Tuesday, February 11, 2003
Bechtel and the ‘walrus list’ etc.: Ah, it took a few days of mind-numbing (but necessary) prep work to get to this point in the Globe’s investigative series on Bechtel and the Big Dig. And ...surprise! ... Mitt, you’re a former CEO. Would you have liked it if Bechtel had treated Bain like this? I didn’t think so. Get ‘em! (Though it may be too late, even if the legislature changes the liability limitations.) ...
... Tommy and the Trav say they’re worried about the rinks, the pools, the kids, the parks. And, gosh darn it, we should closely examine elimination of the MDC. And don’t forget the ‘walrus list.’ ...
... Ah, Mitt. Someone who usually doesn’t have nice things to say about you has some very good advice today. Postscript on this item: Hub Blog feels terrible. My head is hanging low. Over the past week, I’ve been spelling Eric’s last name wrong. It’s “Fehrnstrom.” With an ‘h.’ I’ll try to correct it in some of the other past items. My punishment? I will voluntarily not accept pay for Hub Blog for the next week. ...
Margery Eagan: “It never ends. Another day, another boondoggle.”
... Tommy and the Trav say they’re worried about the rinks, the pools, the kids, the parks. And, gosh darn it, we should closely examine elimination of the MDC. And don’t forget the ‘walrus list.’ ...
... Ah, Mitt. Someone who usually doesn’t have nice things to say about you has some very good advice today. Postscript on this item: Hub Blog feels terrible. My head is hanging low. Over the past week, I’ve been spelling Eric’s last name wrong. It’s “Fehrnstrom.” With an ‘h.’ I’ll try to correct it in some of the other past items. My punishment? I will voluntarily not accept pay for Hub Blog for the next week. ...
Margery Eagan: “It never ends. Another day, another boondoggle.”
Nobel laureates don’t like tax-cut spaghetti approach: What? Ten Nobel laureates are criticizing the Bush administration’s tax-cut spaghetti plans? I’m shocked. ... Besides the good intellectual/economic cat-fight nature of this story, I also liked it, from a journalistic standpoint, for another reason. Notice how the reporter, Kimberly Blanton, A.) Puts into perspective who these laureates are and where they’re coming from in terms of their political/economic outlook and B.) How high up in the story she put that perspective. A fair, helpful touch that immediately put things into more, well, perspective. The most obnoxious quote in the story comes from Nobel laureate Daniel McFadden, who refers to the proposed tax-cut package as a ''weapon of mass destruction aimed at the middle class.'' ...OK, Hub Blog’s view on all of this? The Bush administration clearly is groping for an answer to the economy’s woes, shuffling around its economic team, coming up with new ideas, throwing tax-cut spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks, etc. Listen, I like tax cuts. If they’re well thought out and targeted right. I also don’t mind tax increases now and then. If they’re well thought out and targeted right. I also like keeping a handle on spending and balanced budgets. And so does Andrew Sullivan, who yesterday fired a conservative warning shot off of George's bow.
War and NATO: As I noted yesterday in the item immediately below, we’re witnessing truly historic events these days. The future of NATO, not to be too melodramatic, hangs in the balance. OK, let’s get it out of our system: Bush is not very deft at diplomacy and contributed, to a great degree, to the controversy in Europe. But that’s not the point now, as H.D.S. Greenway noted the other day in the Globe. The point today is how Saddam is flaunting the UN and, as others have pointed out, how France and Germany are also flaunting the UN and NATO now that the US has embraced a more multilateralist approach toward the crisis. ... Read John McCain’s remarks about anti-Americanism over at Instapundit. The Europeans are responsible for this mess, too, particularly France and Germany. Arghhhh. France, Germany, evil. ...
... Speaking of the multilateralism/unilateralism debate, check out Andrew Sullivan (yeah, I’m quoting Andrew and Instapundit a lot these days, but, hey, there’s a war going on) and the ludicrous quote by Arthur Sulzberger Jr. about how this is about unilateralism vs. multilateralism. Yeah, right. And the Bush administration embraces multilateralism and ... and what? France, Germany and the NYT suddenly don’t want to play by the multilateralist rules. As I’ve said before, the entire multilateralist/unilateralist debate is sort of nuts, for there’s no such thing as pure ‘unilateralism’ and ‘multilateralism’ in the real world. You use them in conjunction with each other, like knives and forks, each with their own distinctive strengths and weaknesses. The Bush administration, reluctantly and perhaps accidentally, discovered the dual use of both. Arthur Sulzberger et gang are now shell-shocked at the multilateralist turn of events. ...
... James Carroll has a good idea. Carroll thinks we should haul Saddam before a world court for crimes against humanity. And then: “A forceful indictment in such a forum, followed by a trial, verdict, and world-enforced sentence, has an unprecedented potential for a laser-like release of transforming moral energy.” ... Wow. Wonder what he means by ‘world-enforced’? Maybe, after a trial, he means we can all stand up, all across the world, all at one time, and wag our fingers at Saddam and then huff and puff and blow Saddam down with a ‘laser-like release of transforming moral energy.’ You’ve been warned, Saddam.
... Speaking of the multilateralism/unilateralism debate, check out Andrew Sullivan (yeah, I’m quoting Andrew and Instapundit a lot these days, but, hey, there’s a war going on) and the ludicrous quote by Arthur Sulzberger Jr. about how this is about unilateralism vs. multilateralism. Yeah, right. And the Bush administration embraces multilateralism and ... and what? France, Germany and the NYT suddenly don’t want to play by the multilateralist rules. As I’ve said before, the entire multilateralist/unilateralist debate is sort of nuts, for there’s no such thing as pure ‘unilateralism’ and ‘multilateralism’ in the real world. You use them in conjunction with each other, like knives and forks, each with their own distinctive strengths and weaknesses. The Bush administration, reluctantly and perhaps accidentally, discovered the dual use of both. Arthur Sulzberger et gang are now shell-shocked at the multilateralist turn of events. ...
... James Carroll has a good idea. Carroll thinks we should haul Saddam before a world court for crimes against humanity. And then: “A forceful indictment in such a forum, followed by a trial, verdict, and world-enforced sentence, has an unprecedented potential for a laser-like release of transforming moral energy.” ... Wow. Wonder what he means by ‘world-enforced’? Maybe, after a trial, he means we can all stand up, all across the world, all at one time, and wag our fingers at Saddam and then huff and puff and blow Saddam down with a ‘laser-like release of transforming moral energy.’ You’ve been warned, Saddam.
Monday, February 10, 2003
Bush and Statecraft, Part II: Got a surprising number of emails about my post yesterday on this Globe editorial criticizing Bush’s handling of European affairs -- specifically Rumsfeld’s ‘old Europe’ crack. I disagreed with the editorial. But that’s not the point. The point, now, is the truly historic events, in my opinion, that are now playing out in Europe: France and Germany are now blocking NATO support for Turkey should that country be attacked by Saddam during war. The French and Germans are literally destroying NATO and the essence of its mission: cooperative security. Here’s a great William Safire column on Germany. And here’s an interesting op-ed by a German editor conceding that ‘Round 1’ has gone to “Mr. Big.” And, as usual, Instapundit has tons of material, such as on France’s role in NATO and Colin Powell’s common-sense views on the UN. What’s encouraging about the Instapundit items, in particular, is seeing people expressing appreciation for NATO and the UN, despite their obvious and serious flaws, and how we’re headed into truly turbulent waters if they disappear. ...
... An update on Hub Blog’s adapting (but not flip-flopping -- I hope) views on this: Clearly, I was and remain disappointed by the Bush administration’s handling of diplomatic affairs over the past year-- its blustering and condescending rhetoric, its go-it-alone mindset. I firmly believe that the German election ultimately hinged on an anti-Americanism exacerbated by (but not caused by) Bush’s belligerent rhetoric. (See Safire’s quote from the new German opposition leader, who says if her party had been in power, it would have signed the now famous letter by eight other European leaders supporting the US on Iraq.) ...
... However, we are where we are today -- and the issue is now, for the moment, not Bush. It’s France and Germany. They are now doing everything -- everything -- that they would have howled at (and did howl at) when the Bush administration played its own unilateralist act. We acted in a unilateralist way, switched gears and went the more (but not entirely) multilateralist route -- and discovered the biggest proponents of multilateralism were hypocrites and preferred their own unilateralist self-interests. Fascinating. Amazing. Historic. After this all blows over (and I’m not convinced it will blow over), I hope three things happen: 1.) The Bush administration tones down its rhetoric and uses a more deft unilateralist/multilateralist mix of diplomatic tools, which it’s been employing with great effectiveness in recent months. 2.) We kick France out of NATO and 3.) We kick France off the UN Security Council. France is a great democracy and has a beautiful culture, but it has a toxic, disruptive, poisonous foreign policy. ... Postscript: Notice in the German editor's column above about how this is 'Round 1' in the match, meaning more is to come. And as usual:
“As Churchill said, the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them.”
... An update on Hub Blog’s adapting (but not flip-flopping -- I hope) views on this: Clearly, I was and remain disappointed by the Bush administration’s handling of diplomatic affairs over the past year-- its blustering and condescending rhetoric, its go-it-alone mindset. I firmly believe that the German election ultimately hinged on an anti-Americanism exacerbated by (but not caused by) Bush’s belligerent rhetoric. (See Safire’s quote from the new German opposition leader, who says if her party had been in power, it would have signed the now famous letter by eight other European leaders supporting the US on Iraq.) ...
... However, we are where we are today -- and the issue is now, for the moment, not Bush. It’s France and Germany. They are now doing everything -- everything -- that they would have howled at (and did howl at) when the Bush administration played its own unilateralist act. We acted in a unilateralist way, switched gears and went the more (but not entirely) multilateralist route -- and discovered the biggest proponents of multilateralism were hypocrites and preferred their own unilateralist self-interests. Fascinating. Amazing. Historic. After this all blows over (and I’m not convinced it will blow over), I hope three things happen: 1.) The Bush administration tones down its rhetoric and uses a more deft unilateralist/multilateralist mix of diplomatic tools, which it’s been employing with great effectiveness in recent months. 2.) We kick France out of NATO and 3.) We kick France off the UN Security Council. France is a great democracy and has a beautiful culture, but it has a toxic, disruptive, poisonous foreign policy. ... Postscript: Notice in the German editor's column above about how this is 'Round 1' in the match, meaning more is to come. And as usual:
“As Churchill said, the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them.”
