need to apply the 'No reforms, no new taxes' rule to any gasoline tax/transit plan. Embarrassed I neglected to cite it. But there is indeed a need and, I would assert, survey aside, support for an aggressive expansion of the commuter rail and subway systems. So, Mitt, start reforming ...
A reader, Matt, responds:
"... I think you should champion your ‘no reforms, no new taxes' approach when it comes to funding big capital projects for the T. That place is a cesspool of mismanagement and waste. They should see their capital projects slashed to the bone until they can SUBSTANTIALLY reduce the percentage of operating expenses subsidized by the state."
Hub Blog's response:
Two points: 1.) Matt isn't a supporter of Hub Blog's idea, showing the Hub Blog survey's margin of error was accurate. 2.) Agree 100 percent that we need to apply the 'No reforms, no new taxes' rule to any gasoline tax/transit plan. Embarrassed I neglected to cite it. But there is indeed a need and, I would assert, survey aside, support for an aggressive expansion of the commuter rail and subway systems. So, Mitt, start reforming ...
NPR and bias: Hub Blog likes NPR, despite its flaws, and generally doesn’t like one-cause interest groups putting pressure on media outlets to make their coverage more biased in their favor. (Isn’t that what the critics of NPR are asking for? C'mon, admit it.) Mark Jurkowitz seems to think the NPR-WBUR folks aren’t leveling with the critics who say NPR’s coverage of the Middle East is biased against Israel. Agree with Mark about the NPR-WBUR honchos not leveling with critics, but for different reasons. This is what they should tell critics but never will because it would be so outrageously honest for a media organization to admit:
“Listen, objectivity is a noble goal to strive for, but it’s rarely, if ever, achieved. Bias does creep into reporting. It’s our job, as editors and producers, to try to weed out those biases, when possible, but we won’t always succeed. Have some, if not many, of our reports been biased against Israel? If you believe as we do that true objectivity is unattainable, the answer is obviously, ‘Yes.’ We apologize for that. We’ll try to do better, without letting the pendulum swing too much in the opposite direction. We also recognize that the BBC, a European-run operation, has a distinctly European perspective on world events, obviously. As we all know, the European media has a much different perspective on the Middle East and Israel than Americans. They also pronounce ‘schedule’ by saying ‘ched -shooh-well.’ Very annoying. But we need the BBC, warts and all. They provide us with very popular programming that a lot of other listeners find fascinating for its non-American perspectives on a wide range of issues. We’re on guard for European biases against Israel, but we can’t and won’t edit or spike the BBC’s material on the Middle East. We don’t have the resources to do so even if we wanted, which we don’t. So we’ll leave you, in summary, with a few thoughts: A.) We’ll try harder to be fair and balanced. B.) We won’t always succeed but it won’t be for lack of trying and C.) You have a responsibility, too, to admit that you love Israel very much, you’re understandably emotional about it, and you’ll sometimes hear biases where others don’t. D.) And, if you don't like what we produce, take your damn money and shove it. We’re not going to grovel before you again. We're just trying to level with you. Thank you.”
“Listen, objectivity is a noble goal to strive for, but it’s rarely, if ever, achieved. Bias does creep into reporting. It’s our job, as editors and producers, to try to weed out those biases, when possible, but we won’t always succeed. Have some, if not many, of our reports been biased against Israel? If you believe as we do that true objectivity is unattainable, the answer is obviously, ‘Yes.’ We apologize for that. We’ll try to do better, without letting the pendulum swing too much in the opposite direction. We also recognize that the BBC, a European-run operation, has a distinctly European perspective on world events, obviously. As we all know, the European media has a much different perspective on the Middle East and Israel than Americans. They also pronounce ‘schedule’ by saying ‘ched -shooh-well.’ Very annoying. But we need the BBC, warts and all. They provide us with very popular programming that a lot of other listeners find fascinating for its non-American perspectives on a wide range of issues. We’re on guard for European biases against Israel, but we can’t and won’t edit or spike the BBC’s material on the Middle East. We don’t have the resources to do so even if we wanted, which we don’t. So we’ll leave you, in summary, with a few thoughts: A.) We’ll try harder to be fair and balanced. B.) We won’t always succeed but it won’t be for lack of trying and C.) You have a responsibility, too, to admit that you love Israel very much, you’re understandably emotional about it, and you’ll sometimes hear biases where others don’t. D.) And, if you don't like what we produce, take your damn money and shove it. We’re not going to grovel before you again. We're just trying to level with you. Thank you.”
Tuesday, January 14, 2003
‘The Real State of the Union’: Only today did I receive my latest print copy of the new Atlantic Monthly, but Reader No. 1 already has this report:
“Highly recommended: the new issue of ATLANTIC MONTHLY, particularly the ‘Real State of the Union’ mini-articles which remind me of the NEW REPUBLIC's glory days of creative political thinking... and a trio of different articles on sexual attitudes and behaviors in America today. This is a great magazine and it's put together in Boston!”
Great. Looks like plenty of good leisurely reading for the next week. More later.
“Highly recommended: the new issue of ATLANTIC MONTHLY, particularly the ‘Real State of the Union’ mini-articles which remind me of the NEW REPUBLIC's glory days of creative political thinking... and a trio of different articles on sexual attitudes and behaviors in America today. This is a great magazine and it's put together in Boston!”
Great. Looks like plenty of good leisurely reading for the next week. More later.
‘I've grown up a lot’: Any presidential candidate who grovels like this and can say things like the following is probably unfit to be president. U.S. Sen. John Kerry to Globe columnist Brian McGrory: ''I think I've changed. ... I think I've grown up a lot. I think I'm a better politician today than I used to be. I learned it's more about people than issues, it's about relationships. ... The last 10 years, I hope it's been a great growth period. I hope, I hope, people tell you I'm a lot more approachable, that I'm a lot calmer.''... Though you could tell McGrory probably wanted to slap Kerry around during the interview (sort of like Vito Corleone slapping around his singer godson, shouting, ‘Be a man!’), I think McGrory was way too nice and diplomatic at the end.
‘In need of radical reform’: Here’s the Globe story and the Herald story on the final committee report on our dear, dear local FBI office. Ah, the $15,000 payment/lunch reimbursement/hush money/bribe (or whatever it was). What can you say? Well, let’s give U.S. Rep. William Delahunt a chance of summing it up: ''There's substantial evidence, overwhelming evidence, not just from the efforts of this particular committee, that the FBI is in need of radical reform.'' ... Kind of makes you believe in the conspiracy theories that the FBI is, in fact, doing squat to capture Whitey. ... We have a new FBI boss here in town. Sounds like he’ll fit right in. ... Alex Beam gets in the mind of Whitey and writes off a letter to his persecuted brother.
‘This land is your land, this land is my land, from ....’: Hey, remember: The permanent bureaucracy thinks it’s their state government, not ours. Why not just sell them the Statehouse? ... Before it disappears, check out the front-page photo of Tommy and The Trav. A classic. ‘This land is your land, this land is my land, from ...’
It’s the expansion, stupid: The NHL is just screwed up. Maybe the economy, yes, played a role in the recent bankruptcy filings by two of its teams. Maybe the teams are overvalued. Maybe other professional sports leagues are also screwed up. But the NHL is really screwed up, and I firmly believe it’s partly or largely because of the league’s incredibly stupid expansion and dilution of its product. Look at the team standings here and here. Columbus, Carolina, Nashville, San Jose, Florida, Tampa Bay, Anaheim. In the NHL?
‘That Kennedy Quote’: Last week, John Ellis created a small sensation within the blogosphere when he posted this quote from a recent Boston Globe Sunday Magazine story on Ted Kennedy (a profile I previously hadn’t read.) Alone by itself, the quote looks pretty damning, as if the author was trying to excuse Mary Jo Kopechne’s death by pointing out Kennedy’s stellar
legislative accomplishments since the tragedy. Yesterday, though, Ellis posted a lengthy rebuttal by a colleague of the story’s author, Charles Pearce. Suddenly, the damning quote doesn’t look so damning. Not clear if Ellis, by running the rebuttal, is acknowledging he was wrong or not for taking the quote out of context. But he deserves credit for running such a lengthy rebuttal and letting you decide. ... Personally, I think it’s clear -- after reading the entire article this morning -- that ‘that Kennedy quote’ was taken out of context or, at the least, left a bad impression about Pearce’s intent. The entire thrust of the article is that Kennedy, after decades of wrapping himself in the Camelot myth and engaging in self-destructive behavior, has emerged to become, well, just himself, warts and all, love him or hate him, agree with his politics or disagree. The article was both sad and beautiful in its tone. Here’s the key graf:
“And there he is, rid of most of that now, 70 years old and 40 years a senator, and he stands for all the curdled glory, but most of all, for himself: Legislative lion and failed dauphin; dark prince and heir apparent; Capitol Hill grind and Palm Beach sybarite, talisman, and bogeyman; Camelot and Dallas and Los Angeles and Chappaquiddick. And then you realize the simple fact that he's not a Kennedy anymore, not in the fully mythological sense, anyway, and not as the sum total of his identity. He is the patriarch of a family, no longer of the family, a caretaker of wounded young adults, and not of a gaggle of miscreant royalty.”
As for the controversial quote, its stylistic technique and placement was a bit confusing. Had to reread it a couple of times to make sure. Can understand how some might have honestly misinterpreted it. But, again, it’s pretty clear, both before and after the quote, that Pearce was emphasizing how Kennedy could never escape the awful memory of Mary Jo Kopechne and Chappaquiddick, no matter how hard he tries. He will never live it down. Never. And Kennedy knows that. Pearce is consistently (and fairly) brutal in bringing up Chappaquiddick, noting how if Kennedy wasn’t a Kennedy and truly just an Edward Moore, he’d have gone to jail. ... Actually, I think Pearce’s profile was one of the best I’ve read on Ted Kennedy in a long, long time. Should have read it last week when Dan Kennedy (no relation to the good senator) recommended it. ... Next issue!
John Ellis responds in an email:
“I had no problem with Pearce's piece about EMK, which seemed derivative of Garry Wills' ‘Kennedy Imprisonment,’ with a liberal spin (big government programs which Teddy fights for to help ‘people’). But I thought the Globe editors should have x-ed out the ‘Kennedy legislation would have comforted Mary Jo in her old age’ bit. I thought it was border-line obscene. Mary Jo would also have been comforted by Jesse Helms's votes on Social Security. It's a spurious line of reasoning.
“That said, the guy did take the time to write and he stood up for his pal and his letter was well-written, so I published it in full.”
legislative accomplishments since the tragedy. Yesterday, though, Ellis posted a lengthy rebuttal by a colleague of the story’s author, Charles Pearce. Suddenly, the damning quote doesn’t look so damning. Not clear if Ellis, by running the rebuttal, is acknowledging he was wrong or not for taking the quote out of context. But he deserves credit for running such a lengthy rebuttal and letting you decide. ... Personally, I think it’s clear -- after reading the entire article this morning -- that ‘that Kennedy quote’ was taken out of context or, at the least, left a bad impression about Pearce’s intent. The entire thrust of the article is that Kennedy, after decades of wrapping himself in the Camelot myth and engaging in self-destructive behavior, has emerged to become, well, just himself, warts and all, love him or hate him, agree with his politics or disagree. The article was both sad and beautiful in its tone. Here’s the key graf:
“And there he is, rid of most of that now, 70 years old and 40 years a senator, and he stands for all the curdled glory, but most of all, for himself: Legislative lion and failed dauphin; dark prince and heir apparent; Capitol Hill grind and Palm Beach sybarite, talisman, and bogeyman; Camelot and Dallas and Los Angeles and Chappaquiddick. And then you realize the simple fact that he's not a Kennedy anymore, not in the fully mythological sense, anyway, and not as the sum total of his identity. He is the patriarch of a family, no longer of the family, a caretaker of wounded young adults, and not of a gaggle of miscreant royalty.”
As for the controversial quote, its stylistic technique and placement was a bit confusing. Had to reread it a couple of times to make sure. Can understand how some might have honestly misinterpreted it. But, again, it’s pretty clear, both before and after the quote, that Pearce was emphasizing how Kennedy could never escape the awful memory of Mary Jo Kopechne and Chappaquiddick, no matter how hard he tries. He will never live it down. Never. And Kennedy knows that. Pearce is consistently (and fairly) brutal in bringing up Chappaquiddick, noting how if Kennedy wasn’t a Kennedy and truly just an Edward Moore, he’d have gone to jail. ... Actually, I think Pearce’s profile was one of the best I’ve read on Ted Kennedy in a long, long time. Should have read it last week when Dan Kennedy (no relation to the good senator) recommended it. ... Next issue!
John Ellis responds in an email:
“I had no problem with Pearce's piece about EMK, which seemed derivative of Garry Wills' ‘Kennedy Imprisonment,’ with a liberal spin (big government programs which Teddy fights for to help ‘people’). But I thought the Globe editors should have x-ed out the ‘Kennedy legislation would have comforted Mary Jo in her old age’ bit. I thought it was border-line obscene. Mary Jo would also have been comforted by Jesse Helms's votes on Social Security. It's a spurious line of reasoning.
“That said, the guy did take the time to write and he stood up for his pal and his letter was well-written, so I published it in full.”
Appeasing terrorists: Writing in the Christian Science Monitor, Brenda Shaffer, a research director at Harvard's Caspian Studies Program at the Kennedy School of Government, says we’re spending too much time appeasing the bullies and not enough time assisting and rewarding the friendlier Muslim countries, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, for voluntarily giving up their weapons of mass destruction and helping out in the war. She’s right, of course.
Monday, January 13, 2003
I have sinned: I’m an environmental sinner. ...
... No, wait, I’m not a sinner because I don’t own an SUV and, even if I did, it wouldn’t matter, according to Cathy Young, who takes on the righteous anti-SUV and anti-drug ad campaigns. Cathy: “While I don't drive an SUV, I have little sympathy for anti-SUV rhetoric which often substitutes a quasi-religious zeal to denounce America's sins of excessive consumption for facts and reasoned analysis.” ... I have little sympathy for them, too. The critics are puritanical pains. But I still hate SUVs because A.) I can’t afford one and B.) Can’t stand driving into a suburban shopping-mall parking lot and seeing multi-ton tanks driven by tiny blonde moms and/or rugged outdoorsy lawyer dads. It grates. But where were we? Ah. ...
