Friday, February 28, 2003
Blogging at Harvard: A lot of you may have already read about this at Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan, but The Crimson now has a story on Dave Winer's blogging project over at Harvard.
‘Very big boo-boo’?: Gotta love it. Glorious days. It’s an all-out, Blazing Saddles-like brawl on Beacon Hill, spilling down Park Street onto Tremont and over to City Hall. Finance Secretary Eric Kriss to Mayor Menino: “Don't cry poor boy for Boston.” But the mayor has a defender, North Adams Mayor John Barrett III, who called Kriss' remarks a ``very big boo-boo.” Barrett The Third: ``When you get a street guy angry, it's going to come back and haunt them. They're messing with the varsity and they're only JV.'' ... Yep, John Barrett III from North Adams knows all about street-tough guys. Three thoughts on the spat: 1.) What Kriss said is undeniably true. Menino, who spent money like a drunken sailor on shore-leave in the ‘90s, is acting like a big cry baby now that he’s been ordered back to the ship to mop down the latrines. 2.) Kriss nevertheless probably shouldn’t have uttered the truth; sometimes it’s just not necessary. 3.) Go on, Mayor Barrett III. Keep underestimating Mitt and the boys, calling them the JV, CEOs, inexperienced, whatever etc. Always better to be the underdog. ...
...Yes, it’s a tax. Clarification: Amid the blizzard of numbers, I wrote yesterday that Mitt planned to raise revenue through fees by $643 million. Now they’re using a number in the ballpark of $60 million. Going to take a while to sort out numbers in this budget, but I accept the mistake. But fee increases of $60 million are still a form of taxation. Not that I mind. ... Love how, even though Mitt has semi-broken his pledge, some are now carping that what he proposed is unfair. He can’t win.
... I said yesterday that it will take days, if not weeks, to learn about all the funky details in the budget, sort of like going through your crazy aunt’s attic after she passes away. (“Hey, look here! She purchased and never opened 15 cases of Hershey’s Chocolate Syrup. What the hell!?!”) ... Here’s one of those funky items we’ll be discovering in days to come: Mitt is proposing elimination of the Inspector General’s office. Not a good move. Not a smart move. Be "candid," Mitt, and put it back in. But, please, don’t tell me how this undercuts Mitt’s reform image. Tom Finneran is in favor of keeping the Inspector General. And by the way: Who’s the current inspector general? Did I read in the article that he's an ex-lawmaker? Must have been a typo. Or maybe it explains why Tommy wants to keep the office.
... OK: Now I get it. Mitt is going after Bulger because Bulger is Bulger. Makes sense to me. ... They’re at least making changes to the Quinn Bill. Some progress is being made. Not enough, but some. ... Oh, now, Howie, stop referring to Matt as Fat Matt. McDonald’s is partially responsible, Howie.
Update: File this one under 'funky budget details': The zany notion that others will pay us millions not to expand gambling in Massachusetts (via Cosmo Macero's blog). But then look at the detail at the end of the quote: The guy is willing to pay millions. Which just goes to prove that even zany ideas can have a grain of logic in them. Don't take the five million, Mitt. You're on to something zany here, as zany as it may sound.
...Yes, it’s a tax. Clarification: Amid the blizzard of numbers, I wrote yesterday that Mitt planned to raise revenue through fees by $643 million. Now they’re using a number in the ballpark of $60 million. Going to take a while to sort out numbers in this budget, but I accept the mistake. But fee increases of $60 million are still a form of taxation. Not that I mind. ... Love how, even though Mitt has semi-broken his pledge, some are now carping that what he proposed is unfair. He can’t win.
... I said yesterday that it will take days, if not weeks, to learn about all the funky details in the budget, sort of like going through your crazy aunt’s attic after she passes away. (“Hey, look here! She purchased and never opened 15 cases of Hershey’s Chocolate Syrup. What the hell!?!”) ... Here’s one of those funky items we’ll be discovering in days to come: Mitt is proposing elimination of the Inspector General’s office. Not a good move. Not a smart move. Be "candid," Mitt, and put it back in. But, please, don’t tell me how this undercuts Mitt’s reform image. Tom Finneran is in favor of keeping the Inspector General. And by the way: Who’s the current inspector general? Did I read in the article that he's an ex-lawmaker? Must have been a typo. Or maybe it explains why Tommy wants to keep the office.
... OK: Now I get it. Mitt is going after Bulger because Bulger is Bulger. Makes sense to me. ... They’re at least making changes to the Quinn Bill. Some progress is being made. Not enough, but some. ... Oh, now, Howie, stop referring to Matt as Fat Matt. McDonald’s is partially responsible, Howie.
Update: File this one under 'funky budget details': The zany notion that others will pay us millions not to expand gambling in Massachusetts (via Cosmo Macero's blog). But then look at the detail at the end of the quote: The guy is willing to pay millions. Which just goes to prove that even zany ideas can have a grain of logic in them. Don't take the five million, Mitt. You're on to something zany here, as zany as it may sound.
‘Act II of the Iraq power play’: Not a big fan of pundits writing imaginary ‘letters,’ but H.D.S. Greenway pulls it off. One gets the sense that, yes, this is roughly what many Iraqis are thinking.