Soaking the rich, protocol and Eric: Reader Steve II (not to be confused with Reader Steve of Arlington) writes in with the following:
“Just wanted to throw my two cents in on a couple of things --
“The Ridiculous 'Soak-the-Rich' op-ed from today [also see Hub Blog item below on ‘Allegations of ..’] and many of the pieces decrying 'cruel' cuts: What I find intellectually dishonest about these pieces is that they fail to mention the 800 lb. (gorrilla) in the room: That 45 percent of voters who wanted to repeal the state income tax, followed by that recent UMASS poll showing 70 percent of voters don't want new taxes. My real fear is that an incremental tax hike now will provoke a backlash. If you don't like a $3b shortfall now, how will you like a $9b shortfall later? You can't argue for higher taxes (or retaining services) without at least acknowledging reality.
“The 'Mitt isn't playing the game' argument [see ‘standard political protocol’ within this linked item]: I am on the fence on this one -- wasn't he elected to stop playing the game? Part of me really likes that fact that he has no need for approval from the traditional political class (unlike the complex that Weld developed later in his term). The other part of me says that Romney is going to have to play the game at some point.
“An Indirect Defense of Eric Fehrnstrom: EF is the Communications Director for Romney. Romney, from observing at least the first few days, is doing a far better job of communicating (meaning using public pronouncements, talk radio, newspaper editorial boards, etc) than Jane Swift did. Ergo, EF is doing a good job. His spat with that mayor was stupid and should have been put to rest earlier, but I would suggest that we wait before throwing him to the wolves.”
“Just wanted to throw my two cents in on a couple of things --
“The Ridiculous 'Soak-the-Rich' op-ed from today [also see Hub Blog item below on ‘Allegations of ..’] and many of the pieces decrying 'cruel' cuts: What I find intellectually dishonest about these pieces is that they fail to mention the 800 lb. (gorrilla) in the room: That 45 percent of voters who wanted to repeal the state income tax, followed by that recent UMASS poll showing 70 percent of voters don't want new taxes. My real fear is that an incremental tax hike now will provoke a backlash. If you don't like a $3b shortfall now, how will you like a $9b shortfall later? You can't argue for higher taxes (or retaining services) without at least acknowledging reality.
“The 'Mitt isn't playing the game' argument [see ‘standard political protocol’ within this linked item]: I am on the fence on this one -- wasn't he elected to stop playing the game? Part of me really likes that fact that he has no need for approval from the traditional political class (unlike the complex that Weld developed later in his term). The other part of me says that Romney is going to have to play the game at some point.
“An Indirect Defense of Eric Fehrnstrom: EF is the Communications Director for Romney. Romney, from observing at least the first few days, is doing a far better job of communicating (meaning using public pronouncements, talk radio, newspaper editorial boards, etc) than Jane Swift did. Ergo, EF is doing a good job. His spat with that mayor was stupid and should have been put to rest earlier, but I would suggest that we wait before throwing him to the wolves.”
Who is John Kerry? Part (Who cares at this point): OK, last one. Promise. Sort of. From Mickey Kaus again, this time with an emphasis on the ‘epiphany.’ Still think Wayne Woodlief’s article had it just about right on how Kerry could have handled this better. A quote from Wayne’s column last week: “‘He (Kerry) has to be very careful to let his newfound heritage speak for itself,’ not to appear to be exploiting it, said Boston University professor Tobe Berkovitz.”
‘Allegations of cronyism and political horse-trading’: Allegations of cronyism and political horse-trading in Massachusetts’ judicial system? Allegations? In Massachusetts? What Bulger brother was a clerk of something or other in what court of something or other? Was there one or two of them on the court payroll? Forget. Well, OK. The Globe had to be fair in its story. But this is still great news. Keep going, Mitt. Much, much, much more to be done. Question: When can we storm the Bastille? We’re all excited ...
... The Globe raises some legitimate concerns about making sure elimination of the MDC doesn’t lead to poorer services. Fair enough. Doug Foy, get on it. ...
... Adrian Walker gets it. Mitt’s reversal of his proposed mental health cuts showed that something different is happening in Massachusetts: “It involved an unusual act in government -- admitting a mistake.” Don’t want to put words in Walker’s mouth, but Hub Blog got the feeling he was also maneuvering and/or encouraging the governor to display more “disarming candor” on another issue, to wit: On taxes. Methinks he’s right, if that was indeed what Walker was hinting at. More on this later. ...
... Wait. Hub Blog just had a John Kerry-like epiphany: We don’t have to cut or reform or make hard choices or pay for our services. There’s a magic-wand easy way out. We can soak the rich! Why didn’t we think of that? ...
... But Mayor Menino is already doing that, in a different sort of way.
... The Globe raises some legitimate concerns about making sure elimination of the MDC doesn’t lead to poorer services. Fair enough. Doug Foy, get on it. ...
... Adrian Walker gets it. Mitt’s reversal of his proposed mental health cuts showed that something different is happening in Massachusetts: “It involved an unusual act in government -- admitting a mistake.” Don’t want to put words in Walker’s mouth, but Hub Blog got the feeling he was also maneuvering and/or encouraging the governor to display more “disarming candor” on another issue, to wit: On taxes. Methinks he’s right, if that was indeed what Walker was hinting at. More on this later. ...
... Wait. Hub Blog just had a John Kerry-like epiphany: We don’t have to cut or reform or make hard choices or pay for our services. There’s a magic-wand easy way out. We can soak the rich! Why didn’t we think of that? ...
... But Mayor Menino is already doing that, in a different sort of way.
There are only 1,500 of them left: A nice story on a 106-year-old WWI vet who’s going to be honored by the French government. Just a change in pace. Can’t believe there are still 1,500 American vets alive from World War I. Time marches on. Sad. ... And this is sad, too. Different war. Same duties.
Waxing poetry on the war: A lot of other bloggers are having fun with the anti-war poets, such as Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan (scroll around until you find the various items). Hub Blog is still kicking myself in the ass for not posting a truly silly, embarrassing Globe editorial from a few weeks ago about the power of poetry to move, blah, blah, blah. (It’s always embarrassing to see journalists sucking up to poets, who otherwise couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag, though they can occasionally think their way into a mental institution, like Ezra Pound.) If anyone can find the Globe editorial, send it Hub Blog’s way. Anyway, Cathy Young has fun with the holy-poets issue, which involves sanctimonious protests like this.
Sunday, February 09, 2003
‘The fox guarding the chicken coop’: The Globe has come as close as anyone could ever hope or expect in getting its arms around the Big Dig’s finances -- and the result is an ugly picture of arrogance, incompetence and chicken feathers sticking out of the mighty Bechtel's mouth.
‘Let’s solve - not complain’: Cats and dogs are now sleeping together. Hell has just frozen over. The world has turned upside down. Eileen McNamara is actually being fair to Mitt. I can’t believe it. Eileen asks some good (though obviously leading) questions that Hub Blog dares to answer: “But the generous individual gestures of the governor and the CEO also prompt a broader question: Is private philanthropy a reasonable or effective substitute for public policy?” Answer: No. They complement each other. “Couldn't new tax revenue be earmarked to preserve the social safety net while Romney mounts his assault on the prevailing political culture on Beacon Hill that so enrages the electorate?” Answer: Yes -- with this qualification: How much ‘new tax revenue’ are you talking about? Suggestion: Split the difference on the looming $3 billion deficit. Give us $1.5 billion in genuine streamlining, reforms, sensible cuts to get a handle on spending and a good old-fashioned bloody storming of the Bastille for morale purposes etc., and we’ll make up the difference in new taxes to plug the deficit. But no reforms, no new taxes.
The hip ‘Ladder District’: I don’t think I’ve ever read a story like this. Kind of like trying to figure out where all those ‘sick jokes’ come from after a tragic calamity -- and actually discovering the answer. And so now we know how the trendy ‘Ladder District’ got its nickname. Know what? I think it’s great. It’s encouraging to see people, for whatever selfish motives, pushing the image of a neighborhood or region. ... Wait a second. Want to amend that last sentence. It should read: 'It's usually encouraging to see ...' Remember the laughable attempt by some Lynn officials to rename the city to 'Ocean City,' or whatever? Or the silly and unfortunately somewhat successful attempt by the old Framingham News/Middlesex News/Metrowest Daily News (whatever) to recast the Framingham area as 'MetroWest'? Or the town of Manchester changing its name to the more pretentious but still cheesy Manchester By The Sea?
Bush and statecraft: As anyone who reads this blog knows, Hub Blog is no fan of the president’s diplomatic skills. So there was a side of me, while starting to read this Globe editorial on Bush’s handling of our European affairs, that thought I’d end up agreeing with the newspaper’s view. But I didn’t. And I don’t. The editorial is too Franco-German focused. Of course the Elysee Treaty of friendship and cooperation between Germany and France is important. Of course we should encourage greater European integration (as we’ve done, to our great credit, during the post-war decades). But France and Germany have their own selfish national interests at heart -- and, it can easily be argued, they’re now the ones thumbing their noses at the U.N. and the rest of the world, not to mention the rest of the European Union and NATO, all in the name of solidifying their power base within the EU. Bottom line: Donald Rumsfeld wasn’t too far off the mark with his ‘old Europe’ crack. It served a purpose and gave cover for other European leaders to stick it to France and Germany by openly siding with the United States. ... Update - 12:40 p.m.: Just noticed this Instapundit item with a link to Tom Friedman's column about replacing France with India on the Security Council. Makes sense to me. ...Update II - 2:17 p.m. - And again via Instapundit, check out this column by the UPI's James Bennett on the 'old' and 'new' and 'new old' Europe. ...Update III -- And now look at this NYT article on what France and Germany are doing to: A.) the UN and B.) NATO. They're treating both institutions like old-fashioned unilateralists. Why? For their own ends. ...