Sin, sin, sin. It’s everywhere! Everyone is talking about it!
... Larry Paquette, a sourcing manager for a manufacturing company in Fresno, Calif., feels like he’s being accused of the sin of being affluent -- and he ain’t taking it no more! What prompted Paquette to write this op-ed and what prompted the Globe to run it, I don’t know. But it’s a classic angry gem. Larry: “My sin is that I am in the financial top 10 percent of the country - those making $100,000 or more - the 35 percent tax bracket, a member of the so-called rich. So it is much easier to paint a picture of me with black heart and ice in my veins, cake crumbs all about, as I grow fat on the backs of the downtrodden. However, I feel no need to defend my position. Over the years I have worked hard and earned every dollar of the obscene wealth I am accused of hoarding.” ...
.... See? Everywhere you go these days it’s sin, sin, sin.
There are now more people living in sin than ever in Boston.
... And when they’re not living in sin, they’re engaging in what some would consider sinful behavior at swingers' clubs. Some think it’s groovy, but others think it’s, well, a sin. (Don’t you just love the phrase ‘swingers' club’? It’s such a ... 'Rowan and Martin’s Laugh In' term. Had no idea people were still using it.)
And now the chicks are being enticed by greedy capitalists into enjoying the sinful pleasure of war. Sort of. With a twist. But it's still war toys.
Sin. So depressing. Must be rooted out at all costs. Hub Blog’s new mission: Fight sin.
... No, wait, I’m not a sinner because I don’t own an SUV and, even if I did, it wouldn’t matter, according to Cathy Young, who takes on the righteous anti-SUV and anti-drug ad campaigns. Cathy: “While I don't drive an SUV, I have little sympathy for anti-SUV rhetoric which often substitutes a quasi-religious zeal to denounce America's sins of excessive consumption for facts and reasoned analysis.” ... I have little sympathy for them, too. The critics are puritanical pains. But I still hate SUVs because A.) I can’t afford one and B.) Can’t stand driving into a suburban shopping-mall parking lot and seeing multi-ton tanks driven by tiny blonde moms and/or rugged outdoorsy lawyer dads. It grates. But where were we? Ah. ...
Sin, sin, sin. It’s everywhere! Everyone is talking about it!
... Larry Paquette, a sourcing manager for a manufacturing company in Fresno, Calif., feels like he’s being accused of the sin of being affluent -- and he ain’t taking it no more! What prompted Paquette to write this op-ed and what prompted the Globe to run it, I don’t know. But it’s a classic angry gem. Larry: “My sin is that I am in the financial top 10 percent of the country - those making $100,000 or more - the 35 percent tax bracket, a member of the so-called rich. So it is much easier to paint a picture of me with black heart and ice in my veins, cake crumbs all about, as I grow fat on the backs of the downtrodden. However, I feel no need to defend my position. Over the years I have worked hard and earned every dollar of the obscene wealth I am accused of hoarding.” ...
.... See? Everywhere you go these days it’s sin, sin, sin.
There are now more people living in sin than ever in Boston.
... And when they’re not living in sin, they’re engaging in what some would consider sinful behavior at swingers' clubs. Some think it’s groovy, but others think it’s, well, a sin. (Don’t you just love the phrase ‘swingers' club’? It’s such a ... 'Rowan and Martin’s Laugh In' term. Had no idea people were still using it.)
And now the chicks are being enticed by greedy capitalists into enjoying the sinful pleasure of war. Sort of. With a twist. But it's still war toys.
Sin. So depressing. Must be rooted out at all costs. Hub Blog’s new mission: Fight sin.
Salary distraction: Adrian Walker sums it up well. What a minor issue. ...
... and Cosmo Macero is back writing for the Herald.
... and Cosmo Macero is back writing for the Herald.
Reader No. 1 on Will McDonough:
“Another of Boston's local legends departs the scene, I almost said topples, but McDonough was a tough guy. His penultimate column last week was a great example of everything good and infuriating about him: the NFL previews that made you feel you knew the players as well as the insiders describing them... and the gratuitous attack on Larry Lucchino, an outsider to the city, surely informed more by personal issues than any substance.
“For this reader, the personal agendas which crept into so many columns made it hard to accept the McDonough's image as the columnist who told the hard truth. He never mailed it in, but he sure sounded the same themes. As a man of the people, why did he have less sympathy for millionaire athletes who wanted to better their lot in life (‘the Texas Con Man,’ ‘Mo Money’) than, most of the time, for the average millionaire owner? (With a few notable exceptions, eg Dan Snyder -- and his series of anecdotes this past fall about alleged heavy-handed behavior by Gillette Stadium security.) The lack of loyalty displayed by free agents is surely the answer, but loyalty is a two way street in business, and in the business of sports. Maybe the most fascinating thing about McDonough's highly personal journalism is how a man for whom loyalty was the fundamental human quality could function at such a high level, and with apparent comfort, in businesses like professional sports where only loyalty to winning really matters? (Of course, at the root of the Gillette Stadium story is loyalty: 20-year-season-ticket-holders who suffered through crappy teams on freezing aluminum benches tossed out of new comfortable seats in these good times for allegedly minor infractions...) Well, we'll miss him, for all of these reasons.”
“Another of Boston's local legends departs the scene, I almost said topples, but McDonough was a tough guy. His penultimate column last week was a great example of everything good and infuriating about him: the NFL previews that made you feel you knew the players as well as the insiders describing them... and the gratuitous attack on Larry Lucchino, an outsider to the city, surely informed more by personal issues than any substance.
“For this reader, the personal agendas which crept into so many columns made it hard to accept the McDonough's image as the columnist who told the hard truth. He never mailed it in, but he sure sounded the same themes. As a man of the people, why did he have less sympathy for millionaire athletes who wanted to better their lot in life (‘the Texas Con Man,’ ‘Mo Money’) than, most of the time, for the average millionaire owner? (With a few notable exceptions, eg Dan Snyder -- and his series of anecdotes this past fall about alleged heavy-handed behavior by Gillette Stadium security.) The lack of loyalty displayed by free agents is surely the answer, but loyalty is a two way street in business, and in the business of sports. Maybe the most fascinating thing about McDonough's highly personal journalism is how a man for whom loyalty was the fundamental human quality could function at such a high level, and with apparent comfort, in businesses like professional sports where only loyalty to winning really matters? (Of course, at the root of the Gillette Stadium story is loyalty: 20-year-season-ticket-holders who suffered through crappy teams on freezing aluminum benches tossed out of new comfortable seats in these good times for allegedly minor infractions...) Well, we'll miss him, for all of these reasons.”
Sunday, January 12, 2003
Budget war, the new front: Ah, so he’s going to try the old ‘fees-aren’t-taxes’ trick to get around his no-new-taxes pledge. Well, all I can say is: These are taxes -- and that’s fine. The no-new-taxes pledge was dumb and hurting Mitt’s position in the budget battle by focusing too much attention on a pledge he obviously can’t/couldn’t hold. Bottom line on all this: By giving a little on fees/taxes, Mitt, whether he knows it or not, is paradoxically giving himself more room to cut and restructure. He’s defanging his harshest critics, whose relentless call for “taxes, taxes, taxes” has now been met. He’s giving them what they said they wanted. Now what? Time to cut, cut, cut, restructure, restructure, restructure. ...
... The only thing surprising about this move is its timing (not its inevitability). Mitt definitely has a mandate to A.) Cut spending. B.) Reform state government and C.) Hold the line on taxes within reasonable limits. If he falters on A.) and B.) but succeeds in only increasing fees and allowing local governments to increase taxes, he’s done. Finis. Cooked. Over. There are high expectations for this governor, as the Globe’s Joanna Weiss makes clear this morning in a Why-The-Masses-Like-the-CEO-Boy Scout story. There’s widespread support for him and a desire to see him succeed on his terms, not on Tommy or The Trav’s terms. Personally, I thought he would do a little more of A.) and B.) before conceding on small fee/tax increases. So the trick for Mitt is this: How does he sell this latest tactic to those admirers in Weiss’ story? Mitt’s got to show (not say) he’s serious about cutting and restructuring state government. Fast. He’s got to go to the mat on these items. If he does (and succeeds), people will overlook the ‘fee increases.’ Mark my words. ...
... As for letting local governments raise taxes, I do NOT think that’s a violation of his pledge. If locals want to raise their own taxes, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed. Let ‘em hang themselves. They’ve been dodging their own responsibilities and hoping the state would bail them out. Mitt is obviously serious about cutting local aid to balance the state’s books, so it’s put-up-or-shut-up time for these pols. One concern, as expressed by Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, is giving cities and towns ‘absolute’ powers to tax. Widmer: ``It's probably important to be careful about how widely the door's opened.” No kidding.
Reader No. 1 responds: “I just read the Howie Carr column and think you really should link to it, as he makes some acute social observations about municipal employment and tax increases in tony towns that are indispensable to understanding the present Massachusetts social condition. (EG teachers who can't afford to live in the towns where they work... he's describing my town.)"
Hub Blog’s response: Your wish is my command. Here’s Howie’s column.
... The only thing surprising about this move is its timing (not its inevitability). Mitt definitely has a mandate to A.) Cut spending. B.) Reform state government and C.) Hold the line on taxes within reasonable limits. If he falters on A.) and B.) but succeeds in only increasing fees and allowing local governments to increase taxes, he’s done. Finis. Cooked. Over. There are high expectations for this governor, as the Globe’s Joanna Weiss makes clear this morning in a Why-The-Masses-Like-the-CEO-Boy Scout story. There’s widespread support for him and a desire to see him succeed on his terms, not on Tommy or The Trav’s terms. Personally, I thought he would do a little more of A.) and B.) before conceding on small fee/tax increases. So the trick for Mitt is this: How does he sell this latest tactic to those admirers in Weiss’ story? Mitt’s got to show (not say) he’s serious about cutting and restructuring state government. Fast. He’s got to go to the mat on these items. If he does (and succeeds), people will overlook the ‘fee increases.’ Mark my words. ...
... As for letting local governments raise taxes, I do NOT think that’s a violation of his pledge. If locals want to raise their own taxes, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed. Let ‘em hang themselves. They’ve been dodging their own responsibilities and hoping the state would bail them out. Mitt is obviously serious about cutting local aid to balance the state’s books, so it’s put-up-or-shut-up time for these pols. One concern, as expressed by Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, is giving cities and towns ‘absolute’ powers to tax. Widmer: ``It's probably important to be careful about how widely the door's opened.” No kidding.
Reader No. 1 responds: “I just read the Howie Carr column and think you really should link to it, as he makes some acute social observations about municipal employment and tax increases in tony towns that are indispensable to understanding the present Massachusetts social condition. (EG teachers who can't afford to live in the towns where they work... he's describing my town.)"
Hub Blog’s response: Your wish is my command. Here’s Howie’s column.
BK on the budget and Mitt: BK, a regular reader of Hub Blog, wrote in to say some kind things about the site. Appreciate it very much. But that’s not why I’m going to run most of the letter he sent me. Read it. A lot of fascinating observations about Mitt and the boys. Note: BK wrote his letter before the Herald’s story this morning on Mitt’s new position on fees. Would like to hear BK’s thoughts on that development. But here goes with the letter:
“I guess I've become a regular reader so I feel entitled to tell you that the best thematic insight running throughout your blog is that you're writing about how deeply uncomfortable both Beacon Hill and the Boston Media are with Mitt Romney's analytical and entrepreneurial approaches so far ...
“I thought you lined up too quickly with Scot Lehigh's ‘take’ (and it wasn't much more than that) on Romney's inaugural address. Proof of its effectiveness as a conceptual departure from Beacon Hill business-as-usual was in the visual pudding of observing Finneran's and Travaligni's faces as -- sitting right behind Romney as he spoke -- they realized that he was bringing a new vocabulary to bear on their ‘business.’ Their faces registered first uncomprehending bewilderment of his conceptual framework, then fear of his formidable command and focus on the costs and sinecures of their careerism, and, finally, contemptuous disdain for Romney's clear-eyed determination to think through and effect large, ambitious, and ‘foundational’ improvements to Massachusetts’ governing institutions, programs, and practices, and to the government's effect on the state's business ecology.
“If Romney is both so naive, so insulated, and so ‘white,’ why are they so rattled? Nobody else is in on the hunt on this thematic development -- except you.”
“I guess I've become a regular reader so I feel entitled to tell you that the best thematic insight running throughout your blog is that you're writing about how deeply uncomfortable both Beacon Hill and the Boston Media are with Mitt Romney's analytical and entrepreneurial approaches so far ...
“I thought you lined up too quickly with Scot Lehigh's ‘take’ (and it wasn't much more than that) on Romney's inaugural address. Proof of its effectiveness as a conceptual departure from Beacon Hill business-as-usual was in the visual pudding of observing Finneran's and Travaligni's faces as -- sitting right behind Romney as he spoke -- they realized that he was bringing a new vocabulary to bear on their ‘business.’ Their faces registered first uncomprehending bewilderment of his conceptual framework, then fear of his formidable command and focus on the costs and sinecures of their careerism, and, finally, contemptuous disdain for Romney's clear-eyed determination to think through and effect large, ambitious, and ‘foundational’ improvements to Massachusetts’ governing institutions, programs, and practices, and to the government's effect on the state's business ecology.
“If Romney is both so naive, so insulated, and so ‘white,’ why are they so rattled? Nobody else is in on the hunt on this thematic development -- except you.”
Kids, buses and sex: Margery Eagan ventures into territory where no local columnist has gone before.
The death penalty, good-bye: Veering off of Hub-related politics and issues, Illinois Gov. George Ryan yesterday emptied out that state’s death row, saying he could no longer be sure whether innocent men would be executed. (Previously, thirteen death-row inmates in Illinois were proven not to be guilty, thanks to the investigative work of journalism students. Journalism students!) ... Now, as regular readers of Hub Blog know, I used to be a Statehouse reporter in Illinois and know George well. George is an old-school, rural, gruff, back-slapping, patronage-loving pol from a different era and who’s probably going to get indicted for some drivers-license scandal. But he’s genuine. The real thing. When he says something is screwed up, he means it. More than anything else, the death-row controversy in Illinois has changed my view on the death penalty. I’m against it now. I’m not one of those holier-than-thou death-penalty opponents who intone, with a serious-sounding voice like they’re auditioning for NPR, that the “state has no right to take a life.” Actually, the state DOES have the justified right and might to take lives. Does it all the time -- in wars, in shoot outs between cops and bad guys, in hanging Nazis, etc. But allowing innocent men to die because of a legal system’s monumental ineptness? No.