... Along the same lines, Tom Oliphant writes about the ‘credibility chasm’ between Bush and Colin Powell. Tom: “This is not good cop, bad cop. This is effective leader [Powell], divisive leader [Bush].” Hmmm. Has anyone stopped to think that maybe they work well in tandem? And, come to think of it, wasn’t it Bush who hired Powell? And, after pushing for a U.N. role that should have been tried a year ago, isn’t it Powell who’s now scrambling back to the president’s more hard-line view on Iraq? The president isn’t the Churchillian god that some on the right have portrayed him as in recent months. But he’s clearly been leading in this crisis. He could have done a much better job leading and building consensus. Absolutely. But he’s been leading and setting the agenda. Absolutely. ... (Jeez. I find myself defending Bush today. Odd feeling after weeks of bashing his idiotic rhetoric and extreme unilateralist instincts.)
... Along the same lines, Tom Oliphant writes about the ‘credibility chasm’ between Bush and Colin Powell. Tom: “This is not good cop, bad cop. This is effective leader [Powell], divisive leader [Bush].” Hmmm. Has anyone stopped to think that maybe they work well in tandem? And, come to think of it, wasn’t it Bush who hired Powell? And, after pushing for a U.N. role that should have been tried a year ago, isn’t it Powell who’s now scrambling back to the president’s more hard-line view on Iraq? The president isn’t the Churchillian god that some on the right have portrayed him as in recent months. But he’s clearly been leading in this crisis. He could have done a much better job leading and building consensus. Absolutely. But he’s been leading and setting the agenda. Absolutely. ... (Jeez. I find myself defending Bush today. Odd feeling after weeks of bashing his idiotic rhetoric and extreme unilateralist instincts.)
True grits and junk food: I still don’t want a McDonalds on Beacon Hill, even if it sells Ye Olde Baked Beans, or in the North End, even if it sells Paul Revere Frappes. The sooner McDonalds collapses, the better.
Saturday, February 08, 2003
Those ‘across the board’ cuts and other issues: Some emails from readers ...
From reader BK --
“Did you notice that this week's Boston Phoenix landed on Mitt regarding the ‘across the board’ percentages of his local aid cuts? Maybe Hubblog could speculate how the the conversational give-and-take might have gone like had Hubblog's favorite Legislative leader given the Governor the leeway to ‘customize’ the local aid cuts city by city, town by town. I bet Mitt would have cut most of the cities less severely and a made deeper local aid cuts to a good many of those towns that helped carry him to victory. As he said himself during the campaign: ‘[I'm not running to be the Governor for the rich.] Rich people don't need my help; they'll get along just fine. ...’ Giving Mitt the ability to adjust the percentages of the local aid cuts city by city, town by town for six months during this fiscal emergency could have been acknowledged as something like giving him a ‘temporary line item veto.’ Too bad for your friend Tom Finneran (Ooops-- did I just ruin your ability to paste my post onto your weblog? I guess I just want you to keep ‘own[ing] your own anger’ about the one legislative leader in America who makes even Tom DeLay appear to be about as tough as a Teletubby).”
Hub Blog’s response: You didn’t ruin anything. ... Also, I’m assuming you’re referring to this Phoenix editorial. Didn’t see a reference to ‘across the board’ cuts, but catch your drift. Thanks.
From Brighton Reader --
"Eric Fehrnstrom should not be getting more publicity than his boss. This is the guy in charge of the new communications office overseeing all state public relations? Does he rate being the highest paid member of the administration? He sounds like a jerk, and I have a suspicion he is getting whacked on this incident by reporters for past obnoxiousness."
From reader BK --
“Did you notice that this week's Boston Phoenix landed on Mitt regarding the ‘across the board’ percentages of his local aid cuts? Maybe Hubblog could speculate how the the conversational give-and-take might have gone like had Hubblog's favorite Legislative leader given the Governor the leeway to ‘customize’ the local aid cuts city by city, town by town. I bet Mitt would have cut most of the cities less severely and a made deeper local aid cuts to a good many of those towns that helped carry him to victory. As he said himself during the campaign: ‘[I'm not running to be the Governor for the rich.] Rich people don't need my help; they'll get along just fine. ...’ Giving Mitt the ability to adjust the percentages of the local aid cuts city by city, town by town for six months during this fiscal emergency could have been acknowledged as something like giving him a ‘temporary line item veto.’ Too bad for your friend Tom Finneran (Ooops-- did I just ruin your ability to paste my post onto your weblog? I guess I just want you to keep ‘own[ing] your own anger’ about the one legislative leader in America who makes even Tom DeLay appear to be about as tough as a Teletubby).”
Hub Blog’s response: You didn’t ruin anything. ... Also, I’m assuming you’re referring to this Phoenix editorial. Didn’t see a reference to ‘across the board’ cuts, but catch your drift. Thanks.
From Brighton Reader --
"Eric Fehrnstrom should not be getting more publicity than his boss. This is the guy in charge of the new communications office overseeing all state public relations? Does he rate being the highest paid member of the administration? He sounds like a jerk, and I have a suspicion he is getting whacked on this incident by reporters for past obnoxiousness."
Kennedy on the war: As a public service, I throw this chunk of raw meat out to the blogosphere -- an op-ed piece by Ted Kennedy on the coming war with Iraq. ...
... My own views on Kennedy’s op-ed: Clearly, Kennedy, whose position on Iraq hasn’t gotten the same local attention and scrutiny as John Kerry’s non-stand stand on Iraq, has a flat-out antiwar position, which includes, as one columnist has noted, constantly moving the goal posts. Maybe Kennedy’s gotten a relative pass because he’s, well, Teddy and we’ve learned to expect this from him. My position is more in line with H.D.S. Greenway’s op-ed yesterday, in which he expressed regret about when, how and why we got to this point, but that we’re now nevertheless at this point -- and we had better deal with it sooner rather than later. I’d add that the future of the U.N. is now at stake. Some are willing to say ‘good riddance’ to the U.N. I’m not one of them. If the U.N. keeps issuing threats and ultimatums at Saddam and then does nothing, the U.N. is nothing. It’s over. It will have lost all credibility. And that will be a tragedy. The U.N. has to stand firm on this. ... About the only thing I agree with in Kennedy’s op-ed is the administration’s somewhat loose talk of possibly using nukes. Know some of that talk is necessary for deterrence reasons; George H.W. Bush’s administration sent similar signals to Saddam in Gulf War I, but ... saw the “McLaughlin Group” last night and the consensus of most of the panel, both conservatives and liberals, seemed to be, to varying degrees, that: A.) Nukes won’t/shouldn’t be used and B.) They agreed with Kennedy on that issue. There’s just a sense -- again -- that the current administration’s rhetoric has gotten out of hand.
Postscript: Howie Carr is one of the few local pundits who has already feasted on Kennedy’s Iraq position. Example: “More and more, Ted sounds like his old man, circa 1939, when he was sending cables to FDR from London counseling appeasement of Adolf Hitler, complimenting Neville Chamberlain on the bang-up job he was doing selling out the Czechs.” ... However, this column is perhaps a classic example of why one should cite Howie with extreme care. Notice all the personal attacks and digs at Kennedy. (I mean, making fun of a 70-year-old guy’s shaking hand?) The last two lines are incredible. Why the racial reference? Why? In a way, this Howie column itself is also a chunk of raw meat thrown out to the blogosphere. ...
Update - 9:30 a.m. - NYT columnist Bill Keller, a wary warmongering baby-boom liberal, has just joined the 'The I-Can't-Believe-I'm-a-Hawk Club.' I'm not a member of his Vietnam-era club, nor do I consider myself a liberal. But there are a lot of moderates, moderate conservatives and even some conservatives who agree with many of the same points in Keller's piece.
... My own views on Kennedy’s op-ed: Clearly, Kennedy, whose position on Iraq hasn’t gotten the same local attention and scrutiny as John Kerry’s non-stand stand on Iraq, has a flat-out antiwar position, which includes, as one columnist has noted, constantly moving the goal posts. Maybe Kennedy’s gotten a relative pass because he’s, well, Teddy and we’ve learned to expect this from him. My position is more in line with H.D.S. Greenway’s op-ed yesterday, in which he expressed regret about when, how and why we got to this point, but that we’re now nevertheless at this point -- and we had better deal with it sooner rather than later. I’d add that the future of the U.N. is now at stake. Some are willing to say ‘good riddance’ to the U.N. I’m not one of them. If the U.N. keeps issuing threats and ultimatums at Saddam and then does nothing, the U.N. is nothing. It’s over. It will have lost all credibility. And that will be a tragedy. The U.N. has to stand firm on this. ... About the only thing I agree with in Kennedy’s op-ed is the administration’s somewhat loose talk of possibly using nukes. Know some of that talk is necessary for deterrence reasons; George H.W. Bush’s administration sent similar signals to Saddam in Gulf War I, but ... saw the “McLaughlin Group” last night and the consensus of most of the panel, both conservatives and liberals, seemed to be, to varying degrees, that: A.) Nukes won’t/shouldn’t be used and B.) They agreed with Kennedy on that issue. There’s just a sense -- again -- that the current administration’s rhetoric has gotten out of hand.
Postscript: Howie Carr is one of the few local pundits who has already feasted on Kennedy’s Iraq position. Example: “More and more, Ted sounds like his old man, circa 1939, when he was sending cables to FDR from London counseling appeasement of Adolf Hitler, complimenting Neville Chamberlain on the bang-up job he was doing selling out the Czechs.” ... However, this column is perhaps a classic example of why one should cite Howie with extreme care. Notice all the personal attacks and digs at Kennedy. (I mean, making fun of a 70-year-old guy’s shaking hand?) The last two lines are incredible. Why the racial reference? Why? In a way, this Howie column itself is also a chunk of raw meat thrown out to the blogosphere. ...
Update - 9:30 a.m. - NYT columnist Bill Keller, a wary warmongering baby-boom liberal, has just joined the 'The I-Can't-Believe-I'm-a-Hawk Club.' I'm not a member of his Vietnam-era club, nor do I consider myself a liberal. But there are a lot of moderates, moderate conservatives and even some conservatives who agree with many of the same points in Keller's piece.
‘This was a mistake. ...’: Hats off to the Romney administration for listening and willing to reverse itself on mental health cuts. ''We have pretty much decided this was a mistake. This was a core service,'' Health and Human Services Secretary Ron Preston said. ''I'm not embarrassed about whether mistakes happen along the line. The question is, are you going to reconsider what you've done.'' ...However, a few grafs later, the administration indicates it may have to cut this ‘core service’ next fiscal year. Go figure. ...