‘Urban Scrawl’: Veering back to Hub-related issues, Robert Campbell writes about Boston’s conservative, red-bricks architecture. As the city’s official Sidewalk Superintendent, I agree with the Pulitzer prize-winning Campbell on many points (bet he’s all excited now and showing this site to relatives) but disagree with him on something he didn’t address: Citizens of a community, region or country are often proud of their local architectural ambiance (assuming it was done right in the first place) and leery of third-rate bourgeois architects who like to shock the bourgeois. How tiring. Would love to see a column by Campbell on what he thinks are failed attempts at the ‘new’ and why. Bet a few of them will have something to do with ‘not fitting in’ or 'trying too hard' to be different. It usually does. Failure isn't always tied to keeping within tradition. Sometimes it's tied to the complete opposite.
Reader Adam Gaffin responds: “For the most part, I found Campbell’s piece a lot less ridiculous than promised by the headline and cover -- more of a measured survey of the tension between the old and the new in Boston architecture. Still, I was saddened to see all the snide little comments that show that, at heart, Campbell really is an elitist snob who wishes the masses would just shut the hell up and let architects remake the city.
“Particularly obnoxious/funny was Campbell delving into a little class warfare: ‘The poor want change. Those who are better off, perhaps, want architecture to reassure them of the stability of their world. They may even ask it to offer false roots, as if living in an old-looking house proves you come from an old family.’ ... Yes, I'm sure people on welfare think City Hall is every bit the masterpiece Campbell and his pals think! Left completely unsaid in the piece was why we poor schlumps should just go along with all this -- he seems to think it's a given that Design is foremost in all our minds, and so doesn't really explain why, exactly, it's important to let Frank Gehry remake Boston, because it goes without saying that doing so would make Boston World Class, extend our lifespans, help researchers cure cancer, etc.”
Update 2:05 p.m. -- Adam has some other new, similar and identical comments over at Boston Online.
Reader Adam Gaffin responds: “For the most part, I found Campbell’s piece a lot less ridiculous than promised by the headline and cover -- more of a measured survey of the tension between the old and the new in Boston architecture. Still, I was saddened to see all the snide little comments that show that, at heart, Campbell really is an elitist snob who wishes the masses would just shut the hell up and let architects remake the city.
“Particularly obnoxious/funny was Campbell delving into a little class warfare: ‘The poor want change. Those who are better off, perhaps, want architecture to reassure them of the stability of their world. They may even ask it to offer false roots, as if living in an old-looking house proves you come from an old family.’ ... Yes, I'm sure people on welfare think City Hall is every bit the masterpiece Campbell and his pals think! Left completely unsaid in the piece was why we poor schlumps should just go along with all this -- he seems to think it's a given that Design is foremost in all our minds, and so doesn't really explain why, exactly, it's important to let Frank Gehry remake Boston, because it goes without saying that doing so would make Boston World Class, extend our lifespans, help researchers cure cancer, etc.”
Update 2:05 p.m. -- Adam has some other new, similar and identical comments over at Boston Online.
Saturday, January 11, 2003
Random thoughts from a Lexington reader on Will McDonough, Beacon Hill schools, Mayor Menino, taxes: “A couple of thoughts on the past few days of blogging:
“1. Re: Will McDonough: How many Saturday mornings just did not feel complete until you had read Will's ‘Notes’ piece in the Sports pages? It was ALWAYS a must read -- the guy never, ever mailed it in -- not once in the 30 odd years I read his stuff.
“2. RE: Mayor Menino not backing a new Beacon Hill school: I agree with Hub Blog that this effort to open (not close) a school in an affluent (not ‘inner’city) neighborhood could be the harbinger of an historic social shift in city demographics if only Menino would let it happen. Mr. Mayor: build it and they will come...
“3. RE: Mayor Menino looking for new state tax increases: I'm intrigued by the Mayor's constant harping about needing new taxes. Query: Just whose taxes is he proposing to raise? Mine? Thought so. ... Query #2: Has the City of Boston ever -- and I mean, ever -- passed a Prop 2.5 override? Have the voters of the City of Boston ever -- and I mean, ever -- been asked to even vote on a Prop 2.5 override? ‘Negative’ to both questions. Here's a lead-pipe cinch, 100%, Will McDonoughesque prediction: if the voters were ever given the chance to pass an override in the city, it would go down in flames. ...THAT's why Menino will never propose an override to pay for his staff's SUV's. ... Ironically, the very people he needs in the city to help pay the freight and/or pay for an override are the same people he's slapping in the face by refusing to even consider a new Beacon Hill public school...”
Hub Blog’s response: I have no idea if the city of Boston has ever overridden Prop 2 1/2. Lexington Reader may or may not be right on that point. But I do know this: This mayor bases his ‘leadership’ on how popular he is. I.e., Passing the buck. Always. He’s never led the city through a true recession. Shows. ‘Nuff said. ... P.S. You’re a suburbanite, Lexington Reader. How DARE you question our Mayor For Life, a man of the ‘regular people’ while he asks for your money! You greedy ...
... Notice how Mitt says, when questioned, how he hasn’t made his mind up about whether local governments can raise their taxes to offset state cuts in local aid. Is this Mitt’s anti-anti-tax-pledge trap? Letting big-mouth local officials, like Menino and countless others, put their money/votes where their mouth is? I doubt it, but it would be nice to know that Mitt thinks in such a Machiavellian way.
“1. Re: Will McDonough: How many Saturday mornings just did not feel complete until you had read Will's ‘Notes’ piece in the Sports pages? It was ALWAYS a must read -- the guy never, ever mailed it in -- not once in the 30 odd years I read his stuff.
“2. RE: Mayor Menino not backing a new Beacon Hill school: I agree with Hub Blog that this effort to open (not close) a school in an affluent (not ‘inner’city) neighborhood could be the harbinger of an historic social shift in city demographics if only Menino would let it happen. Mr. Mayor: build it and they will come...
“3. RE: Mayor Menino looking for new state tax increases: I'm intrigued by the Mayor's constant harping about needing new taxes. Query: Just whose taxes is he proposing to raise? Mine? Thought so. ... Query #2: Has the City of Boston ever -- and I mean, ever -- passed a Prop 2.5 override? Have the voters of the City of Boston ever -- and I mean, ever -- been asked to even vote on a Prop 2.5 override? ‘Negative’ to both questions. Here's a lead-pipe cinch, 100%, Will McDonoughesque prediction: if the voters were ever given the chance to pass an override in the city, it would go down in flames. ...THAT's why Menino will never propose an override to pay for his staff's SUV's. ... Ironically, the very people he needs in the city to help pay the freight and/or pay for an override are the same people he's slapping in the face by refusing to even consider a new Beacon Hill public school...”
Hub Blog’s response: I have no idea if the city of Boston has ever overridden Prop 2 1/2. Lexington Reader may or may not be right on that point. But I do know this: This mayor bases his ‘leadership’ on how popular he is. I.e., Passing the buck. Always. He’s never led the city through a true recession. Shows. ‘Nuff said. ... P.S. You’re a suburbanite, Lexington Reader. How DARE you question our Mayor For Life, a man of the ‘regular people’ while he asks for your money! You greedy ...
... Notice how Mitt says, when questioned, how he hasn’t made his mind up about whether local governments can raise their taxes to offset state cuts in local aid. Is this Mitt’s anti-anti-tax-pledge trap? Letting big-mouth local officials, like Menino and countless others, put their money/votes where their mouth is? I doubt it, but it would be nice to know that Mitt thinks in such a Machiavellian way.
Will McDonough, the day after: Obviously, lots of tributes to Will McDonough, who died Thursday night. There’s Bob Ryan’s excellent piece about how McDonough was not a sportswriter but a sports reporter. ... There’s Bill Simmons’ piece over at ESPN’s Page 2. Simmons fires off this line about McDonough: “He was a combination Max Mercy and Vito Corleone.” ... The Boston Herald, the Globe’s cross-town rival, acquitted itself with class, with this fond piece from Gerry Callahan and this one from George Kimball. ...
... But my two favorite pieces on McDonough came from:. A.) Mark Jurkowitz, who wrote a classic profile of McDonough a number of years back (via Dan Kennedy). B.) Joe Fitzgerald, in his moving tribute this morning to McDonough, written by an old-school sports columnist about another old-school sports columnist. Some excerpts from Fitzgerald’s column: “Willie was not universally adored, nor should he have been, because a columnist knows that if everyone likes him, he's not doing his job. ... To suggest, as misguided mourners have, that Willie was a Johnny Appleseed, sprinkling goodwill and kindness throughout his career, is a terrible disservice to the memory of a man who, for more than 40 years, reveled in the rough-and-tumble nature of his work. ... Was he always right? None of us are. But he wrote what he believed and that's what mattered.” ... What struck me about Fitzgerald’s column was that it was personal in such a different way. Not the “Willie-loved-helping-younger-reporters” story, as so many others have written about McDonough, with genuine sincerity and appreciation. Instead, Fitzgerald writes about how, as a sporters writer, he hit a crossroads in his professional career and, after agonizing over his decision, decided to move in a new direction, with strong encouragement from McDonough, who himself decided to stay on his own true course in life. Read it. Everyone can learn something from this column. Know I did. A heartfelt tribute.
... But my two favorite pieces on McDonough came from:. A.) Mark Jurkowitz, who wrote a classic profile of McDonough a number of years back (via Dan Kennedy). B.) Joe Fitzgerald, in his moving tribute this morning to McDonough, written by an old-school sports columnist about another old-school sports columnist. Some excerpts from Fitzgerald’s column: “Willie was not universally adored, nor should he have been, because a columnist knows that if everyone likes him, he's not doing his job. ... To suggest, as misguided mourners have, that Willie was a Johnny Appleseed, sprinkling goodwill and kindness throughout his career, is a terrible disservice to the memory of a man who, for more than 40 years, reveled in the rough-and-tumble nature of his work. ... Was he always right? None of us are. But he wrote what he believed and that's what mattered.” ... What struck me about Fitzgerald’s column was that it was personal in such a different way. Not the “Willie-loved-helping-younger-reporters” story, as so many others have written about McDonough, with genuine sincerity and appreciation. Instead, Fitzgerald writes about how, as a sporters writer, he hit a crossroads in his professional career and, after agonizing over his decision, decided to move in a new direction, with strong encouragement from McDonough, who himself decided to stay on his own true course in life. Read it. Everyone can learn something from this column. Know I did. A heartfelt tribute.
The PowerPoint Mitt: No one can say he ducked his responsibilities yesterday, going into the lions’ den and presenting the bad news in PowerPoint person about state budget cuts. Sure, some are grumbling he acted too much like a CEO and not enough like a politician, or that he left before answering questions and slapping backs. But that’s stylistic nit-picking. The bottom line is that he -- and not his budget chief -- delivered the bad news and is clearly taking responsibility for the cuts. And lawmakers, for their own reasons (mostly for the passing-the-buck variety of reasons), are letting him. ... In the Herald story, the following was reported: “Mayor Thomas M. Menino said taxes hikes are the answer. ‘You cannot just say we cannot raise revenues,’ Menino said. ‘You're not going to wish your way through this thing. You're going to have to raise revenues to make up some of the costs.’” Notice the underlying message of these types of attacks: Mitt’s no-new-taxes pledge on the budget must go. Only scant acknowledgment that cuts are necessary. In other words: It’s taxes, first resort, always. Don’t want to get into my whole long-winded tax-and-spend, no-new-taxes thing again. Still think Mitt made a mistake on the pledge, allowing the budget fight to become a full-scale test on whether no-new-taxes pledges are justified and/or viable. Plays into critics’ hands. Changes the subject. Etc. But look at the critics: Taxes, taxes, taxes. When does it stop on their end?
Friday, January 10, 2003
Will McDonough, RIP: Dan Kennedy has the scoop on the tragic death of Globe sports writer Will McDonough. Can't say it better than Dan. Will was indeed a crank, a legend, a city institution. Most readers had a love/hate relationship with the guy. He had so many scoops and high points in his career, it's hard to recount them and do him justice. One of his low points -- during the Parcells-Kraft showdown -- was infuriating but he rebounded. NFL and Pats fans, in particular, will miss him most. He was an amazing character and giant in a sports-crazed town.
Business news and Henry Kissinger. Cosmo Macero is writing up a storm over at his blog on The New Republic, NECN's weeknight business show (yes, I mentioned it a short while ago -- and the show is darn good, as Cosmo points out), and "The Trial of Henry Kissinger." Lots of fun reading.
DLC issues SOS: Interesting column by Scot Lehigh on the formation (again?) of a centrist Democratic Leadership Council in Massachusetts. Scot: “Certainly the group has its work cut out for it, the more so since the predictable reaction of the party's progressive wing to electoral defeat is always to insist that what the public really wanted was not a more centrist approach but rather liberalism in full war paint.” ... Hub Blog’s suggestion: The suburban/academic left has been threatening to bolt the party and join the Greens, so let ‘em. The fact is that hard-core lefties in the party have been playing footsie for years with the boys on Beacon Hill. They don’t necessarily like the boys, but the alliance has served their purposes. I.e., They’ve played their critical part in propping up an old-fashioned political machine. Want real reforms? Knock out one of the stool legs holding up the boys, and guffaw as you see 'em tumble.
Sprawl and reforms: A good column on sprawl and how to implement an anti-sprawl strategy, over the objections of cities and towns in the ‘burbs. The best part of the column is that it offers a suggestion on how to, well, entice local governments to participate: Basically, put a gun to their collective head, tell ‘em local aid depends on changes, and ... I like it!
Low grades on the school front: Mayor For Life has nixed a plan to establish a new neighborhood school on Beacon Hill (here’s the Globe version and the Herald version). ... Now Hub Blog, a street-smart pundit living on the gritty working-class side of Beacon Hill, has been closely following this Beacon Hill story in the local press and during conversations at local taverns and coffee shops. Here’s the interesting part: More and more yuppie parents, fed up with the obscene tuitions of private snob schools like Buckingham Browne and Nichols, are becoming more and more attracted to sending their kids to local public schools. Hey, crime is also down in the city, state school reforms are toughening standards for all schools, the racial climate in the city has improved dramatically, younger families are opting to stay in the city rather than subjecting themselves to the sterile boredom of the ‘burbs, they’re paying property taxes anyway to support the city’s schools, so why not do the logical thing? OK, these are the same type of parents who abandoned city schools in the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s. But they now want to return. Don’t pooh-pooh their reasons for returning. The fact is, to repeat: They now want to return. I don’t want to engage in hyperbole, but isn’t this somewhat important and even historic? And isn’t it in the city’s best interest to encourage these affluent, obnoxious, demanding, loud-mouthed, PTA terrors back into a school system that says it desperately needs more economic and racial balance? Granted, Menino and the school board definitely face tough financial times. Don’t hold that against them. But Hub Blog thinks the mayor et gang aren’t seeing the profound shift (hyperbole alert!) in attitudes by yuppies wanting to send their kids to public schools. Seize the opportunity, mayor! ... Postscript: If I’m not mistaken, the local press on Beacon Hill has reported that an anonymous donor has offered to buy the Emerson building for $6 million, contingent on the city coming up with funds for renovations. ... Also, read the last quote in the Herald story to find out how obnoxious these parents can be, even though they're right on the need for a new school...
... Brian McGrory writes a depressing story about another disappointing decision against a city resident/activist who wants to open a new charter school in the city. This time the dolts nixing the plan come from the private sector.
... Brian McGrory writes a depressing story about another disappointing decision against a city resident/activist who wants to open a new charter school in the city. This time the dolts nixing the plan come from the private sector.
A proposed moratorium on Swift bashing: As long as Jane Swift whines away on national TV about her plight, she’s going to be subjected to trashings like this from Howie Carr. After she stops sticking her glass chin out, though, let’s slap a moratorium on the Swift bashing. It’s getting tired and old. ... Channel 2’s “Greater Boston” show last Friday -- in the weekly ‘Beat the Press’ segment -- focused on the Swift bashing, and there seemed to a consensus by the panel that, yes, the Swift bashing went too far and got a little personal, though panel members seemed to agree Janey brought so much of her woes on herself. Agree. Move on. Next victim.
Media New York inferiority-complex alert: Hub Blog has said it before and will say it again: Most of the New York inferiority-complex exhibited by a small minority of Bostonians usually comes from those in the media, arts/entertainment and academic industries. Rarely (if ever) has Hub Blog heard a life-long native of Boston -- one with a thick Boston accent and not working in the above mentioned industries -- pining to live in the Bronx, Queens, Staten Island, Brooklyn etc. The ‘inferiority complex’ is a mostly Manhattan vs. ‘downtown Boston’ thing -- and, to repeat, resides almost exclusively among the more fortunate and affluent of Boston. Tom Keane’s column today is a perfect example of that brilliant theory. ... Memo to the mayor and Mitt: During the Salt Like winter Olympic Games, that city temporarily changed some of its nightlife ordinances to accommodate attendees. Boston might consider temporarily allowing bars and restaurants to stay open until, oh, 3 a.m. during the 2004 Dem convention. Also, keep the T running a little later. I think most residents would understand and support the changes.
Thursday, January 09, 2003
Great ‘internship’: Are you unemployed? Scraping by? Check this out and weep: “In an attempt to protect its graduates from a slumping economy that shows few signs of picking up, Harvard Business School (HBS) plans to award 10 of its 2003 graduates unable to find jobs with a nice consolation prize: a one-year internship at HBS to the tune of about $90,000.” ... Ninety grand. For an internship. One can’t help but think the folks at HBS are also looking at those average-salary rankings of recent graduates and throwing money at the problem. But that would be unfair to think, right? The aloof HBS doesn’t pay attention to those silly rankings.
Postscript: Harvard Business School Dean Kim B. Clark has apparently apologized/expressed regret for the recent school-newspaper flap (via Instapundit).
Postscript: Harvard Business School Dean Kim B. Clark has apparently apologized/expressed regret for the recent school-newspaper flap (via Instapundit).
The Swift-O’Brien window of opportunity: Yep, Joan Vennochi is still bitter about the November gubernatorial election. Joan’s prediction: “Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey is thinner and blonder than Swift and O'Brien, so she will be less of a physical target than they were.” ... Joan does concede the following: “Swift was an ineffective acting governor. O'Brien was a flawed gubernatorial candidate.” ... Ineffective and flawed. Ah, just small points, though it should be noted Jane was quite effective in her final days and certainly didn’t miss her window of opportunity, such as here and here.
Update -- 12:30 p.m. -- Gotta hand it to Joan. She’s getting us all talking about the election results again (two months after the fact) -- and on her gender-correct terms. Dan Kennedy weighs in on the issue and says it’s hard to argue with Joan’s point that Massachusetts is run by an Irish-Catholic and Italian-Catholic clique of males. To which I say: Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. And that’s why many of us voted against Shannon, who was the front-woman for that clique, known to some of us as a old-fashioned political machine. Throw in the issue of taxes -- don’t forget the results of Question 1! -- and you have a much more complicated explanation of why Shannon lost. Even Shannon’s own post-election polls show this. ... This all very amusing, and satisfying. I think Joan is actually helping Mitt. Brings back a lot of the reasons why many of us supported him and opposed Shannon. Thanks, Joan!
A reader responds: A reader writes, "I figured you'd land on Vennochi as soon as I read her this morning. She's becoming predictable...always a bad sign on the Op Ed pages." ... Predictable indeed. And late. The column should have been written two months ago.
Update -- 12:30 p.m. -- Gotta hand it to Joan. She’s getting us all talking about the election results again (two months after the fact) -- and on her gender-correct terms. Dan Kennedy weighs in on the issue and says it’s hard to argue with Joan’s point that Massachusetts is run by an Irish-Catholic and Italian-Catholic clique of males. To which I say: Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. And that’s why many of us voted against Shannon, who was the front-woman for that clique, known to some of us as a old-fashioned political machine. Throw in the issue of taxes -- don’t forget the results of Question 1! -- and you have a much more complicated explanation of why Shannon lost. Even Shannon’s own post-election polls show this. ... This all very amusing, and satisfying. I think Joan is actually helping Mitt. Brings back a lot of the reasons why many of us supported him and opposed Shannon. Thanks, Joan!
A reader responds: A reader writes, "I figured you'd land on Vennochi as soon as I read her this morning. She's becoming predictable...always a bad sign on the Op Ed pages." ... Predictable indeed. And late. The column should have been written two months ago.
Al Sharpton Watch, Part IV: Hub Blog has already admitted to secretly admiring old Al, despite his obnoxious foibles. But Alex Beam seems to be resisting the reverend’s spell ...
... Brighton Reader sends in the following note about yesterday’s column by Howard Manly, which I missed: “I liked Manly’s piece about Koch and Sharpton. Koch has said it before and I agree: Al has got to admit the Tawana Brawley thing was a total hoax, and apologize for his role in it. Until he does, he will be on the margins in terms of affecting debates on issues and a spoiler in elections when he runs.”
... Brighton Reader sends in the following note about yesterday’s column by Howard Manly, which I missed: “I liked Manly’s piece about Koch and Sharpton. Koch has said it before and I agree: Al has got to admit the Tawana Brawley thing was a total hoax, and apologize for his role in it. Until he does, he will be on the margins in terms of affecting debates on issues and a spoiler in elections when he runs.”
Wednesday, January 08, 2003
‘Only a matter of time’: Hub Blog today will dedicate itself to the rest of the ‘universe’ for which we serve as the undeniable Hub. Specifically, some thoughts on Tony Blair’s speech readying Britain for war, via Andrew Sullivan and The Guardian. A few things jumped out at me:
-- Andrew was attracted to the part of the speech in which Blair addresses the need to stand by America as it embarks on a mission that even anti-American critics, deep down, know needs to be addressed. Nothing surprising there. Fits in with Andrew’s general world views and passions.
-- The Guardian, meanwhile (and not surprisingly), concentrates on how Blair ‘warned’ George Bush to pay more attention to the rest of the world’s concerns about America’s unilateralist actions. Nothing surprising there, either, considering the Guardian’s consistent anti-Americanism.
But what struck humble little Hub Blog about Tony Blair’s speech is how he so deftly spoke to both audiences -- the Andrews and Guardian editors of the world -- and still managed to make the speech coherent. I think moderate conservatives, moderates, and moderate liberals -- whose voices are often drowned out about by politically correct lefties and the pack pundits on the right -- should really read Blair's words, carefully. They don't lend themselves easily to quick sound-bite/pundit-bite quips. But his words give the rest of us hope that at least someone of world stature is addressing the growing and dangerous divide between anti-Americanism and American unilateralism.
Here’s Blair on American unilateralism (or isolationism, as Andrew acknowledges but obviously downplays): America needs to ‘listen back’ to the world, maintain a ‘shared agenda,’ and recognize that to ‘work with others’ is in America’s interests. Warning of the causes and consequences if the ‘common threat of chaos’ overwhelms us, Blair said: "It can come from the world splitting into rival poles of power; the US in one corner; anti-US forces in another. It can come from pent-up feelings of injustice and alienation, from divisions between the world's richer and its poorer nations.”
Here’s Blair on anti-Americanism (which the Guardian buried at the bottom of the story): "I am not surprised by anti-Americanism, but it is a foolish indulgence. ... For all their faults - and all nations have them - the US is a force for good."
A lot to consider. And, oh, here’s Blair on the dangers we all face: He said it is "only a matter of time" before terrorists acquire a nuclear capability. .... At which point in the article I almost spit out my coffee and said: What?
My main point: The stakes are extremely high, obviously. So it's time to push back against the foolish indulgences of American unilateralism and anti-Americanism. The two dangerously feed off of each other. The more strident and unreasonable the anti-Americanism, the more unilateralist America becomes. The more unilateralist America becomes, the more strident and unreasonable the anti-Americanism. It’s a vicious cycle that needs to be broken. Remember: ‘Only a matter of time.’
-- Andrew was attracted to the part of the speech in which Blair addresses the need to stand by America as it embarks on a mission that even anti-American critics, deep down, know needs to be addressed. Nothing surprising there. Fits in with Andrew’s general world views and passions.
-- The Guardian, meanwhile (and not surprisingly), concentrates on how Blair ‘warned’ George Bush to pay more attention to the rest of the world’s concerns about America’s unilateralist actions. Nothing surprising there, either, considering the Guardian’s consistent anti-Americanism.
But what struck humble little Hub Blog about Tony Blair’s speech is how he so deftly spoke to both audiences -- the Andrews and Guardian editors of the world -- and still managed to make the speech coherent. I think moderate conservatives, moderates, and moderate liberals -- whose voices are often drowned out about by politically correct lefties and the pack pundits on the right -- should really read Blair's words, carefully. They don't lend themselves easily to quick sound-bite/pundit-bite quips. But his words give the rest of us hope that at least someone of world stature is addressing the growing and dangerous divide between anti-Americanism and American unilateralism.
Here’s Blair on American unilateralism (or isolationism, as Andrew acknowledges but obviously downplays): America needs to ‘listen back’ to the world, maintain a ‘shared agenda,’ and recognize that to ‘work with others’ is in America’s interests. Warning of the causes and consequences if the ‘common threat of chaos’ overwhelms us, Blair said: "It can come from the world splitting into rival poles of power; the US in one corner; anti-US forces in another. It can come from pent-up feelings of injustice and alienation, from divisions between the world's richer and its poorer nations.”
Here’s Blair on anti-Americanism (which the Guardian buried at the bottom of the story): "I am not surprised by anti-Americanism, but it is a foolish indulgence. ... For all their faults - and all nations have them - the US is a force for good."
A lot to consider. And, oh, here’s Blair on the dangers we all face: He said it is "only a matter of time" before terrorists acquire a nuclear capability. .... At which point in the article I almost spit out my coffee and said: What?
My main point: The stakes are extremely high, obviously. So it's time to push back against the foolish indulgences of American unilateralism and anti-Americanism. The two dangerously feed off of each other. The more strident and unreasonable the anti-Americanism, the more unilateralist America becomes. The more unilateralist America becomes, the more strident and unreasonable the anti-Americanism. It’s a vicious cycle that needs to be broken. Remember: ‘Only a matter of time.’
Tuesday, January 07, 2003
Brute power and Saddam: Want a lesson on brute power? Read this column about Saddam, his layers of security forces, the Iraqi army, and the slow U.S. military buildup. Nothing more to say.
Visceral good sense: Joan Vennochi should just admit the obvious: 1.) She was a partisan backer of Shannon O’Brien because of Shannon’s gender. 2.) She has a visceral dislike of Mitt Romney. 3.) She’s bitter about the November election. Joan started out this morning’s column verifying, in an unspoken way, the above three points. But something happened along the way: She makes visceral good sense at the end, writing: “Democracy is about finding the middle ground. Practical consensus lies somewhere between the mean-spirited invective advanced by conservative talk radio hosts whose adolescent goal in life is to get attention and the often wasteful tendencies of liberal advocates who wrongly believe that the expenditure of money improves every human condition, including stupidity.” ... Whenever Joan gets beyond her angry self-righteousness, she’s good. Very good.
Those pesky pay raises: Hub Blog can’t get too worked up about the legislative pay-raise issue because: 1.) Voters approved a constitutional amendment that wisely made legislative pay raises (and even pay cuts) automatic every two years, based on a median-household-income formula. 2.) Many people lose their jobs or see their salaries and commissions frozen and/or cut during a recession, but a lot of other employees still get small cost-of-living increases during recessions. ... Hub Blog’s gut instinct says that state Rep. Michael Festa’s gut instinct is right when he says lawmakers should reject the pay raise out of timely principle. So if they reject the pay raise, fine. But if they accept it, fine, too, for they’re merely abiding by a fair mechanism set forth by voters. Enough with this third-rate symbolic issue.
Al Sharpton Watch, Day III: Margery Eagan takes a whack at explaining Al Sharpton. Margery: “For when you hear Al Sharpton up close, in person, two thoughts come to mind: that he may indeed be a media-mad huckster who's insulted Jews and never apologized about Brawley, who concocted a tale about a white gang rape. But he can talk.” ... One small quibble: He is -- not ‘may indeed be’ -- a media-mad huckster who's insulted Jews and never apologized about Brawley. But Margery is right: He’s incredibly eloquent, even stirring, when giving voice to those who don’t have much of a voice in society. An intriguing man whom I’ve secretly, God help me, come to admire.