... This is NOT a hats off item on behalf of the administration. They have let go, fired, whatever, a campaign aide who had landed a job within the administration, after the Globe, sensing the administration had again broken its own promise about not hiring campaign workers, started poking around her employment status. This is the second time in the past few days when the administration has been caught toying around with its no-patronage/no-campaign workers pledge. Which leads to this question: Why the hell did he ever make such an unrealistic pledge in the first place? Every administration needs -- at the top-level and in other sensitive positions -- people who philosophically agree with its political views. Otherwise, it would be next to impossible to implement a philosophical/ideological agenda. As Hub Blog has noted before, the administration might want to take a gander at the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling Rutan, in which the court specifically spells out what is ‘legitimate’ patronage (for lack of other words) and what is illegal patronage (usually non-management positions). The governor should read Rutan, spell out Rutan to the public -- and announced that’s the way it’s going to be. Until then, he’s boxed himself in with a silly, unrealistic hiring policy that the press, inevitably and justifiably, is going to keep after.
... This is NOT a hats off item on behalf of the administration. They have let go, fired, whatever, a campaign aide who had landed a job within the administration, after the Globe, sensing the administration had again broken its own promise about not hiring campaign workers, started poking around her employment status. This is the second time in the past few days when the administration has been caught toying around with its no-patronage/no-campaign workers pledge. Which leads to this question: Why the hell did he ever make such an unrealistic pledge in the first place? Every administration needs -- at the top-level and in other sensitive positions -- people who philosophically agree with its political views. Otherwise, it would be next to impossible to implement a philosophical/ideological agenda. As Hub Blog has noted before, the administration might want to take a gander at the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling Rutan, in which the court specifically spells out what is ‘legitimate’ patronage (for lack of other words) and what is illegal patronage (usually non-management positions). The governor should read Rutan, spell out Rutan to the public -- and announced that’s the way it’s going to be. Until then, he’s boxed himself in with a silly, unrealistic hiring policy that the press, inevitably and justifiably, is going to keep after.
Greater Boston and Joan's column: I really hate to bring up the ‘Who is John Kerry?’ issue again, but I watched ‘Greater Boston’s’ Beat the Press program last night. (Yes, I was in full PBS mode last night.) They had a segment on Joan Vennochi’s much-publicized/praised/maligned column on Kerry and the ensuing controversy. Joan, who didn’t appear on the program, relayed news that she’s received hundreds of emails, apparently most of them vile in nature, regarding her column. Don’t know what the emails said, but it was suggested some might have referred to alleged anti-Semitism in her column. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I heard it incorrectly. But let me quickly defend her column (which I liked) nevertheless on that specific point: There was no anti-Semitism in her column. None. Not an ounce. If that’s what some or most of the email criticism was about, she’s getting a truly bum rap. Read the article for yourself. Forget whether you agree with the ‘no core’ part about Kerry. (I happen to agree with the ‘no core’ part, FYI.) Do you see any anti-Semitism? I don’t. ... So let’s drop the issue. It's ridiculous and grossly unfair.
Friday, February 07, 2003
Habib Koite, known here: Habib Koite is my favorite African musician and one of my favorite musicians, period. Beautiful, beautiful music. ‘Ma Ya’ is a classic CD. Koite and his band, Bamada, play here this weekend.
Mitt vs. the mayors: It’s getting ugly. Really ugly. I don’t know who to knock first -- the obnoxious mayors or the obnoxious behavior of Eric Fehrnstrom for an incident that, unfortunately, is coming to symbolize the relationship between the mayors and the administration. OK, let’s start with the mayors, since I already I knocked Eric yesterday. We’ll take ‘em in numerical order:
I. The behavior and words of Salem Mayor Stanley Usovicz yesterday were gross and child-like. The mayor yesterday, throwing cheap shots at Mitt for wanting to close a polluting plant: ``You know, if you're a wealthy CEO, I'm sure closing businesses and throwing people out of work is an easy decision.”
II. Read this line from the same Herald story about what’s really bugging Usovicz and other mayors: “Tensions have been simmering toward a boil since Romney took office a month ago, as local leaders stew over Romney's budget cuts and his refusal to subscribe to standard political protocol.”
OK, the mayors have a right to be upset about state aid cuts, though people like moi and others will argue the cuts are A.) Necessary and B.) Not nearly as devastating as mayors, who saw spectacular growth in local aid in the ‘90s, are asserting. ('No the sky isn’t falling.’) Keep in mind: Lawmakers gave Mitt the power to make cuts, and some have even had the gall to moan that he didn’t cut enough. ...
... But the part about subscribing to ‘standard political protocol’? A little trickier. For the life of me, I don’t understand why Mitt doesn’t/didn’t meet with individual mayors after announcing his local aid cuts. I know he made a great PowerPoint presentation at a meeting of mayors etc. Admire him for going into the lion’s den to give the bad news. But there’s nothing to lose -- nothing -- by meeting with individual mayors to hear them out, even if the state’s fiscal crisis precludes Mitt from acting on many of their complaints regarding local aid. Just hear ‘em out. Ah, but let’s be careful about subscribing too much to ‘standard political protocol’ in this state. At times, it’s wise to say ‘screw’ to the standard political protocol of Massachusetts. It’s the ‘standard political protocol’ in this state that partly got us where we are today -- the Quinn bills, the Scam-o-ramas, the machine, the hacks, the petty power plays and bickering, the land deals, the judgeships, the pension games, the cozy contracts, the permanent bureaucracy, the late-night legislative anctics and the, well, general rancor that was here well before Mitt.
III. Mitt is mishandling the Eric Fehrnstrom incident. Sure, he should stand by his aide. But he should also personally apologize to the mayor and make it clear he doesn’t condone Fehrnstrom’s actions -- actions, it should be noted, that Fehrnstrom now feels compelled to apologize for, which sort of verifies the general descriptions given about the incident, right?
IV. Bottom line: Mitt is making all the right tough decisions on the budget, but his administration is hopefully learning a lesson or two on common-sense diplomacy.
Note: I posted an ‘Eric, Eric, Eric ...’ item yesterday, but last night I noticed a problem on the Hub Blog site: There were two of the same ‘Eric, Eric, Eric’ items, both garbled and a mess. Figured it was a blogger glitch that mysteriously fixes itself after a few hours. It happens. But this morning, same thing: Two items, garbled etc. So I tried to fix the item(s) but ended up canceling it (them). Any ideas about what happened? Anyway, the gist of the item was: Eric was behaving like a jackass. Sorry if anyone linked to the item(s).
I. The behavior and words of Salem Mayor Stanley Usovicz yesterday were gross and child-like. The mayor yesterday, throwing cheap shots at Mitt for wanting to close a polluting plant: ``You know, if you're a wealthy CEO, I'm sure closing businesses and throwing people out of work is an easy decision.”
II. Read this line from the same Herald story about what’s really bugging Usovicz and other mayors: “Tensions have been simmering toward a boil since Romney took office a month ago, as local leaders stew over Romney's budget cuts and his refusal to subscribe to standard political protocol.”
OK, the mayors have a right to be upset about state aid cuts, though people like moi and others will argue the cuts are A.) Necessary and B.) Not nearly as devastating as mayors, who saw spectacular growth in local aid in the ‘90s, are asserting. ('No the sky isn’t falling.’) Keep in mind: Lawmakers gave Mitt the power to make cuts, and some have even had the gall to moan that he didn’t cut enough. ...
... But the part about subscribing to ‘standard political protocol’? A little trickier. For the life of me, I don’t understand why Mitt doesn’t/didn’t meet with individual mayors after announcing his local aid cuts. I know he made a great PowerPoint presentation at a meeting of mayors etc. Admire him for going into the lion’s den to give the bad news. But there’s nothing to lose -- nothing -- by meeting with individual mayors to hear them out, even if the state’s fiscal crisis precludes Mitt from acting on many of their complaints regarding local aid. Just hear ‘em out. Ah, but let’s be careful about subscribing too much to ‘standard political protocol’ in this state. At times, it’s wise to say ‘screw’ to the standard political protocol of Massachusetts. It’s the ‘standard political protocol’ in this state that partly got us where we are today -- the Quinn bills, the Scam-o-ramas, the machine, the hacks, the petty power plays and bickering, the land deals, the judgeships, the pension games, the cozy contracts, the permanent bureaucracy, the late-night legislative anctics and the, well, general rancor that was here well before Mitt.
III. Mitt is mishandling the Eric Fehrnstrom incident. Sure, he should stand by his aide. But he should also personally apologize to the mayor and make it clear he doesn’t condone Fehrnstrom’s actions -- actions, it should be noted, that Fehrnstrom now feels compelled to apologize for, which sort of verifies the general descriptions given about the incident, right?
IV. Bottom line: Mitt is making all the right tough decisions on the budget, but his administration is hopefully learning a lesson or two on common-sense diplomacy.
Note: I posted an ‘Eric, Eric, Eric ...’ item yesterday, but last night I noticed a problem on the Hub Blog site: There were two of the same ‘Eric, Eric, Eric’ items, both garbled and a mess. Figured it was a blogger glitch that mysteriously fixes itself after a few hours. It happens. But this morning, same thing: Two items, garbled etc. So I tried to fix the item(s) but ended up canceling it (them). Any ideas about what happened? Anyway, the gist of the item was: Eric was behaving like a jackass. Sorry if anyone linked to the item(s).
More on the budget front. ...: Need a dose of sanity after reading too much about the antics of mayors and press secretaries? Read Steve Bailey’s column this morning about going after the corporate-tax loopholes. Steve: “No one wants to go back to the bad old Taxachusetts days; well-crafted tax incentives are an important part of any economic policy. But closing tax loopholes, like the ones Romney is going after, should be a priority.”
More on the hack front ...: Mitt has quietly rescinded his rescinding of 27 appointments made in the final ‘standard political protocol’ days of the Swift administration. Turns out Mitt didn’t have the authority. Well, it was a noble effort. ...
Reilly, watch these guys: As I’ve said before, pay close attention to deregulation of the wholesale electricity market in New England. Hub Blog has very bad vibes about this. The problem is not deregulation. The problem is the monopolization of the market. Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly says the plan is “fraught with peril for ratepayers.” If he goes after these guys, it should be on the anti-trust front.