Fenway renovations?: They’re already building new seating behind the Green Monster above Lansdowne Street? Why wasn’t Boston’s official Sidewalk Superintendent informed about this? Not that I mind the change.
‘Burgergeddon!’: A fun piece by Alex Beam, who writes about his “experiment in anticipatory archeology,” i.e. the possible demise of McDonalds and Burger King et gang. Beam appears to think the greatest threat against fast-food outlets are the anti-tobacco-like lawsuits now pending against the industry. But it’s now clear the big tobacco settlements did little to harm that industry. The tobacco companies merely passed the settlement costs onto suckers like me. People are still smoking, about 20 to 25 percent of the population, if I recall correctly. What’s really hurting the fast-food industry is the changing eating habits of Americans, who, by and large, are becoming more picky and sophisticated about what they eat. It might even be argued that America is now undergoing a mini-culinary renaissance, borrowing a lot from Europe and Asia, and making some of it up as we go, especially in California. One can see the changes here in Boston with the opening of so many exciting new restaurants, bakeries, outdoor produce markets, high-end supermarkets like Bread & Circus. There’s now a popular ‘Food Network’ on national cable TV and a popular ‘Phantom Gourmet’ show on NECN. Times are changing -- thank goodness. ... Postscript: Suggestion for a new food-chain concept: Old-fashioned butcher shops. We need them. Interested VC types can contact me at above email.
Monday, January 06, 2003
Housing resolution. This week’s BBJ editorial, written by editor George Donnelly, nails it on housing: Local zoning laws, particularly those in the suburbs, are the main obstacle to easing the housing shortage in eastern Massachusetts. ...
And while you’re at it: ... Check out Donnelly’s regular BBJ column this week, headlined “When does budget cutting become foolishness?” Disagree with some of his points, such as: ‘The problem in Massachusetts is one of underinvestment, not overspending.’ Sounds like an old George Will line about Americans being ‘undertaxed.’ Still, there’s this line: “The state needs a leader to articulate our values as a commonwealth, and then convince people they're worth paying for. It's time to stop the pandering on taxes. It's a bad business strategy.” Bingo. ... Somehow, Mitt has allowed the budget debate to be turned into the old ideological late-’80s/early-‘90s fight over tax-and-spend vs. no-new-tax pledges. How tiring. Critics of Mitt love arguing along these lines. And they’re right to do so, because Mitt gave them the political opening with his no-new-taxes pledge on the budget. Lost in the shuffle has been the need for genuine reform in state government, to change how things are done on Beacon Hill, to reduce the cronyism and patronage, to give us more bang for the buck. What Mitt should have said is: No reforms, no new taxes. There’s no way to statistically prove it, but the vast majority of Mitt’s support (or at least the support he got from people like humble little Hub Blog) came from those who wanted to confront the machine now running state government and make it more responsive. Instead, we got a debate over a stupid no-new-taxes pledge. No wonder critics of Mitt are almost gleeful at the pickle he's got himself in. Ugh.
Update -- 1: 40 p.m.: Yikes. Got a fast response to the item from Steve of Arlington, yet another regular reader who has returned to Hub Blog now that the holidays are over. Steve’s first line: “I thought you weren’t going to blog too much today?” My answer: Yeah, I always say that and the opposite happens. Besides, it’s lunch time and I’m on a diet. ... Steve also added: ‘Why are you knocking no new taxes? It’s the only alternative to liberals’ spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax. ... ’
Answer: Because it plays into the hands of ‘spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax’ liberals. Taxes are not static. There’s no magical level, at any one time, about where, exactly, taxes should be set. Sometimes they need to go up. Sometimes they need to go down. Sometimes you need to eliminate harmful taxes. Sometimes you come up with new ones. The same goes for spending. The ideas of ‘spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax’ and ‘no new taxes’ are based on false assumptions -- static assumptions about spending and taxing levels. So if a person like Mitt, meaning well, allows himself to get suckered into such a debate (as he did), he’s opening himself up to criticism if or when he has to go back on that pledge. When he does, liberals will say, ‘Ah ha! We were right!’ That's why they're so gleeful about the way this debate has been framed.
But they aren’t right. Because they generally won’t accept, in an opposite sense, that spending also goes up and down, that old programs should be eliminated when they’re not working, that new programs can’t and shouldn’t be funded as long as a bureaucracy/machine fails to hold the line on spending and refuses to constantly trim and reform existing programs, that bad economic times require both painful cuts and taxes, that the electorate reaches a non-magical point where it says, ‘Stop with the spending and tax increases!’ I.e. Liberals have a static assumption that spending and taxes always go up. If Mitt loses this budget battle as he’s allowed it be framed, the wrong people -- the very ones who helped create the current mess -- will smugly say they were right and go back to doing what they’ve always done. Ugh. Again. ...
... Now back to my paid freelance work.
Update II -- 4:45 p.m.: A reader from Lexington suggested that the use of the word 'static' isn't quite correct. He said I should be using the word 'elastic' to describe liberals' views on spending and taxes, i.e. they're always going up. Know what he means, but 'elastic' implies that something can also contract, which isn't the case with ever increasing spending and taxation levels. What I meant by 'static' is that A.) Liberals seem to believe that there's a certain, static level at which spending must be maintained and can't go down -- but it can always go up from that level, along with taxes to pay for it. B.) No-new-taxes conservatives seem to think (merely by mouthing 'no new taxes') that there's a certain, static level at which taxes must be maintained and can't go up -- but can always go down. Both are unrealistic assumptions. Ideally, we’d all reach a consensus about what’s a generally static, acceptable level of spending and taxation, pat ourselves on the back -- and then watch the two fall out of balance almost immediately because of, oh, falling or rising oil prices, rising union contracts, a collapse or rise in housing valuations, a heavy snow storm that wipes out the snow-plowing budget and requires emergency cuts in other line items, the daily ebb and flow of an economy and the tax revenues it produces. Again, both arguments are based on unrealistic ‘static’ assumptions. Hope this clarifies things.
And while you’re at it: ... Check out Donnelly’s regular BBJ column this week, headlined “When does budget cutting become foolishness?” Disagree with some of his points, such as: ‘The problem in Massachusetts is one of underinvestment, not overspending.’ Sounds like an old George Will line about Americans being ‘undertaxed.’ Still, there’s this line: “The state needs a leader to articulate our values as a commonwealth, and then convince people they're worth paying for. It's time to stop the pandering on taxes. It's a bad business strategy.” Bingo. ... Somehow, Mitt has allowed the budget debate to be turned into the old ideological late-’80s/early-‘90s fight over tax-and-spend vs. no-new-tax pledges. How tiring. Critics of Mitt love arguing along these lines. And they’re right to do so, because Mitt gave them the political opening with his no-new-taxes pledge on the budget. Lost in the shuffle has been the need for genuine reform in state government, to change how things are done on Beacon Hill, to reduce the cronyism and patronage, to give us more bang for the buck. What Mitt should have said is: No reforms, no new taxes. There’s no way to statistically prove it, but the vast majority of Mitt’s support (or at least the support he got from people like humble little Hub Blog) came from those who wanted to confront the machine now running state government and make it more responsive. Instead, we got a debate over a stupid no-new-taxes pledge. No wonder critics of Mitt are almost gleeful at the pickle he's got himself in. Ugh.
Update -- 1: 40 p.m.: Yikes. Got a fast response to the item from Steve of Arlington, yet another regular reader who has returned to Hub Blog now that the holidays are over. Steve’s first line: “I thought you weren’t going to blog too much today?” My answer: Yeah, I always say that and the opposite happens. Besides, it’s lunch time and I’m on a diet. ... Steve also added: ‘Why are you knocking no new taxes? It’s the only alternative to liberals’ spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax. ... ’
Answer: Because it plays into the hands of ‘spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax’ liberals. Taxes are not static. There’s no magical level, at any one time, about where, exactly, taxes should be set. Sometimes they need to go up. Sometimes they need to go down. Sometimes you need to eliminate harmful taxes. Sometimes you come up with new ones. The same goes for spending. The ideas of ‘spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax’ and ‘no new taxes’ are based on false assumptions -- static assumptions about spending and taxing levels. So if a person like Mitt, meaning well, allows himself to get suckered into such a debate (as he did), he’s opening himself up to criticism if or when he has to go back on that pledge. When he does, liberals will say, ‘Ah ha! We were right!’ That's why they're so gleeful about the way this debate has been framed.
But they aren’t right. Because they generally won’t accept, in an opposite sense, that spending also goes up and down, that old programs should be eliminated when they’re not working, that new programs can’t and shouldn’t be funded as long as a bureaucracy/machine fails to hold the line on spending and refuses to constantly trim and reform existing programs, that bad economic times require both painful cuts and taxes, that the electorate reaches a non-magical point where it says, ‘Stop with the spending and tax increases!’ I.e. Liberals have a static assumption that spending and taxes always go up. If Mitt loses this budget battle as he’s allowed it be framed, the wrong people -- the very ones who helped create the current mess -- will smugly say they were right and go back to doing what they’ve always done. Ugh. Again. ...
... Now back to my paid freelance work.
Update II -- 4:45 p.m.: A reader from Lexington suggested that the use of the word 'static' isn't quite correct. He said I should be using the word 'elastic' to describe liberals' views on spending and taxes, i.e. they're always going up. Know what he means, but 'elastic' implies that something can also contract, which isn't the case with ever increasing spending and taxation levels. What I meant by 'static' is that A.) Liberals seem to believe that there's a certain, static level at which spending must be maintained and can't go down -- but it can always go up from that level, along with taxes to pay for it. B.) No-new-taxes conservatives seem to think (merely by mouthing 'no new taxes') that there's a certain, static level at which taxes must be maintained and can't go up -- but can always go down. Both are unrealistic assumptions. Ideally, we’d all reach a consensus about what’s a generally static, acceptable level of spending and taxation, pat ourselves on the back -- and then watch the two fall out of balance almost immediately because of, oh, falling or rising oil prices, rising union contracts, a collapse or rise in housing valuations, a heavy snow storm that wipes out the snow-plowing budget and requires emergency cuts in other line items, the daily ebb and flow of an economy and the tax revenues it produces. Again, both arguments are based on unrealistic ‘static’ assumptions. Hope this clarifies things.
‘Swell idea’: Posts will be light today. Lots of work. Here goes:
-- Never saw or heard of this TV show, ''High-Tech Fever,'' perhaps because it’s played only on Cambridge’s community-access channel. But the show, hosted by a ‘career MIT student’ named Joost Bonsen, indeed sounds ‘swell.’ ''High-Tech Fever'' airs live at 6 on Wednesdays, and is rebroadcast throughout the week, according to the Globe. Maybe NECN, which has the only week-night business show on local TV, might pick it up, after spiffing up the production a bit without losing the quirky quaintness.
-- Joe Sciacca bemoans the declining ambitions and clout of the Boston City Council. Alas, as Joe would say, not much is going to happen as long we have Mayor For Life.
-- Al Sharpton Watch: Took a jab at Al yesterday -- and felt like a true right-wing ranter for the rest of the day. Didn't feel right. Then I read this article on Sharpton this morning. Sounded like a great sermon. Feel better. He still has a day left in Boston to stir up unnecessary problems, but yesterday’s appeal to the young was moving.
-- Never saw or heard of this TV show, ''High-Tech Fever,'' perhaps because it’s played only on Cambridge’s community-access channel. But the show, hosted by a ‘career MIT student’ named Joost Bonsen, indeed sounds ‘swell.’ ''High-Tech Fever'' airs live at 6 on Wednesdays, and is rebroadcast throughout the week, according to the Globe. Maybe NECN, which has the only week-night business show on local TV, might pick it up, after spiffing up the production a bit without losing the quirky quaintness.
-- Joe Sciacca bemoans the declining ambitions and clout of the Boston City Council. Alas, as Joe would say, not much is going to happen as long we have Mayor For Life.
-- Al Sharpton Watch: Took a jab at Al yesterday -- and felt like a true right-wing ranter for the rest of the day. Didn't feel right. Then I read this article on Sharpton this morning. Sounded like a great sermon. Feel better. He still has a day left in Boston to stir up unnecessary problems, but yesterday’s appeal to the young was moving.
Sunday, January 05, 2003
Somehow, Hub Blog ended up with a lot of free time today and a lot of good stories and a letter to blog about. So here goes ...
The war, it began months ago: Not sure if it was truly appropriate of the Globe to write this story about our Special Forces (along with, apparently, British, Australian and Jordanian commandos) in Iraq. Makes me a little nervous about their safety. But, hey, we’ve been bombing Iraqi sites for months now, and Saddam surely knows we already have Special Forces in the country. Cool story with lots of details. ... This isn’t a cool story with lots of detail. Not the reporter’s fault. Al Sharpton is Al Sharpton. His view on Iraq: It’s about oil. Nothing about a madman with a strong desire to get his hands on a.) other countries’ oil and b.) oil money to buy weapons of mass destruction. ... Is Al really in Boston for three days? Wonder when he starts shattering, with demagogic outbursts, the admirable but fragile relationship between the African-American community and the cops. God help us. Three days? What did we do to deserve this?
Update: Check out Tom Friedman's column about oil, a madman, weapons of mass destruction and SUVs. He connects a lot of the dots, in my opinion. And Al? Forget it.
The war, it began months ago: Not sure if it was truly appropriate of the Globe to write this story about our Special Forces (along with, apparently, British, Australian and Jordanian commandos) in Iraq. Makes me a little nervous about their safety. But, hey, we’ve been bombing Iraqi sites for months now, and Saddam surely knows we already have Special Forces in the country. Cool story with lots of details. ... This isn’t a cool story with lots of detail. Not the reporter’s fault. Al Sharpton is Al Sharpton. His view on Iraq: It’s about oil. Nothing about a madman with a strong desire to get his hands on a.) other countries’ oil and b.) oil money to buy weapons of mass destruction. ... Is Al really in Boston for three days? Wonder when he starts shattering, with demagogic outbursts, the admirable but fragile relationship between the African-American community and the cops. God help us. Three days? What did we do to deserve this?
Update: Check out Tom Friedman's column about oil, a madman, weapons of mass destruction and SUVs. He connects a lot of the dots, in my opinion. And Al? Forget it.