Europe, Iraq and past and future wars: Nice piece by Charlie Sennott on Europeans’ worries about the coming war on Iraq. I don’t think the World War II memories fully account for European opposition and anxieties. There’s also a lot of anti-Americanism, hypocrisy (especially among the leaders of France and Germany) and geopolitical jealousy at play, etc. Nonetheless, the article reminded me of a book I read a few years ago, called “Aftermath: The Remnants of War,” by Donovan Webster. There’s a chapter in there about how the French are still cleaning up -- and blowing up -- huge quantities of unexploded mines, shells, grenades etc. from the war. Oh, not from World War II, but from World War I. Vast portions of northeast France are still uninhabitable because of the dangers. ... So, yes, World War II memories are still quite vivid in Europe, but ...
... H.D.S. Greenway writes a compelling piece about the compelling case for war against Iraq. Noting how he’s argued before that “pursuing Iraq at this juncture was a mistaken priority,” he nevertheless concludes: “The choice today is containment or war. My fear is that containing Iraq is a failed policy and that if we choose containment over war, we will still get war, and a worse war when Saddam has achieved his clandestine weapons goals.” ... Perhaps a mention here of a review of the new ‘Quiet American’ movie isn’t logical, but it sounds like a great movie and, yes, appropriate, in its own way, as we talk of liberating other lands from tyranny. Hub Blog also is a big fan of Graham Greene.
Update -- Hey, just noticed this article in the Christian Science Monitor, also about Europeans' views on Iraq, past wars and America. It ends with these quotes:
" 'Europeans will be happy to see the end of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction, but they don't want to expend the blood and treasure themselves,' adds Joffe. 'Call it chicken, or call it moral, but it's a mixture of cold, calculated realpolitik -- staying out of harm's way -- and keeping the moral superiority of having overcome the atavism of war.' "
... H.D.S. Greenway writes a compelling piece about the compelling case for war against Iraq. Noting how he’s argued before that “pursuing Iraq at this juncture was a mistaken priority,” he nevertheless concludes: “The choice today is containment or war. My fear is that containing Iraq is a failed policy and that if we choose containment over war, we will still get war, and a worse war when Saddam has achieved his clandestine weapons goals.” ... Perhaps a mention here of a review of the new ‘Quiet American’ movie isn’t logical, but it sounds like a great movie and, yes, appropriate, in its own way, as we talk of liberating other lands from tyranny. Hub Blog also is a big fan of Graham Greene.
Update -- Hey, just noticed this article in the Christian Science Monitor, also about Europeans' views on Iraq, past wars and America. It ends with these quotes:
" 'Europeans will be happy to see the end of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction, but they don't want to expend the blood and treasure themselves,' adds Joffe. 'Call it chicken, or call it moral, but it's a mixture of cold, calculated realpolitik -- staying out of harm's way -- and keeping the moral superiority of having overcome the atavism of war.' "
Thursday, February 06, 2003
‘Call it what you will’: The past few days have been very strange and traumatic for Hub Blog. First, I found myself praising a Joan Vennochi column. Then I saw someone who might usually defend a Joan Vennochi column criticizing a column that I had praised. It was as if the local blogosphere had gone mad -- mad I tell you! Anyway, the world is returning to normal. Joan is back to her half-baked ideas. And I do mean half-baked. ... Joan on Mitt’s local aid cuts and how they impact Democratic-led cities more: ‘That political payback or reality -- call it what you will -- is not entirely Romney's doing. When state legislators voted last month to allow the new governor to cut local aid, they set rules. One was that Romney could not change the local aid formulas established when this year's budget was passed. That meant Romney could not direct the cuts, he had to make them across the board.” ... But then she adds: “These two facts are true about the residents of these cities: They supported O'Brien over Romney. They also make up the state's neediest, most diverse populations.” ... So when you can’t pin down with facts that Mitt was trying to screw Democratic cities, you drag in two other facts in order to support the thumb-sucking conjecture and innuendo. Or call it what you will.
Who is John Kerry? Part V -- And now Wayne Woodlief is getting in on the fun. Read on until you find the bonus ‘like an epiphany’ quote. And the John Kerry ‘voyage of self-discovery’ continues. ... See other 'Who is John Kerry?' posts below, as well as the above item, for more context and texture.
No, no, no -- wrong direction: C’mon, MBTA. Keep the ‘night owl’ service. It’s popular. Mitt should definitely intervene. This has nothing to do with the state’s budget deficit, so his no-new-taxes pledge doesn’t apply. We should be expanding MBTA services, not reducing them. The MBTA is in debt. No doubt. It’s also in need of reform. Also no doubt. So: Reform, raise revenues, expand services. However: No reforms, no new taxes, no new services.
Colin Powell’s U.N. home run: It was a great but sad day for those of us who believe in the deft use of both unilateralism and multilateralism diplomacy. Powell was great. The news he presented was sad. And war draws closer, inevitably, unless a miracle occurs, like Saddam being deposed. How can those who saw yesterday’s presentation and who have repeatedly asked for a U.N. role to resolve the crisis now back down from the realities we saw yesterday? But they are. Kennedy’s reaction wasn’t a surprise. He’s been pretty consistent in his antiwar stand. But look at, um, John Kerry’s position: ''Convincing evidence of Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction should trigger, I believe, a final ultimatum from the United Nations for a full, complete, immediate disarmament of those weapons by Iraq. Over the next hours, I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to fully examine the evidence offered by the secretary for a complete and close reading. But, on its face, the evidence against Saddam Hussein appears real and compelling.'' ... More tough-talking gobbledygook. ...
Check out Margery Eagan’s column on the same subject. Margery: “By noon the specter of war and images of another terror attack -- images stored away if not forgotten in the 16 months since the planes left Logan -- they were back again, front and center, full color, constructed methodically, compellingly with numbers and details and aerial photos and intercepted conversations. All this was rolled into a speech 80 ominous minutes long by Secretary of State Colin Powell. Surely, he is the lone man in Bush's administration who could pull off what he did. ... ‘This is evidence, not conjecture,’ Powell said. ‘This is true,’ he said. My guess is that when polling data comes in, most of America will think so, too.” ... I think so, too. ...
... Margery also has a quote from historian Doris Kearns Goodwin: ``It makes you feel like something has to be done. It (the U.N. presentation) was powerful. ... My only worry still is if (Saddam's) cornered. Wouldn't he then as his last gasp use all (this weaponry)? I can't imagine him going happily into the sunset.'' ... It’s my worry, too. It’s everyone’s worry. ...
... Finally, Brighton Reader sent in the following letter last night, tackling the issue of ‘unilateralism’ vs. ‘multilateralism.’ It was written, he says, last week and may be a little outdated. In a way, it is. The Bush administration is now showing a great effort (and skill and patience) at balancing the unilateralist and multilateralist knives and forks. I’ve been impressed. But I still think Brighton Reader has some good points. Here goes:
“Since the Second World War, foreign policy in both parties has been dominated by what I would call ‘internationalists,’ people who believed the United States had to take a leadership role in the world, politically, militarily and economically. There were differences between and within the Democrats and Republicans, but there was an assumption that we and the world were better off because of this involvement. One principle that the internationalists practiced was that it was better to operate with our allies and within multilateral organizations, than without them, providing it was consistent with our overall goals and interests and the various groups functioned in a rational, orderly way. It wasn't a prerequisite to action, but allies were seen as assets. What disturbed me about the Bush administration's initial push for Iraqi disarmament is that there seemed to be an assumption that working with anyone else was a sign of weakness, something to be avoided. Accept the use of foreign bases, some troops, ships and airspace, but only as needed or as a bit of tokenism.
“After September 11 other countries wanted to assist us. The other NATO members offered to vote in favor of invoking the clause that called an attack on one an attack on all. This would have been the first time this part of the treaty had ever been activated.
“This is all going to make our work more difficult in policy areas outside of Iraq. Trade, the environment, nuclear proliferation, you name it and we are going to get smacked. And cruise missiles are not going to be of any use.”
Check out Margery Eagan’s column on the same subject. Margery: “By noon the specter of war and images of another terror attack -- images stored away if not forgotten in the 16 months since the planes left Logan -- they were back again, front and center, full color, constructed methodically, compellingly with numbers and details and aerial photos and intercepted conversations. All this was rolled into a speech 80 ominous minutes long by Secretary of State Colin Powell. Surely, he is the lone man in Bush's administration who could pull off what he did. ... ‘This is evidence, not conjecture,’ Powell said. ‘This is true,’ he said. My guess is that when polling data comes in, most of America will think so, too.” ... I think so, too. ...
... Margery also has a quote from historian Doris Kearns Goodwin: ``It makes you feel like something has to be done. It (the U.N. presentation) was powerful. ... My only worry still is if (Saddam's) cornered. Wouldn't he then as his last gasp use all (this weaponry)? I can't imagine him going happily into the sunset.'' ... It’s my worry, too. It’s everyone’s worry. ...
... Finally, Brighton Reader sent in the following letter last night, tackling the issue of ‘unilateralism’ vs. ‘multilateralism.’ It was written, he says, last week and may be a little outdated. In a way, it is. The Bush administration is now showing a great effort (and skill and patience) at balancing the unilateralist and multilateralist knives and forks. I’ve been impressed. But I still think Brighton Reader has some good points. Here goes:
“Since the Second World War, foreign policy in both parties has been dominated by what I would call ‘internationalists,’ people who believed the United States had to take a leadership role in the world, politically, militarily and economically. There were differences between and within the Democrats and Republicans, but there was an assumption that we and the world were better off because of this involvement. One principle that the internationalists practiced was that it was better to operate with our allies and within multilateral organizations, than without them, providing it was consistent with our overall goals and interests and the various groups functioned in a rational, orderly way. It wasn't a prerequisite to action, but allies were seen as assets. What disturbed me about the Bush administration's initial push for Iraqi disarmament is that there seemed to be an assumption that working with anyone else was a sign of weakness, something to be avoided. Accept the use of foreign bases, some troops, ships and airspace, but only as needed or as a bit of tokenism.