Mitt, the big drama unfolds: Can’t remember the last time a state budget debate received so much media attention. Good. It’s definitely the center of probably the most important political showdown in Massachusetts in a long, long time. Jeff ‘Romney’s no Weld’ Jacoby and Eileen ‘We’ve heard this Before’ McNamara both draw comparisons between what Bill Weld said in ‘90 and what Mitt is saying today. I find it curious that Jeff didn’t mention taxes (or no-new taxes) once in his column. I find it equally curious that Eileen seems, in a backhanded way, to acknowledge that state government did bloat up in the ‘90s. ...
Mitt, the big drama unfolds, Part II: ... You know the holidays are definitely over when Hub Blog starts to get emails again from both Reader No. 1 and Brighton Reader. Brighton Reader, a rock-solid Dem, thinks Mitt should be held to his no-new-tax pledge on solving the budget crisis. Methinks Brighton Reader is up to Democratic mischief, eh? Excerpts from his letter:
“Mitt made a promise. He should keep it. Whether it is George Bush and ‘Read my lips’ or Mike Dukakis's ‘lead pipe cinch’ guarantee during his first governor's race that he would not raise taxes, you pay a price when you renege on a commitment you campaigned on. Mitt made this pledge a defining difference between him and Shannon O'Brien. He used the one billion dollar deficit estimate even though everyone else figured it was two billion.
“His decision to forgo his salary is made hollow by the fact that he used the money to increase the pay of his staff. I thought the point was to decrease the overall size and cost of state government, not just reallocate the same funds to different people. Do you really think that Eric Fehrnstrom, former campaign press secretary, now ‘communications director,’ was making $150,000 at the Herald? ... While I agree with you that Romney is better as CEO than pol, I do not think voters want him to replicate the corporate practice of giving raises to people at the top while getting rid of people on the bottom. Cabinet and staff members who don't like the salary levels can look elsewhere. As DeGaulle is supposed to have observed, ‘The cemeteries are full of indispensable men.’"
Hub Blog’s response to Brighton reader: Again, I wish Mitt hadn’t made his no-new-taxes pledge on the budget. Hey, he refused, if I recall correctly, to sign a no-new-taxes pledge in general and has reserved the right to raise taxes in other areas. Doesn’t make sense. But I am rooting for him to restructure and streamline state government. Hub Blog’s mantra: No reform, no new taxes. Catchy, ain’t it? ... Getting lost in the shuffle of the current budget debate is a certain, er, vote that took place in November on Question 1, the anti-tax referendum that did surprisingly well. If there are no reforms AND new taxes, look for a radical variation of Question 1 to pass in the future. People are fed up with the way business is conducted on Beacon Hill.
... Bonus column on Mitt and the boys, this one from Margery Eagan. The fun graf : “Now let's compare Sir Galahad and Lady of the Lake, paragons of all that is fine and pure, calm and even humble (that Mormon thing again) with what the scowling ‘Trav’ and the glad-handing ‘Mr. Speakah’ have come to represent. That is, a grasping, greedy, conniving, and ever-desperate band of grifters who do their best work, like things that crawl in the night, somewhere in the slippery dark underbelly of this den of rogues and scam artists.” ... Like I said: No reforms, no new taxes.
Mitt, the big drama unfolds, Part II: ... You know the holidays are definitely over when Hub Blog starts to get emails again from both Reader No. 1 and Brighton Reader. Brighton Reader, a rock-solid Dem, thinks Mitt should be held to his no-new-tax pledge on solving the budget crisis. Methinks Brighton Reader is up to Democratic mischief, eh? Excerpts from his letter:
“Mitt made a promise. He should keep it. Whether it is George Bush and ‘Read my lips’ or Mike Dukakis's ‘lead pipe cinch’ guarantee during his first governor's race that he would not raise taxes, you pay a price when you renege on a commitment you campaigned on. Mitt made this pledge a defining difference between him and Shannon O'Brien. He used the one billion dollar deficit estimate even though everyone else figured it was two billion.
“His decision to forgo his salary is made hollow by the fact that he used the money to increase the pay of his staff. I thought the point was to decrease the overall size and cost of state government, not just reallocate the same funds to different people. Do you really think that Eric Fehrnstrom, former campaign press secretary, now ‘communications director,’ was making $150,000 at the Herald? ... While I agree with you that Romney is better as CEO than pol, I do not think voters want him to replicate the corporate practice of giving raises to people at the top while getting rid of people on the bottom. Cabinet and staff members who don't like the salary levels can look elsewhere. As DeGaulle is supposed to have observed, ‘The cemeteries are full of indispensable men.’"
Hub Blog’s response to Brighton reader: Again, I wish Mitt hadn’t made his no-new-taxes pledge on the budget. Hey, he refused, if I recall correctly, to sign a no-new-taxes pledge in general and has reserved the right to raise taxes in other areas. Doesn’t make sense. But I am rooting for him to restructure and streamline state government. Hub Blog’s mantra: No reform, no new taxes. Catchy, ain’t it? ... Getting lost in the shuffle of the current budget debate is a certain, er, vote that took place in November on Question 1, the anti-tax referendum that did surprisingly well. If there are no reforms AND new taxes, look for a radical variation of Question 1 to pass in the future. People are fed up with the way business is conducted on Beacon Hill.
... Bonus column on Mitt and the boys, this one from Margery Eagan. The fun graf : “Now let's compare Sir Galahad and Lady of the Lake, paragons of all that is fine and pure, calm and even humble (that Mormon thing again) with what the scowling ‘Trav’ and the glad-handing ‘Mr. Speakah’ have come to represent. That is, a grasping, greedy, conniving, and ever-desperate band of grifters who do their best work, like things that crawl in the night, somewhere in the slippery dark underbelly of this den of rogues and scam artists.” ... Like I said: No reforms, no new taxes.
Africa and oil: A sad but true editorial on the tragedy unfolding in Africa over oil. When governments ‘work’ in Africa, money from oil fields tend to end up in government officials’ Swiss bank accounts or used to purchase military hardware. When governments don’t ‘work’ in Africa, the oil companies just cash in the profits for themselves. Either way, the average African gets screwed. Oil is a curse in Africa. ...
... Which leads to this excellent story in the Globe’s “Ideas” section on whether globalization has led to global inequality. A fair, balanced, intriguing look at the way opposing arguments are statistically argued. But the best part of the article, besides debunking a lot of myths about ‘inequality,’ is that maybe the argument over inequality is simply not the point. From the article: “And here the news may be good: By many accounts, even where inequality is increasing, poverty is on the decline.” Ding, ding, ding! ... Clearly, if you have a country with a billion or so people, like India or China, with almost unspeakable poverty across the board, the eventual move to capitalism -- and more economic prosperity -- means some are left behind. But many others also scratch their way out of poverty. Look at India: Today, its growing middle-class now has, by some accounts, as many people as the entire population of the United States. Yes, 750 million people are still mired in poverty in India. But 250 million are better off than they were. China and India have already experimented with equality-based socialism -- and it led to disaster, poverty and, yes, death. ‘Progress’ ain’t pretty and isn’t always ‘fair,’ but it saves lives.
... Which leads to this excellent story in the Globe’s “Ideas” section on whether globalization has led to global inequality. A fair, balanced, intriguing look at the way opposing arguments are statistically argued. But the best part of the article, besides debunking a lot of myths about ‘inequality,’ is that maybe the argument over inequality is simply not the point. From the article: “And here the news may be good: By many accounts, even where inequality is increasing, poverty is on the decline.” Ding, ding, ding! ... Clearly, if you have a country with a billion or so people, like India or China, with almost unspeakable poverty across the board, the eventual move to capitalism -- and more economic prosperity -- means some are left behind. But many others also scratch their way out of poverty. Look at India: Today, its growing middle-class now has, by some accounts, as many people as the entire population of the United States. Yes, 750 million people are still mired in poverty in India. But 250 million are better off than they were. China and India have already experimented with equality-based socialism -- and it led to disaster, poverty and, yes, death. ‘Progress’ ain’t pretty and isn’t always ‘fair,’ but it saves lives.
‘Overhaul the state's antiquated zoning law’: Yes! At last! Long term, I think state zoning changes -- not the budget -- could define the Romney administration for decades to come. (The Globe’s Anthony Flint has been all over this story.)
The FBI connection: Both Howie Carr and Peter Gelzinis have always been two or three steps ahead of the public in understanding the true dimension of the Bulger/FBI scandal. Obviously, a lot of Globe reporters -- including Dick Lehr and Gerard O’Neill -- deserve credit for cracking and understanding the story, too. But I’m just not buying into the FBI-deliberate-bungling story. Not yet. Don’t know why. Maybe I’m naive.
Saturday, January 04, 2003
Research and immigration: I think an institution which helped us win World War II and the Cold War -- and which gave us such great leaders as James Killian Jr. and Jerome Wiesner -- knows what it’s doing in terms of national security. There’s no need to reinvent the national-security wheel at MIT or at other great research institutions. A little tinkering, definitely. Wholesale changes, no. Remember: It was immigrants who played critical roles in some of our most spectacular scientific successes last century, such as, oh, the Manhattan Project and putting a man on the moon.
War and immigration: Yes, we need to crack down on illegal immigrants. The existence of 19 illegal immigrants who hijacked four planes and killed 3,000 people is obvious proof of that need. But ... see above item. Common sense, not to mention common decency, should rule, on a case-by-case basis, ideally. But that's probably asking too much from bureaucracies that were still processing permit papers of hijackers a year after they brought down the World Trade Center towers. ... Hub Blog knows firsthand that the State Department is taking a blunderbuss approach to the problem. I have a non-Arab, non-Muslim friend who loves living in America and doesn’t want to leave. But he’s leaving under pressure from State because he holds the wrong type of passport. Going to his good-bye party tomorrow. What a shame.
Update: A reader writes in that I probably got some facts wrong in the above item. Reader: "All that I remember reading is that these hijackers were in this country legally. And your comment immeduately after the above sentences ("...that's probably asking too much from bureaucracies that were still processing permit papers of hijackers a year after they brought down the World Trade Center towers") seems to strongly suggest they were going through the correct INS procedures. Of course, now I cannot find articles stating either way whether they were or not to make my point."
Hub Blog's response: The reader may be right, actually. Recall the same thing. (And, no, the hijackers weren't 'immigrants' but were here on student visas, most of them, anyway, if I recall correctly.) Thanks to the reader for pointing it out, but I don't think the thrust of my argument is screwed up at all, to wit: We seemed, pre-Sept. 11, incapable of monitoring our legal (let alone illegal) immigration, and totally incapable today, post-Sept. 11, of weeding out of the bad from the good, thus the use of the blunderbuss approach. The complete inability to differentiate between the two is scary. The whole immigration system is screwed up, and we all know it. And a lot of innocent people are being thrown out of the country, and we know it. Thanks again, though, to the reader for pointing out the mistakes.
Update II: Just found out my friend can probably stay in the U.S. for a few more months. The wheels of immigration justice seem to be working in the right direction for a change.
Update: A reader writes in that I probably got some facts wrong in the above item. Reader: "All that I remember reading is that these hijackers were in this country legally. And your comment immeduately after the above sentences ("...that's probably asking too much from bureaucracies that were still processing permit papers of hijackers a year after they brought down the World Trade Center towers") seems to strongly suggest they were going through the correct INS procedures. Of course, now I cannot find articles stating either way whether they were or not to make my point."
Hub Blog's response: The reader may be right, actually. Recall the same thing. (And, no, the hijackers weren't 'immigrants' but were here on student visas, most of them, anyway, if I recall correctly.) Thanks to the reader for pointing it out, but I don't think the thrust of my argument is screwed up at all, to wit: We seemed, pre-Sept. 11, incapable of monitoring our legal (let alone illegal) immigration, and totally incapable today, post-Sept. 11, of weeding out of the bad from the good, thus the use of the blunderbuss approach. The complete inability to differentiate between the two is scary. The whole immigration system is screwed up, and we all know it. And a lot of innocent people are being thrown out of the country, and we know it. Thanks again, though, to the reader for pointing out the mistakes.
Update II: Just found out my friend can probably stay in the U.S. for a few more months. The wheels of immigration justice seem to be working in the right direction for a change.
Friday, January 03, 2003
The first day: Well, Hub Blog didn’t get a chance to watch Mitt’s speech (though I saw the festivities leading up to it), so, once again, I’ll have to rely on others to assess what he actually said. Scot Lehigh, who’s usually right on target, says he flubbed it. Brian McGrory, who was definitely on target during the election, says Mitt is ‘off to a rollicking start,’ though he’s still a little worried about Mitt’s miserable campaign this past fall. (I can’t agree more). Howie Carr, who usually just targets his targets, said it was a bad speech -- for hacks. But the best piece seemed to come from, of all people, a business reporter, the Globe’s Beth Healy, who provided small, telling details about the venture capitalist’s first day as a full-time politician. She didn't seem overly impressed. Still, seems everyone agrees: Mitt’s business outlook dominated the tone, substance and atmosphere. ... All of which leads me to think: When Mitt pays too much attention to what his political handlers say, he’s awful. When he goes with his gut business instinct, he’s much better off.
Update: Check out Dan Kennedy's overview. He thinks Scot Lehigh's piece was the best. And Lehigh definitely had good points. But a few quick points: 1.) The budget crisis today WAS partly caused by consistent spending above the inflation rate throughout the '90s. (Comparing spending to the '80s isn't the point. Overspending is overspending.) 2.) The main spending culprit in the '90s was health care. 3.) One can talk about this outrageous tax cut, or that outrageous tax hike, but they pretty much cancel each other out in the current formula. 4.) It's ultimately about the economy, silly us. Revenues are down here and elsewhere. 5.) I don't think Mitt can solve this crisis without a combination of deep spending cuts and, yup, a tax hike in the end. Hope I'm wrong, but, unless the economy picks up ...
Update II: Cosmo Macero saw the pre-speech pomp yesterday and thinks Swift set the tone of cold pettiness when she met with Mitt. I suspect she probably had an inkling Mitt was going to shitcan some of her appointments.
Update: Check out Dan Kennedy's overview. He thinks Scot Lehigh's piece was the best. And Lehigh definitely had good points. But a few quick points: 1.) The budget crisis today WAS partly caused by consistent spending above the inflation rate throughout the '90s. (Comparing spending to the '80s isn't the point. Overspending is overspending.) 2.) The main spending culprit in the '90s was health care. 3.) One can talk about this outrageous tax cut, or that outrageous tax hike, but they pretty much cancel each other out in the current formula. 4.) It's ultimately about the economy, silly us. Revenues are down here and elsewhere. 5.) I don't think Mitt can solve this crisis without a combination of deep spending cuts and, yup, a tax hike in the end. Hope I'm wrong, but, unless the economy picks up ...
Update II: Cosmo Macero saw the pre-speech pomp yesterday and thinks Swift set the tone of cold pettiness when she met with Mitt. I suspect she probably had an inkling Mitt was going to shitcan some of her appointments.
Whitey in London: I started humming ‘Werewolf of London’ when I read this piece. But, as usual in the Bulgers saga, it’s the sidebar that intrigues. The fact Whitey opened a London bank deposit box in 1992 in Billy’s name is not a big deal. How many insurance, 401(k) and health-care forms have you filled out without telling a family member they’re listed as a contact person, beneficiary, reference, etc.? But the story doesn’t end there. Apparently, the London bank routinely contacted an ‘unidentified’ person at Billy’s South Boston residence -- in 1997, when Whitey was on the run -- that the bank’s office was moving, or whatever. In October, Scotland Yard and FBI agents opened the bank deposit box and, lo and behold, there was 50 grand in assorted currencies stuffed inside. So it’s pretty clear Billy knew about the deposit box and ... Poor Jackie, Billy and Whitey’s brother. He’s being persecuted on perjury charges for allegedly lying about -- bank deposit boxes.
First Amendment Rights in Westfield: Initially, I thought this was a straight-out First Amendment case and it would be over with, pronto. Now I’m beginning to believe the issue truly does involve a form of bias against religious free expression. Deans and principals crack down on student-run newspapers. People get upset. But a high school prohibits distribution of non-approved literature (constitutional wrong No. 1) and then moves to suspend seven students for handing out candy canes with religious messages attached to them (constitutional wrong No. 2), and First Amendment backers aren’t rallying to the kids’ cause? Don’t get it. My only conclusion (based on my own ugly prejudices) is that, well, they are a bunch of kooky, annoying born-again Christians with weird views on the origins of candy canes and they’re being backed by a cause-mongering interest group I don’t necessarily trust, right? But aren’t we supposed to work around such prejudices and defend these kids’ rights? Do they really deserve suspensions, for cryin’ out loud? I know there’s a constitutional separation-of-church-and-state issue lurking here somewhere. But there’s a difference between state ‘sponsorship’ of religion and state ‘prohibition’ against religious expression. Is Westfield High School also cracking down on students exchanging Christmas cards and gifts? I doubt it. ... Postscript: As for Westfield’s ban on distribution of non-approved literature in general, I truly hope some kids come to school armed with, say, leaflets denouncing/supporting the coming war with Iraq. Let’s turn it into a real test case. Bottom line: We need to let kids learn how to express their opinions on a wide variety of issues, including distributing non-school sponsored candy canes with dopey religious messages on them.
Tackling terrorism: H.D.S. Greenway has been on a roll lately. A nice balance between going after the ‘root causes’ of terrorism while recognizing the terrorists responsible for 9/11 just can’t be reasoned with. Love this last line: “Of all the graffiti that sprang up on walls and signs around ground zero in the weeks following 9/11, one caught my eye as summarizing all the sassy resilience that Americans need in these troubled times ahead. It read: ‘Infidels welcome here.’
Thursday, January 02, 2003
Boston hit blogger: Damn. Knew I should have put pictures of hot chicks on this blog to drive traffic. He's also good -- and knows it. ... Where did I read this guy is destined for a TV show? Oh, yeah, his own web site. ... Guess I'm going to have to start putting up favorite Boston-bachelor recipes (Swordfish Provencal etc.) to counter this guy. ... Seriously, hilarious, off-the-wall, classic blog. Read it. ... "I laughed, I cried. ..." ... (via everyone else on the 'net -- and it seems I was the last to know in Boston).
Big day on Beacon Hill: He gets sworn in today as governor. Now the question is: Which governor will show up? The schmaltzy Mitt who ran one of the worst campaigns in the early stages of his election bid? Or the serious management Mitt who emerged after the election and wowed supporters and (many) critics alike? ...
... Scot Lehigh has some kind words to say about Jane, Tom and Tripp as they leave their posts. I suppose he’s right, to an extent. But Jane, in particular, was in way over her head and she’ll soon be forgotten. However, Hub Blog has decided that Howie Carr was being a little unfair when he nominated Jane as the worst governor in the history of Massachusetts. After I posted on Howie’s column yesterday, a Hub Blog reader wrote in to nominate none other than Paul Cellucci as the worst governor in Massachusetts history. You know what? The reader is right. Cellucci had everything going for him: experience in the legislature, six years serving with Bill Weld, and a victorious election campaign in ‘98. What happened? He fell flat on his face, let Finneran and Birmingham run state government, contented himself with playing with his patronage Tinker Toys in the corner office, then bolted for Ottawa before serving out his entire term, leaving us with his hand-picked successor, Jane. Yes, Paul richly deserves the honor as the worst governor in Massachusetts history.
... Scot Lehigh has some kind words to say about Jane, Tom and Tripp as they leave their posts. I suppose he’s right, to an extent. But Jane, in particular, was in way over her head and she’ll soon be forgotten. However, Hub Blog has decided that Howie Carr was being a little unfair when he nominated Jane as the worst governor in the history of Massachusetts. After I posted on Howie’s column yesterday, a Hub Blog reader wrote in to nominate none other than Paul Cellucci as the worst governor in Massachusetts history. You know what? The reader is right. Cellucci had everything going for him: experience in the legislature, six years serving with Bill Weld, and a victorious election campaign in ‘98. What happened? He fell flat on his face, let Finneran and Birmingham run state government, contented himself with playing with his patronage Tinker Toys in the corner office, then bolted for Ottawa before serving out his entire term, leaving us with his hand-picked successor, Jane. Yes, Paul richly deserves the honor as the worst governor in Massachusetts history.
Save our stone walls!: What an interesting, oddball subject for an op-ed piece: Rallying the people of New England to save our classic stone walls. Had no idea they were being bought up, trucked away and crushed down for construction purposes. The author, Robert M. Thorson, a geology and geophysics professor at the University of Connecticut, almost lost me when he said the loss of New England’s stone walls was “far more insidious" than the Taliban’s destruction of the Buddha statues in Afghanistan. Then I thought, “Hey, the guy has written an entire book about stone walls. Give him a little slack.” Fun piece.
The ‘conservative opinion media’: Dan Kennedy is writing again about the ‘liberal mainstream media’ and the ‘conservative opinion media,’ sparked by yesterday’s article in the New York Times. John Ellis also blogged on the same article, from a different perspective.
I’ve said before I wanted to write about this issue, so I guess this is as good a time as any. It’s long, but here goes:
I. Liberal mainstream media: There is a mainstream liberal media and a liberal bias that goes along with it. That argument is old and over, though only now are some on the left acknowledging its existence, at least for tactical reasons. But here’s my take on it: I think the mainstream liberal media is far less liberal today than it was, say, ten or twenty years ago. In the ‘70s and early ‘80s, most -- but not all -- mainstream media outlets were as liberal in their news coverage as Fox News is conservative today. As a moderate conservative breaking into the news business in the early ‘80s, I found the atmosphere in most mainstream newsrooms to be almost politically correct. I felt very uncomfortable about expressing my personal views on issues. I know a lot of other reporters who secretly shared the same intellectual and professional discomfort. But something happened in the late-’80s/early ‘90s: Newsrooms started to ease up, they became less rigid and frigid, more comfortable and flexible in their acceptance of other viewpoints. The newsroom chatter became, well, more balanced and relaxed, relatively. What happened? I’m not quite sure. There are a number of explanations: the passions of Vietnam and Watergate ebbed; younger reporters and editors, whose views were shaped by different historical events and people, started moving up the ladder; the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War shattered of a lot of historical and ideological myths (mostly on the left); the shocking rise of hard-core PC in academia (as compared to mild PC in the media) and the genuine disgust many journalists felt towards the academic trend; people just got older etc. Believe it or not, I also think a lot of moderate liberal editors and reporters took conservative complaints about a liberal media bias to heart, and they acted accordingly. If you need proof of my theory that the mainstream press has become less liberal, look no further than the Boston Globe. I think most Boston readers would agree the Globe is clearly, undeniably (and admirably) less liberal today than it was 20 years ago. There’s been a shift here and elsewhere within the mainstream press -- and conservatives are not acknowledging this trend. They only see the Howell Raines, who, to me, is almost an aberration and definitely a throwback to a bygone crusading era. If you need proof of my theory on a national scale, look no further than the New York Times staff itself and ask yourself: Who are the reporters quietly resisting Raines? Think about it: They’re resisting Raines, not cheering him on.
Bottom line: If I had to rank the level of liberal bias, I’d say mainstream journalism ranked a solid 8 to 8.5, on a scale of 1 to 10, in the ‘70s and early ‘80s (or roughly where the European press is today). Now it’s about, oh, 6.5, some days higher, some days lower. Culturally, I just accept it, just as I accept that most Wall Street stock brokers are Republicans. It’s just the way it is. No need to get worked up over it.
One last point in this category: Kennedy is right that mainstream liberal journalism’s ability to carry out an ideological agenda is seriously hampered by a number of factors, such as appearing objective (though I think true objectivity is impossible) and possessing an unbiased thrill for scandal and gotcha stories. That’s definitely part of modern mainstream journalism, too.
II. The conservative opinion media: Never underestimate the deep, profound resentment conservatives feel towards the media, a resentment which dates back decades and decades, when both the mainstream media AND the opinion media were dominated by liberals. Passionately believing in/seeing a liberal media bias, even in the most minuscule news item, is deeply ingrained in the conservative mindset; it’s part of the lores and myths which every ideological movement has and which are passed down to younger generations of true believers.
But here’s another thing conservatives haven’t fully acknowledged to themselves: They’ve won the battle in this opinion arena. They now dominate the opinion media -- on the airwaves, on the Internet, on the op-ed pages. It’s been a rout. Why? Two reasons: 1.) They were right on most of the issues and 2.) They’ve solidified their position of dominance because of the marketplace and deregulation.
As for the first point, I know it’s hard for some liberals to accept this, but the left really is undergoing a crisis today. As time has passed them by, they’re still patting themselves on the back for the civil rights movement and Vietnam. Even stalwart liberals such as Ellen Goodman are writing about the ossified nature of the left. The same slogans. The same clothes. The same complaints. The same solutions. As I said, it’s been a rout -- and liberalism lost control of the opinion media largely because it lost the intellectual battle of ideas. And bringing back Phil Donahue isn’t going to change that. And if liberals want to start their own cable network and hype prescription drug prices as an issue in the middle of a war, they’ll find out the hard way -- through dismal ratings -- that their views aren’t widely accepted nor seriously respected.
As for the second point, recent deregulation of the airwaves, both radio and TV, has definitely accelerated and solidified the conservative dominance of the opinion airwaves. The “fairness doctrine” is all but dead. The marketplace rules -- sort of (more on this in a bit). But before people complain about the demise of the fairness doctrine, can’t it be argued that, in a way, the
fairness doctrine was a form of subsidizing -- or more accurately, propping up -- an unpopular, outdated idea, i.e. politically-correct liberalism? To say the demise of the fairness doctrine has led to the collapse of the liberal opinion media is, well, acknowledging there wouldn’t be a liberal opinion media without government support. But where I agree deregulation has hurt the media -- both the mainstream and opinion sides -- is in the field of ownership. William Safire has written about this a lot. The monopolization of the media by a handful of moguls is scary. They treat news like it’s a fashion commodity (Laurie Dew is in Baghdad, folks!) and treat public policy shows like they’re entertainment (don’t you just love those CNN “Crossfire” commercials showing the preppy Tucker in boxing robes?). Media moguls, like Hollywood moguls, are ultimately lazy thinkers and will keep slopping out the same old crap as long as it’s profitable. These same moguls associate talk-radio and talk-TV with conservatives and, gosh darn it, they’re going to keep heaping it on as long as they’re profitable. Oh, they’ll drag a Phil Donahue out of retirement now and then, but if Phil’s shows don’t make a buck, good-bye Phil.
III. What do we have today?: I’m tempted to say there’s now a balance of power between the ‘conservative opinion media’ and ‘liberal mainstream media’ -- though those of us who are sick of the whole 24/7 news and talk cycle might even call it a ‘balance of terror.’ Both sides (hard-core conservatives and hard-core liberals) have a vested interest in conveniently insisting the other side has more media clout. (‘I’m the underdog!’ ... ‘No, I’m the aggrieved underdog!’) But I do think there’s now rough parity today. OK, OK. There are fine points that need to be considered. Liberals will say that the mainstream press is hampered by its attempt at being ‘objective’ and that it has an undeniable non-partisan penchant for bashing the Victim of the Day. Conservatives are right to say that you should throw in, when considering the balance of media power, the clout of Hollywood and the entire entertainment industry etc. But I still insist, on a gut instinct level, that there’s a weird balance of power. If pushed to make a call, I think, as Dan Kennedy asserts, that the balance of power tilts today towards conservatives. He thinks it’s largely institutional. I think it’s because ideas count. It’s probably a combination of the two. No matter. How long will it last? I don’t know. But liberals might want to take a peek at Jeff Jarvis’ excellent (via Instapundit) style and substance tips on how liberals can flex their muscles in the opinion-media battle. Believe it or not, there are a lot of other bloggers out there -- many of them conservative, in a loose definition of the word -- who are alarmed at the growing pack mentality of the ‘conservative movement,’ who are concerned about a lack of opposition and agree with many non-politically correct points that liberals routinely push (including abortion rights, gay rights, the death penalty etc.). There’s a market out there to exploit, if only liberals would get their intellectual, political and opinion-media act together.
So, there. Finally finished this promised item. I know I’ve left a lot of points out of the discussion, but, hey, I ain’t getting paid for this. The bottom line is that I think the whole ‘conservative opinion media’ and ‘liberal mainstream media’ (but not the ‘conservative media’) topic is intriguing and there’s a lot of validity to the argument that the two exist in tandem -- with conservatives holding the agenda-setting edge.