“After September 11 other countries wanted to assist us. The other NATO members offered to vote in favor of invoking the clause that called an attack on one an attack on all. This would have been the first time this part of the treaty had ever been activated.
“This is all going to make our work more difficult in policy areas outside of Iraq. Trade, the environment, nuclear proliferation, you name it and we are going to get smacked. And cruise missiles are not going to be of any use.”
Wednesday, February 05, 2003
Who is John Kerry, Part IV -- Joan strikes back: Belatedly, Dan Kennedy jumps into the Kerry mosh pit, and what happens? Joan Vennochi starts slamming him and Dan slams back. It’s not fair! I was there first! Anyway, in her letter to Dan, it sure looks like Joan is now going beyond what she originally wrote in her column by moving toward embracing a variation of the Mickey Kaus Theory of Kerry. Mickey: “I tend to think this shorthand [‘he has no core’] doesn't quite capture Kerry's mysterious loathsomeness, which has more to do with risk-aversion and megalomaniacal ambition.” ... FYI: Love that ‘mysterious loathsomeness’ phrase. Love the entire sentence. So let’s repeat it: “I tend to think this shorthand [‘he has no core’] doesn't quite capture Kerry's mysterious loathsomeness, which has more to do with risk-aversion and megalomaniacal ambition.”
Update - 8:45 p.m. -- I've now received three comments about the use of the words 'slamming' and 'slam' above. Call it a case of metaphor overkill. (Mosh pit? Slamming? Get it?) My apologies. I went overboard. I'm starting to feel old. (They do 'slam' in mosh pits, right? And I did spell 'mosh' correctly, right? Please tell me I did.)
Update 2-6-03 - 6:35 a.m. -- Another reader, not addressing the all-important question of John Kerry, mosh pits and slamming, suggests Joan would make 'a splendid blogger.' Agreed. I'd like to see more local columnists writing blogs. The more the merrier. Heard some time ago that Boston.com was exploring the idea of weblogs (as opposed to chat rooms with staff writers, I assume). Hope they do it. Other publications are already doing so.
Update - 8:45 p.m. -- I've now received three comments about the use of the words 'slamming' and 'slam' above. Call it a case of metaphor overkill. (Mosh pit? Slamming? Get it?) My apologies. I went overboard. I'm starting to feel old. (They do 'slam' in mosh pits, right? And I did spell 'mosh' correctly, right? Please tell me I did.)
Update 2-6-03 - 6:35 a.m. -- Another reader, not addressing the all-important question of John Kerry, mosh pits and slamming, suggests Joan would make 'a splendid blogger.' Agreed. I'd like to see more local columnists writing blogs. The more the merrier. Heard some time ago that Boston.com was exploring the idea of weblogs (as opposed to chat rooms with staff writers, I assume). Hope they do it. Other publications are already doing so.
Finneran, Finneran, Finneran: It seems like it was all Finneran Day in the Globe and Herald this morning. Finneran, the bonus baby. Finneran, the way he behaves. Finneran, the lord of business-as-usual. In a way, the Globe’s editorial against the Quinn Bill and this story about education officials finally doing something about the Quinn bill had, if you think about it, a Finneran angle. Wasn’t it Steve Bailey who wrote a while ago that Finneran was promising, under the table, to expand the Quinn bill in exchange for the firefighters’ help in killing the Clean Election Law? ... On any other day, all of this negative attention on Finneran would be gratifying to anyone who hopes to change the way they do business on Beacon Hill. But, in reality, it was a depressing day. Why? Because of this story about all the people sucking up to Finneran. (Not the reporter’s fault; it was the event itself that was depressing.) Finneran’s stature is rising, not diminishing. That’s the depressing part. And he’s loving every minute of it. ... P.S. The event kind of reminded me of the old Weld-Bulger smooch-a-thons.
‘No the sky isn’t falling’: Good piece by Steve Bailey about local aid cuts. Steve: “Everyone is a genius when the market is going up; now we will find out who can manage and who cannot in tough times as well as good.” ... On a different subject about cuts, Scot Lehigh writes about all the Bush administration’s planned tax cuts. Hub Blog would suggest that if the administration is losing moderates like Lehigh on this issue, he’s losing a lot of others as well. (Not talking about the war; talking about domestic policies and the economy.) Personally, I haven’t heard, in casual conversations, many people around here praising these tax cuts -- and I’ve heard a lot of people, many of whom like both Mitt and Bush, refer to them in almost apathetic and cynical tones. There’s a sense the president grabbed a handful of tax-cut spaghetti, threw it against the wall and is awaiting to see what sticks. Not exactly reassuring.
‘A vast waste of space’: Tom Keane tackles the frustrating, never-goes-away issue of: What do we do about City Hall Plaza? Tom’s idea has something to do with a bulldozer. But that’s not going to happen. So I have a radical idea: Housing. Specifically, townhouses surrounding city hall. Now THAT would bring life back to the area. Know there are subway tunnels underneath that restrict what can be built there, but look at the townhouses/apartment complex they’re building at the foot of the Saltonstall building along Cambridge Street. Very simple. Very exciting. Tight space. And retail stores at ground level. Creative use of government-owned land. Just an idea. ... Postscript: I’m one of the few people who actually likes the funky City Hall building, though I acknowledge it needs, well, some humanizing touches, such as to its no-open windows and dreary interior. Let a developer take over the building for housing, creating some truly exciting, funky apartment/condos inside. But that’s not quite the point (nor is it very realistic): It’s the plaza surrounding the building that truly sucks. ...
... If you haven’t already, check out Dan Kennedy’s post yesterday on the latest proposals for the greenway after the Central Artery is torn down. Dan: “What's crucial is that the greenway have some buildings and some life, and that it attracts people down there 12 months a year, during the evening as well as the day. Those well-intentioned nature advocates seem to forget that this is Boston, not San Diego, and that the weather makes a park attractive only five or six months a year.” ... One point: I’m also rooting for a new museum along the greenway, specifically a Boston History Museum. But my sources -- and they’re pretty damn good -- say that Mayor Menino has quietly opposed the idea and wants local fundraising efforts aimed instead at the Museum of Fine Art’s major expansion plan. Maybe things have changed. Heard this info about a year ago.
... If you haven’t already, check out Dan Kennedy’s post yesterday on the latest proposals for the greenway after the Central Artery is torn down. Dan: “What's crucial is that the greenway have some buildings and some life, and that it attracts people down there 12 months a year, during the evening as well as the day. Those well-intentioned nature advocates seem to forget that this is Boston, not San Diego, and that the weather makes a park attractive only five or six months a year.” ... One point: I’m also rooting for a new museum along the greenway, specifically a Boston History Museum. But my sources -- and they’re pretty damn good -- say that Mayor Menino has quietly opposed the idea and wants local fundraising efforts aimed instead at the Museum of Fine Art’s major expansion plan. Maybe things have changed. Heard this info about a year ago.
‘Charlie Chieppo finally drank the Kool-Aid’: The tragic thing about the new South Boston convention center is that it may end up killing off the Hynes. As inadequate as the Hynes may be for big shows, it really shows off the city to out-of-towners because it’s in the Back Bay, where there’s actually life and energy around. Suggestion: If the Hynes has to be sold, perhaps sell it to a private convention center owner/developer. Doubt that happens. But Back Bay restaurants and hotels would appreciate it.
Who’s John Kerry, Part III?: Mickey Kaus is having more fun with the issue. Also, Ben Affleck for Congress? (And then scroll down below the Ben item for more on Kerry.)
Update -- Dan Kennedy has jumped into the Kerry mosh pit. Hub Blog is fascinated. I'm actually in the position of defending a Joan Vennochi column.
Update -- Dan Kennedy has jumped into the Kerry mosh pit. Hub Blog is fascinated. I'm actually in the position of defending a Joan Vennochi column.
Tuesday, February 04, 2003
Who is John Kerry? Part II: A number of people (including yours truly) have tried to make sense of the latest saga of Who is John Kerry? But, for my money, Joan Vennochi parked it while many of us hit only sentimental singles (or at least I hit a sentimental single, or more like an infield dribbler). Joan on Kerry: “The revelations about Kerry's roots underscore a fundamental problem at the heart of his quest to be president. Ethnicity is not the issue; being a mensch could help. But Kerry's confusion about his heritage mirrors a larger confusion about his essence: Who is he? What does he believe in? Whether the issue is war with Iraq or support for affirmative action, his political core is hard to pin down, perhaps as difficult as his personal roots.” ... Joan also fires off this line. “(Kerry’s) dismal jokes during St. Patrick's Day breakfasts should have been a tip-off that Hibernian humor is not in Kerry's natural gene pool.”
... Speaking of John, a number of readers have sent in this link about the senator (via Instapundit).
... Speaking of John, a number of readers have sent in this link about the senator (via Instapundit).
The ferret and the deer: After reading this article about the latest antics of Gov. Tommy, I thought to myself, ‘Mitt, this is what voters put you in office to do: Stop the ferret.’ But ...
... then I read this article about the hiring of Mitt’s ‘Staffer of the Month,' a lawyer no less. Kicker line: “Romney communications director Eric Fehrnstrom said Messina was hired for the $55,000 position solely on the basis of her qualifications.” ... You just gotta laugh and cry at the same time. It never stops. Question to administration: Was her hiring really worth it? Hope it was, for the hiring (and, even more so, the explanation) inevitably hurts the credibility of an alleged reform-minded administration.
... then I read this article about the hiring of Mitt’s ‘Staffer of the Month,' a lawyer no less. Kicker line: “Romney communications director Eric Fehrnstrom said Messina was hired for the $55,000 position solely on the basis of her qualifications.” ... You just gotta laugh and cry at the same time. It never stops. Question to administration: Was her hiring really worth it? Hope it was, for the hiring (and, even more so, the explanation) inevitably hurts the credibility of an alleged reform-minded administration.
‘A tear-a-thon’: Margery Eagan explores our modern ‘tear-a-thon’ whenever a major (or even minor) tragedy hits. ... Margery asks when all this false yellow-ribbon/candlelight-shrine type of coverage started. Good question. Don’t know the answer. Though I do know the yellow ribbons appeared to have started during the Iranian hostage crisis. And then there were the candlelight shrines after John Lennon’s death. Locally, a friend thought Boston’s own contribution to this maudlin media grieving can be traced back to Reggie Lewis’ death. ... Read Margery’s column all the way through. There is a terrible fact -- and a truly revealing fact -- about George H.W. Bush and wife Barbara. Horrible. I had NO idea. My respect for the Bush family has only increased. (And it’s based on empathy, as well as sympathy, and we’ll leave it at that.)
‘Chirac is a dangerous animal/Bush help us’: Excellent story in the Boston-based Christian Science Monitor on events in the Ivory Coast and the French role there. Check out the photo. For the record, the U.S. is supporting France’s brokered peace, something I doubt will lead to much gratitude in Paris. ...
... FYI: I’m still slugging through Ernest May’s “Strange Victory: Hitler’s Conquest of France,’ as I noted in an earlier post. I’ll give a more thoughtful review (if you want to call it that) later, but it’s pretty hard to keep an open mind when you read a passage like this in the introduction: “Recent studies of General Gamelin, of France’s prime minister, Edouard Daladier, and of Britain’s long-maligned prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, not only explain why they were thought to be heroes before the debacle of 1940 but why they deserved to be held in high regard.” (May’s italics, not mine.) Or this: “In fact, the Maginot Line (was) indicative neither of despair about defeating Germany nor of thought mired in the past. It was instead evidence of faith that technology could substitute for manpower. It was the forerunner of the strategic bomber, the guided missile, and the ‘smart bomb.’” ... Like I said, I’m slugging through it, though May does have excellent observations on other matters. Have reached page 332. Again, more on it later. ...
... Oh, what the hell. Now that we’re on the subject of France, check out this article on France and Germany’s recent diplomatic blowback (via John Ellis). ... And, while you’re at it, check out this Globe story on General Tommy Frank’s views on the war and coalition building. Now, as I’ve said too often before, I’m more than a little upset with the swaggering rhetoric of the administration. But this article shows (the piece really picks up steam in the middle) the extent to which we really are taking a multilateralist approach in fighting terrorism -- and so the charge the administration is always 'unilateralist' is obviously quite wrong while attacks on 'multilateralism' simply don't reflect what's going on in the world. The words ‘unilateralist’ and ‘multilateralist’ are being slung around these days with way too much recklessness. I’m as guilty as anyone. ... And, again, what the hell, check out this CSM editorial on how we need to mend fences with France and Germany. It’s only a so-so editorial (if anything, too simplistic and soft on France) but it’s on the same subject matter.
“As Churchill said, the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them.”
... FYI: I’m still slugging through Ernest May’s “Strange Victory: Hitler’s Conquest of France,’ as I noted in an earlier post. I’ll give a more thoughtful review (if you want to call it that) later, but it’s pretty hard to keep an open mind when you read a passage like this in the introduction: “Recent studies of General Gamelin, of France’s prime minister, Edouard Daladier, and of Britain’s long-maligned prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, not only explain why they were thought to be heroes before the debacle of 1940 but why they deserved to be held in high regard.” (May’s italics, not mine.) Or this: “In fact, the Maginot Line (was) indicative neither of despair about defeating Germany nor of thought mired in the past. It was instead evidence of faith that technology could substitute for manpower. It was the forerunner of the strategic bomber, the guided missile, and the ‘smart bomb.’” ... Like I said, I’m slugging through it, though May does have excellent observations on other matters. Have reached page 332. Again, more on it later. ...
... Oh, what the hell. Now that we’re on the subject of France, check out this article on France and Germany’s recent diplomatic blowback (via John Ellis). ... And, while you’re at it, check out this Globe story on General Tommy Frank’s views on the war and coalition building. Now, as I’ve said too often before, I’m more than a little upset with the swaggering rhetoric of the administration. But this article shows (the piece really picks up steam in the middle) the extent to which we really are taking a multilateralist approach in fighting terrorism -- and so the charge the administration is always 'unilateralist' is obviously quite wrong while attacks on 'multilateralism' simply don't reflect what's going on in the world. The words ‘unilateralist’ and ‘multilateralist’ are being slung around these days with way too much recklessness. I’m as guilty as anyone. ... And, again, what the hell, check out this CSM editorial on how we need to mend fences with France and Germany. It’s only a so-so editorial (if anything, too simplistic and soft on France) but it’s on the same subject matter.
“As Churchill said, the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them.”
Blizzard of ‘78: The Herald has been covering the 25th anniversary of the big storm. And so has blogger John Farrell, who has some old family film clips and recollections from local bloggers, including yours truly (eventually, or so I'm told).
Monday, February 03, 2003
James Fallows fisks Bush’s SOTU: Interesting fisking (not necessarily of the negative kind) of the president’s State of the Union Address by James Fallows, a former presidential speechwriter, over at the Boston-based Atlantic Monthly. It’s pretty fair and good -- and I think, overall, Fallows admired the speech, at least from a technical standpoint, though he didn’t come right out and say so. Some samples from the terrorist/Iraq portion of the speech and Fallow’s comments in brackets and italics:
... There are days when the American people do not hear news about the war on terror. There is never a day when I do not learn of another threat, or receive reports of operations in progress, or give an order in this global war against a scattered network of killers. [Effective in conveying the message: more is going on than you think.] The war goes on, and we are winning. [And it's going better than you think.]
... I thank the Congress for supporting these measures. I ask you tonight to add to our future security with a major research and production effort to guard our people against bio-terrorism, called Project Bioshield. [This name won't last. Too much like Marvel Comics.]
... If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. [Good strong line.] And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country—your enemy is ruling your country. [Best line of the speech.]
... We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, [Brilliant "redefinition" phrase: we are not launching a "preemptive" attack, we are being forced against our will to war.]
... We Americans have faith in ourselves—but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history.
May He guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America. [Some time in the last twenty years, politicians decided that they had to end every speech with "God bless the United States of America." It has become boilerplate that replaces the effort to find a real closing theme or idea. The natural ending for the speech would have been the word "history,"in the paragraph above.]
... There are days when the American people do not hear news about the war on terror. There is never a day when I do not learn of another threat, or receive reports of operations in progress, or give an order in this global war against a scattered network of killers. [Effective in conveying the message: more is going on than you think.] The war goes on, and we are winning. [And it's going better than you think.]
... I thank the Congress for supporting these measures. I ask you tonight to add to our future security with a major research and production effort to guard our people against bio-terrorism, called Project Bioshield. [This name won't last. Too much like Marvel Comics.]
... If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. [Good strong line.] And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country—your enemy is ruling your country. [Best line of the speech.]
... We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, [Brilliant "redefinition" phrase: we are not launching a "preemptive" attack, we are being forced against our will to war.]
... We Americans have faith in ourselves—but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history.
May He guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America. [Some time in the last twenty years, politicians decided that they had to end every speech with "God bless the United States of America." It has become boilerplate that replaces the effort to find a real closing theme or idea. The natural ending for the speech would have been the word "history,"in the paragraph above.]
‘If it wasn't for the disgrace of the FBI ...’: One of the things that has struck me about the Whitey Bulger/FBI scandal is how many local journalists have personal stories to tell about their encounters with these characters. And Joe Fitzgerald definitely has an encounter to describe.
$0 per square feet: More than any other economic story I’ve read, this says it all: $0 per square feet of sublease office space in the ‘burbs. As in ‘Z-E-R-0.’ You just pay the taxes etc. ...
... and here’s a story about the growing ‘hard-core unemployed.’
Reader Steve responds to $0: 'Beat that, Silicon Valley!'
... and here’s a story about the growing ‘hard-core unemployed.’
Reader Steve responds to $0: 'Beat that, Silicon Valley!'
Two Globe editorials dear to Hub Blog’s heart: The Globe gets the big-picture thrust of these issues: the need for more housing in Massachusetts and President Bush’s AIDs initiative. But ...
As for the housing editorial: Yes, the state housing trust has been doing good deeds. But is $7.5 million really a significant part of the housing problem/solution here? Does the cut really deserve the headline ‘Romney’s hold on housing’? Isn’t it ultimately about building and zoning regulations? OK, restore the $7.5 million and cut somewhere else. But we’ll still have a ‘hold on housing.’ A small quibble I wanted to point out. ...
As for the prez’s AIDs program: The Globe is impressed with the proposal (as it should be), but allows ex-Harvard guru and now Earth Institute honcho Jeffrey Sachs to mouth off. Sachs: ''The United States has to get off its unilateralism on this issue.'' Not a small quibble.
As for the housing editorial: Yes, the state housing trust has been doing good deeds. But is $7.5 million really a significant part of the housing problem/solution here? Does the cut really deserve the headline ‘Romney’s hold on housing’? Isn’t it ultimately about building and zoning regulations? OK, restore the $7.5 million and cut somewhere else. But we’ll still have a ‘hold on housing.’ A small quibble I wanted to point out. ...
As for the prez’s AIDs program: The Globe is impressed with the proposal (as it should be), but allows ex-Harvard guru and now Earth Institute honcho Jeffrey Sachs to mouth off. Sachs: ''The United States has to get off its unilateralism on this issue.'' Not a small quibble.
‘Grieve the loss ...but’: A nice piece by Joe Sciacca on the need to mourn Columbia but also to move on. There’s a war to debate and wage. ... FYI: Joe seems to sympathize with Dems who say the president has yet to make a case for war against Iraq. Hub Blog’s view, as you probably know too well, is that the case for probable war was made a long, long time ago, but the president has done a lousy job selling it and reaching out to others. Read the quotes of Dems in Joe’s piece. These are good, patriotic people who still need a little more persuasion, not vilification.
Sunday, February 02, 2003
‘America’s lofty ambition. ...’: I’m sure a lot of great (and not-so great) things are being written across the country about yesterday’s Columbia tragedy. Here’s Boston’s small contribution to some great thoughts on the tragedy, in an essay by the Herald’s Tom Mashberg, entitled “America’s lofty ambition requires us to risk more.” Excerpts:
“But Americans rarely are rendered wobbly by omens, real or imagined. The heavens have been scarred once again by a space shuttle calamity. But those on the land below, fired by the anguish of Sept. 11 and fueled for the fight against terrorism, have learned to overcome.”
And ...
“Seven brave explorers died when the shuttle fell from the sky yesterday. Four American servicemen died Thursday in eastern Afghanistan when their Black Hawk helicopter hit the ground. All risked all to serve their nation and the interests of humanity.”