I’ve said before I wanted to write about this issue, so I guess this is as good a time as any. It’s long, but here goes:
I. Liberal mainstream media: There is a mainstream liberal media and a liberal bias that goes along with it. That argument is old and over, though only now are some on the left acknowledging its existence, at least for tactical reasons. But here’s my take on it: I think the mainstream liberal media is far less liberal today than it was, say, ten or twenty years ago. In the ‘70s and early ‘80s, most -- but not all -- mainstream media outlets were as liberal in their news coverage as Fox News is conservative today. As a moderate conservative breaking into the news business in the early ‘80s, I found the atmosphere in most mainstream newsrooms to be almost politically correct. I felt very uncomfortable about expressing my personal views on issues. I know a lot of other reporters who secretly shared the same intellectual and professional discomfort. But something happened in the late-’80s/early ‘90s: Newsrooms started to ease up, they became less rigid and frigid, more comfortable and flexible in their acceptance of other viewpoints. The newsroom chatter became, well, more balanced and relaxed, relatively. What happened? I’m not quite sure. There are a number of explanations: the passions of Vietnam and Watergate ebbed; younger reporters and editors, whose views were shaped by different historical events and people, started moving up the ladder; the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War shattered of a lot of historical and ideological myths (mostly on the left); the shocking rise of hard-core PC in academia (as compared to mild PC in the media) and the genuine disgust many journalists felt towards the academic trend; people just got older etc. Believe it or not, I also think a lot of moderate liberal editors and reporters took conservative complaints about a liberal media bias to heart, and they acted accordingly. If you need proof of my theory that the mainstream press has become less liberal, look no further than the Boston Globe. I think most Boston readers would agree the Globe is clearly, undeniably (and admirably) less liberal today than it was 20 years ago. There’s been a shift here and elsewhere within the mainstream press -- and conservatives are not acknowledging this trend. They only see the Howell Raines, who, to me, is almost an aberration and definitely a throwback to a bygone crusading era. If you need proof of my theory on a national scale, look no further than the New York Times staff itself and ask yourself: Who are the reporters quietly resisting Raines? Think about it: They’re resisting Raines, not cheering him on.
Bottom line: If I had to rank the level of liberal bias, I’d say mainstream journalism ranked a solid 8 to 8.5, on a scale of 1 to 10, in the ‘70s and early ‘80s (or roughly where the European press is today). Now it’s about, oh, 6.5, some days higher, some days lower. Culturally, I just accept it, just as I accept that most Wall Street stock brokers are Republicans. It’s just the way it is. No need to get worked up over it.
One last point in this category: Kennedy is right that mainstream liberal journalism’s ability to carry out an ideological agenda is seriously hampered by a number of factors, such as appearing objective (though I think true objectivity is impossible) and possessing an unbiased thrill for scandal and gotcha stories. That’s definitely part of modern mainstream journalism, too.
II. The conservative opinion media: Never underestimate the deep, profound resentment conservatives feel towards the media, a resentment which dates back decades and decades, when both the mainstream media AND the opinion media were dominated by liberals. Passionately believing in/seeing a liberal media bias, even in the most minuscule news item, is deeply ingrained in the conservative mindset; it’s part of the lores and myths which every ideological movement has and which are passed down to younger generations of true believers.
But here’s another thing conservatives haven’t fully acknowledged to themselves: They’ve won the battle in this opinion arena. They now dominate the opinion media -- on the airwaves, on the Internet, on the op-ed pages. It’s been a rout. Why? Two reasons: 1.) They were right on most of the issues and 2.) They’ve solidified their position of dominance because of the marketplace and deregulation.
As for the first point, I know it’s hard for some liberals to accept this, but the left really is undergoing a crisis today. As time has passed them by, they’re still patting themselves on the back for the civil rights movement and Vietnam. Even stalwart liberals such as Ellen Goodman are writing about the ossified nature of the left. The same slogans. The same clothes. The same complaints. The same solutions. As I said, it’s been a rout -- and liberalism lost control of the opinion media largely because it lost the intellectual battle of ideas. And bringing back Phil Donahue isn’t going to change that. And if liberals want to start their own cable network and hype prescription drug prices as an issue in the middle of a war, they’ll find out the hard way -- through dismal ratings -- that their views aren’t widely accepted nor seriously respected.
As for the second point, recent deregulation of the airwaves, both radio and TV, has definitely accelerated and solidified the conservative dominance of the opinion airwaves. The “fairness doctrine” is all but dead. The marketplace rules -- sort of (more on this in a bit). But before people complain about the demise of the fairness doctrine, can’t it be argued that, in a way, the
fairness doctrine was a form of subsidizing -- or more accurately, propping up -- an unpopular, outdated idea, i.e. politically-correct liberalism? To say the demise of the fairness doctrine has led to the collapse of the liberal opinion media is, well, acknowledging there wouldn’t be a liberal opinion media without government support. But where I agree deregulation has hurt the media -- both the mainstream and opinion sides -- is in the field of ownership. William Safire has written about this a lot. The monopolization of the media by a handful of moguls is scary. They treat news like it’s a fashion commodity (Laurie Dew is in Baghdad, folks!) and treat public policy shows like they’re entertainment (don’t you just love those CNN “Crossfire” commercials showing the preppy Tucker in boxing robes?). Media moguls, like Hollywood moguls, are ultimately lazy thinkers and will keep slopping out the same old crap as long as it’s profitable. These same moguls associate talk-radio and talk-TV with conservatives and, gosh darn it, they’re going to keep heaping it on as long as they’re profitable. Oh, they’ll drag a Phil Donahue out of retirement now and then, but if Phil’s shows don’t make a buck, good-bye Phil.
III. What do we have today?: I’m tempted to say there’s now a balance of power between the ‘conservative opinion media’ and ‘liberal mainstream media’ -- though those of us who are sick of the whole 24/7 news and talk cycle might even call it a ‘balance of terror.’ Both sides (hard-core conservatives and hard-core liberals) have a vested interest in conveniently insisting the other side has more media clout. (‘I’m the underdog!’ ... ‘No, I’m the aggrieved underdog!’) But I do think there’s now rough parity today. OK, OK. There are fine points that need to be considered. Liberals will say that the mainstream press is hampered by its attempt at being ‘objective’ and that it has an undeniable non-partisan penchant for bashing the Victim of the Day. Conservatives are right to say that you should throw in, when considering the balance of media power, the clout of Hollywood and the entire entertainment industry etc. But I still insist, on a gut instinct level, that there’s a weird balance of power. If pushed to make a call, I think, as Dan Kennedy asserts, that the balance of power tilts today towards conservatives. He thinks it’s largely institutional. I think it’s because ideas count. It’s probably a combination of the two. No matter. How long will it last? I don’t know. But liberals might want to take a peek at Jeff Jarvis’ excellent (via Instapundit) style and substance tips on how liberals can flex their muscles in the opinion-media battle. Believe it or not, there are a lot of other bloggers out there -- many of them conservative, in a loose definition of the word -- who are alarmed at the growing pack mentality of the ‘conservative movement,’ who are concerned about a lack of opposition and agree with many non-politically correct points that liberals routinely push (including abortion rights, gay rights, the death penalty etc.). There’s a market out there to exploit, if only liberals would get their intellectual, political and opinion-media act together.
So, there. Finally finished this promised item. I know I’ve left a lot of points out of the discussion, but, hey, I ain’t getting paid for this. The bottom line is that I think the whole ‘conservative opinion media’ and ‘liberal mainstream media’ (but not the ‘conservative media’) topic is intriguing and there’s a lot of validity to the argument that the two exist in tandem -- with conservatives holding the agenda-setting edge.
Wednesday, January 01, 2003
OK, just got back from counting the number of empty wine bottles in my apartment. Conclusion: Hub Blog had one hell of a New Year's dinner party. Ah, some quickie posts on this New Year Day before I reach for the Bloody Mary:
1. Class act. Mitt and his lieutenant governor forgo their pay for four years.
2. Not so class act. Finneran may cooperate with Mitt on the budget, but there’s a hitch: Give me my patronage or it’s World War III.
3. The natural. She’s a ‘natural’ in the sense of being a hack. Jane had one last patronage job to fill before she left: A job for her patronage chief. It was the ‘natural’ thing to do, says Jane’s spokeswoman.
4. The worst governor in Massachusetts history. It was close but Howie Carr gives the nod to Jane. Howie: “The Duke vs. Swifty. This is a debate that will echo (faintly) down through the ages. But ultimately, you have to go with the Republican, if only because Republicans aren't supposed to be quite so dreadful.”
5. Silly. Alex Beam writes his ‘annual roundup of anti-Alex Beam mail.’ Not one word on his April Fool’s column about blogging. Maybe he forgot about James Lilek’s response to his column. Or maybe he didn’t count Lilek’s response because it technically didn’t come in the form of snail mail.
6. Strong leader. Count Hub Blog as one of those Americans who, if polled, would give the president a thumbs-up approval rating because of the war and a thumbs-down for other reasons if an election were held today. Right or wrong, he's a strong leader. And I don't know how many times I've had conversations with people, supporters or critics of Bush alike, who say, "Thank God he was president on Sept. 11." Read Bill Clinton's quote at the end. Says it all.
7. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Yet another free-speech issue in Massachusetts. No, it’s not at Harvard this time. It’s at a school in Westfield. You see, there are these dangerous kids who handed out candy canes, along with a religious note attached to each candy cane, to fellow students before the holidays -- and now they’re facing the possibility of being suspended. Not making it up. What is it about school administrators and free speech? Is there some secret leadership seminar that they all attend on the need to crack down on 1st Amendment rights? Here’s a whopper of a quote from the oh-so-progressive Superintendent Thomas McDowell: ''We have progressive discipline, and these are not bad kids. ... We will do whatever the handbook says.'' ... Progressive discipline? What the hell does that mean? Handbook? What handbook? How about saying: “We have regressive rules, and these are good kids. ... We will do whatever the Constitution says.” ... Check out the last quote in the article. It’s classic. Makes you feel good about youth in general.
And don't forget to check out the item directly below from Reader No. 1. Enjoy the football games today!
1. Class act. Mitt and his lieutenant governor forgo their pay for four years.
2. Not so class act. Finneran may cooperate with Mitt on the budget, but there’s a hitch: Give me my patronage or it’s World War III.
3. The natural. She’s a ‘natural’ in the sense of being a hack. Jane had one last patronage job to fill before she left: A job for her patronage chief. It was the ‘natural’ thing to do, says Jane’s spokeswoman.
4. The worst governor in Massachusetts history. It was close but Howie Carr gives the nod to Jane. Howie: “The Duke vs. Swifty. This is a debate that will echo (faintly) down through the ages. But ultimately, you have to go with the Republican, if only because Republicans aren't supposed to be quite so dreadful.”
5. Silly. Alex Beam writes his ‘annual roundup of anti-Alex Beam mail.’ Not one word on his April Fool’s column about blogging. Maybe he forgot about James Lilek’s response to his column. Or maybe he didn’t count Lilek’s response because it technically didn’t come in the form of snail mail.
6. Strong leader. Count Hub Blog as one of those Americans who, if polled, would give the president a thumbs-up approval rating because of the war and a thumbs-down for other reasons if an election were held today. Right or wrong, he's a strong leader. And I don't know how many times I've had conversations with people, supporters or critics of Bush alike, who say, "Thank God he was president on Sept. 11." Read Bill Clinton's quote at the end. Says it all.
7. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Yet another free-speech issue in Massachusetts. No, it’s not at Harvard this time. It’s at a school in Westfield. You see, there are these dangerous kids who handed out candy canes, along with a religious note attached to each candy cane, to fellow students before the holidays -- and now they’re facing the possibility of being suspended. Not making it up. What is it about school administrators and free speech? Is there some secret leadership seminar that they all attend on the need to crack down on 1st Amendment rights? Here’s a whopper of a quote from the oh-so-progressive Superintendent Thomas McDowell: ''We have progressive discipline, and these are not bad kids. ... We will do whatever the handbook says.'' ... Progressive discipline? What the hell does that mean? Handbook? What handbook? How about saying: “We have regressive rules, and these are good kids. ... We will do whatever the Constitution says.” ... Check out the last quote in the article. It’s classic. Makes you feel good about youth in general.
And don't forget to check out the item directly below from Reader No. 1. Enjoy the football games today!
Happy New Year! Woke up this morning and found this message from Reader No. 1. It puts the New Year into a much happier perspective. From Reader No. 1:
"Happy New Year Hub Blog! But don't worry so much about the Yankees trading for Bartolo Colon. Steinbrunner has spent record money in each of the last 2 years and couldn't buy a World Series. He couldn't buy INTO the World Series last year. Yes, he's added quality free agents like Jason Giambi; he's also accumulated expensive questionables like Raul Mondesi, Jeff Weaver, and Rondell White who haven't helped the team win. (How would we feel if Theo announced he'd signed Todd Zeile?) I'm getting vibes of those 1980s Yankee teams again...
"If you had to list the Red Sox' biggest headaches, Manny Ramirez' contract would be the top of the list. Spending money is not the solution. The 90s Yankee renaissance was fueled by homegrown talent (Jeter, Williams, Posada etc); I'm no Peter Gammons but there hasn't been much out of the Yankee farm system lately. And the main figure in the Colon trade rumors is the best everyday Yankee prospect of recent years, Nick Johnson. So, let's step back and let Theo & Lucchino try to build something, and let George spend his children's inheritance."
Hub Blog feels much better, even with the hangover.
"Happy New Year Hub Blog! But don't worry so much about the Yankees trading for Bartolo Colon. Steinbrunner has spent record money in each of the last 2 years and couldn't buy a World Series. He couldn't buy INTO the World Series last year. Yes, he's added quality free agents like Jason Giambi; he's also accumulated expensive questionables like Raul Mondesi, Jeff Weaver, and Rondell White who haven't helped the team win. (How would we feel if Theo announced he'd signed Todd Zeile?) I'm getting vibes of those 1980s Yankee teams again...
"If you had to list the Red Sox' biggest headaches, Manny Ramirez' contract would be the top of the list. Spending money is not the solution. The 90s Yankee renaissance was fueled by homegrown talent (Jeter, Williams, Posada etc); I'm no Peter Gammons but there hasn't been much out of the Yankee farm system lately. And the main figure in the Colon trade rumors is the best everyday Yankee prospect of recent years, Nick Johnson. So, let's step back and let Theo & Lucchino try to build something, and let George spend his children's inheritance."
Hub Blog feels much better, even with the hangover.