Update -- The Mashberg essay was one of the better local pieces I've read so far on the Columbia calamity. One of the best TV interviews on the subject, which I just watched, was with John Glenn, appearing on 'This Week.' It was so mesmerizing -- his views on the early days of space flight, the scientific and medical benefits of space research, why America is so technically advanced, why space exploration is so exciting, why it's worth all the dangers and risks. Reminded me, in an odd way, of listening to Ted Williams talk about the art of batting. If you've ever seen one of the Ted interviews (usually played during a game's TV rain delay), you know what I'm talking about. Glenn's masterly tone, preciseness and knowledge were incredible.
“But Americans rarely are rendered wobbly by omens, real or imagined. The heavens have been scarred once again by a space shuttle calamity. But those on the land below, fired by the anguish of Sept. 11 and fueled for the fight against terrorism, have learned to overcome.”
And ...
“Seven brave explorers died when the shuttle fell from the sky yesterday. Four American servicemen died Thursday in eastern Afghanistan when their Black Hawk helicopter hit the ground. All risked all to serve their nation and the interests of humanity.”
Update -- The Mashberg essay was one of the better local pieces I've read so far on the Columbia calamity. One of the best TV interviews on the subject, which I just watched, was with John Glenn, appearing on 'This Week.' It was so mesmerizing -- his views on the early days of space flight, the scientific and medical benefits of space research, why America is so technically advanced, why space exploration is so exciting, why it's worth all the dangers and risks. Reminded me, in an odd way, of listening to Ted Williams talk about the art of batting. If you've ever seen one of the Ted interviews (usually played during a game's TV rain delay), you know what I'm talking about. Glenn's masterly tone, preciseness and knowledge were incredible.
Who is John Kerry?: That’s the question many of us have asked about our junior senator from Massachusetts. And he’s asked the same question about himself on a number of occasions. It’s more than a little infuriating. But this article explains a lot about Kerry. Literally. What a cool story. Right up there with Madeline Albright discovering her roots. ... Say what you will about Kerry, his reaction to finally learning about his family’s heritage is moving. A reader can almost see him reeling and choking up when given an old news clipping about his grandfather. ... Keep reading until the end, when Kerry’s brother is interviewed.
Update - 2-2-03 - A friend and I were talking yesterday about this story. We both found it fascinating. But then the subject came up: What about the part in the middle of the story when the Globe appears to take digs at Kerry for allegedly not correcting the widespread assumption, based on his name and party affiliation etc., that he's Irish American? My friend's response: 'Of course he's had it both ways. Hey, having a name like 'Kerry' isn't a bad thing for a politician in Massachusetts.'
Update II: A reader just wrote in: '"I like the 'Of course he's had it both ways.' Typical JFK."
Update III -- Mickey Kaus is weighing in on Kerry's 'voyage of self-discovery' and his have-it-both ways stance on the war.
Update - 2-2-03 - A friend and I were talking yesterday about this story. We both found it fascinating. But then the subject came up: What about the part in the middle of the story when the Globe appears to take digs at Kerry for allegedly not correcting the widespread assumption, based on his name and party affiliation etc., that he's Irish American? My friend's response: 'Of course he's had it both ways. Hey, having a name like 'Kerry' isn't a bad thing for a politician in Massachusetts.'
Update II: A reader just wrote in: '"I like the 'Of course he's had it both ways.' Typical JFK."
Update III -- Mickey Kaus is weighing in on Kerry's 'voyage of self-discovery' and his have-it-both ways stance on the war.
Cuts, bad; Mitt, bad: I give up. No more ‘reverse engineering.’ Can’t get into the minds of these people as they complain away about state budget cuts -- without offering any practical, realistic solutions. Complain, complain, complain. Eileen McNamara, it’s your turn to complain. As for moi, here’s my Grand Compromise: Mitt comes up with a truly streamlined, reduced spending, reduced hack payroll, reduced Scam-o-rama (thanks for the term, Marg) budget -- with the Quinn and Pacheco bills definitely thrown in as a matter of high principle, among many, many other reforms -- and, if the legislature passes it, we’ll beg, borrow and raise taxes to make up the difference. But no reforms, no new taxes. Simplistic? Of course. But at least it’s in the ballpark of offering up a solution and compromise (which Mitt also has to do, FYI). Dear complainers: What are your non-one-track solutions for digging out of a multibillion dollar deficit?
‘Overhaul housing regulations’: Yes, we should. And we need to. As Hub Blog has said before, if Mitt is serious about ‘sprawl’ and housing and zoning and transportation, this could be his true legacy as governor, not whether he sticks to his no-new-taxes pledge on the budget deficit.
Saturday, February 01, 2003
The Columbia tragedy, Part II: I often wonder how the World War II generation often put up with such horrendous casualty rates: Normandy, Iwo Jima, Okinawa etc. I still know of a lot of World War II vets who are still alive, and I desperately want to know how they did it. I want to know how they protected our liberty under such grotesque combat conditions etc. But they won’t talk. They’re still shocked, humbled, speechless, and admirably so, and I don’t want to disturb their peace. They’ve earned it. They’ve earned their peace. They’ve earned MY peace. So I don’t press it. ...
... One of the other things I’m also amazed about the Word War II generation is how civilians put up with such catastrophic bad news, on the war front and home front, with incredible resolve, even though the news was horribly bad. No Oprah-like sentimentality. There were battles. Hurricanes. Bombing runs. Floods. Sinking of ships with thousands aboard. The numbing disasters -- both domestic and war related -- seemed to melt together. As horrible as that sounds. And there were fires. Horrible fires. At home. No Nazis. No terrorists. Life just went on in its relentlessly sad way, amid all the horror. Bad news got swamped by more bad news. Take the Cocoanut Grove fire in Boston during World War II. About 490 people were killed in a stupid, domestic, preventable/non-preventable fire at a nightclub in Boston. Many of them were military personnel with their dates. Bet most people, outside of Boston, haven’t heard of this horrendous tragedy. But the tragedy -- and it was a gigantic tragedy -- was lost amid the fog of war, at least as far as the rest of the nation was concerned. In Boston, it’s still remembered, though faintly so, sad to say.
... And now we’ve lost the Columbia, a horrible tragedy, at a time when the nation is still grieving and reeling from Sept. 11. But there are those trying to politicize this tragedy, calling America ‘arrogant’ or trying to rev people up about Iraq -- and they’re all absurdly connecting this tragedy to ‘left’ and ‘right’ dots concerning their world views or whatever. I feel sorry for them. Advice to the easily revved up: Columbia is a first-class tragedy. Don’t cheapen the mourning with cheap political cheap shots, left or right, just because you’ve developed a narrow, gross, ideological focus that rules out acts of ... God. Yes, God. You know who I mean. ...
... Let’s keep things in perspective. Let’s mourn Columbia. Brave people died on a noble mission for humanity. Yes, humanity. Nothing more. Nothing less. And, by the way, we’re at war. ...
... One of the other things I’m also amazed about the Word War II generation is how civilians put up with such catastrophic bad news, on the war front and home front, with incredible resolve, even though the news was horribly bad. No Oprah-like sentimentality. There were battles. Hurricanes. Bombing runs. Floods. Sinking of ships with thousands aboard. The numbing disasters -- both domestic and war related -- seemed to melt together. As horrible as that sounds. And there were fires. Horrible fires. At home. No Nazis. No terrorists. Life just went on in its relentlessly sad way, amid all the horror. Bad news got swamped by more bad news. Take the Cocoanut Grove fire in Boston during World War II. About 490 people were killed in a stupid, domestic, preventable/non-preventable fire at a nightclub in Boston. Many of them were military personnel with their dates. Bet most people, outside of Boston, haven’t heard of this horrendous tragedy. But the tragedy -- and it was a gigantic tragedy -- was lost amid the fog of war, at least as far as the rest of the nation was concerned. In Boston, it’s still remembered, though faintly so, sad to say.
... And now we’ve lost the Columbia, a horrible tragedy, at a time when the nation is still grieving and reeling from Sept. 11. But there are those trying to politicize this tragedy, calling America ‘arrogant’ or trying to rev people up about Iraq -- and they’re all absurdly connecting this tragedy to ‘left’ and ‘right’ dots concerning their world views or whatever. I feel sorry for them. Advice to the easily revved up: Columbia is a first-class tragedy. Don’t cheapen the mourning with cheap political cheap shots, left or right, just because you’ve developed a narrow, gross, ideological focus that rules out acts of ... God. Yes, God. You know who I mean. ...
... Let’s keep things in perspective. Let’s mourn Columbia. Brave people died on a noble mission for humanity. Yes, humanity. Nothing more. Nothing less. And, by the way, we’re at war. ...
‘You are a terrorist, a species of ...’: Chief US District Judge William G. Young, who leveled the boom on Richard Reid the other day, is getting a lot of well-deserved attention these days for his remarks to the attempted mass murderer during his sentencing hearing: ''You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist, a species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders.''
Boo hoo: Lawmakers are bellyaching that -- get this -- Mitt didn’t cut enough the other day. Here’s the Herald story and the Globe story. My favorite quote is from Rep. Byron Rushing, D-South End: ''I think that the governor has essentially set us up. ... Clearly, the governor has not come close to keeping his promise to not cut core services and he really is just miles away from the campaign statements that he made. But what he asked from us and what most of us were willing to give him was extended [emergency] power so he could come up with $650 million worth of cuts. And what he has given us is half of that.'' ... Question: Who was really setting up whom? Judging by his own comments, Rushing is all but saying: ‘Mitt didn’t make the cuts we all know are needed and the cuts we were all set to criticize.’
‘It was so bad ...’: The worst defeat in Celtics history. How bad was it? ‘It was so bad that fans actually cheered when the Pistons scored and booed when the Celtics made a basket. By the fourth quarter, what remained of a sellout crowd wanted to witness history, even the embarrassing kind.’ ... And no excuses for Walker being hobbled last night. The previous Celts record for a blowout was set earlier this year.
Weekend reading: Local blogger John Farrell’s short story "Trypho" appears in the February issue of Literary Potpourri. Haven’t read it yet, but hope to get to it later this weekend.
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.