Those exploited janitors: Remember last year’s janitors’ strike? You know, the one in which they, led by their noble union leaders, took on the city’s greedy office landlords? Well, well, well. Steve Bailey, who has obviously mastered the art of dime dropping, has intercepted yet another memo/email that casts new light on events. The janitors are getting screwed. Again. And by their own Animal Farm masters. What a surprise.
A reader responds:
"Come on, man! Do the homework. Steve Bailey is one of my favorites at the Globe. But the truth is he and the Globe were cheerleading that phony, sham of a janitors strike all the way when it felt good to be part of 'the movement.' Go back and look at their columns on the Hancock tower and other buildings 'doing the right thing,' etc. So now they get religion on the power-hungry SEIU? Cut it out. At the very least ... they are VERY late to the story."
And the following union-site links are provided here and here.
Hub Blog's response: As I wrote back to the reader, 'Is that egg dripping from my face?' ... Still think it was a great column, even if it was a little late.
A reader responds:
"Come on, man! Do the homework. Steve Bailey is one of my favorites at the Globe. But the truth is he and the Globe were cheerleading that phony, sham of a janitors strike all the way when it felt good to be part of 'the movement.' Go back and look at their columns on the Hancock tower and other buildings 'doing the right thing,' etc. So now they get religion on the power-hungry SEIU? Cut it out. At the very least ... they are VERY late to the story."
And the following union-site links are provided here and here.
Hub Blog's response: As I wrote back to the reader, 'Is that egg dripping from my face?' ... Still think it was a great column, even if it was a little late.
Ocean Spray: Don’t know why, but I find the Ocean Spray saga -- and the cranberry industry as a whole -- sad and fascinating. It’s like watching, in slow motion, an old New England industry passing into history.
Thursday, February 27, 2003
"Allies need political cover": Hub Blog doesn’t have a paid subscription to the Wall Street Journal, so you probably can’t access this article unless you can tap into a real/phony registration ID (scroll down to the Page 1 articles in case you don’t have a subscription). But I did read the article in print. The headline and lede should suffice to make my point: “Spain’s Aznar Tells Bush: Allies need political cover, not Rumsfeld.” Here’s the lede:
“MADRID -- Spanish Prime Minister Jose Martia Aznar, one of America’s staunchest allies on the United Nations Security Council, said in an interview that he urged President Bush to help European leaders withstand the mounting political pressures they face over the possible war with Iraq, including muzzling Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.”
Anzar is conservative and an important ally, folks. Don’t dismiss his concerns. We need allies. Diplomacy matters. It’s something this administration, woefully tin-eared to the needs of friends, has so far been incapable -- or unwilling -- to acknowledge because of its arrogant ‘might makes right’ attitude. Apply Anzar’s legitimate concerns to Tony Blair, and you begin to get the picture of how botched up this administration’s diplomacy has been. God, the silly contradictions and squandered opportunities of this Woodrow ‘Save the World’ Wilson/Pax ‘We’ll do What We Want’ American administration is truly depressing. They literally are hanging our allies out to dry. ... Too many embarrassing Bush cheerleaders on the right; not enough non-French/non-Kissinger realists that can crack the whip on dumb diplomacy of the past. And, it goes without saying, screw the hard-core left.
“MADRID -- Spanish Prime Minister Jose Martia Aznar, one of America’s staunchest allies on the United Nations Security Council, said in an interview that he urged President Bush to help European leaders withstand the mounting political pressures they face over the possible war with Iraq, including muzzling Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.”
Anzar is conservative and an important ally, folks. Don’t dismiss his concerns. We need allies. Diplomacy matters. It’s something this administration, woefully tin-eared to the needs of friends, has so far been incapable -- or unwilling -- to acknowledge because of its arrogant ‘might makes right’ attitude. Apply Anzar’s legitimate concerns to Tony Blair, and you begin to get the picture of how botched up this administration’s diplomacy has been. God, the silly contradictions and squandered opportunities of this Woodrow ‘Save the World’ Wilson/Pax ‘We’ll do What We Want’ American administration is truly depressing. They literally are hanging our allies out to dry. ... Too many embarrassing Bush cheerleaders on the right; not enough non-French/non-Kissinger realists that can crack the whip on dumb diplomacy of the past. And, it goes without saying, screw the hard-core left.
Mitt’s gambit: Still suffering from a cold and a little groggy, and I have a lot of other work to catch up on because of lost days this week. Not good conditions to assess details of probably one of the most radical state budget proposals in memory. Quick observations:
1. Beacon Hill is reeling. Good.
2. He went for broke. The sheer audacity of it is hard to grasp, as Wayne approvingly notes. Mitt has the initiative. For now. Good.
3. It will take days, if not weeks, to sort out the numbers and details.
4. Not sure if the numbers add up. Seems like a total mess. Is that deliberate? Hmmmm.
5. $643 million in fee increases is a tax increase, in my book. But that’s OK. Look for more down the road.
6. Can’t believe some, like Joan Vennochi and Adrian Walker, are zeroing in on the UMass reforms and Bulger ties, of all things. Very curious. What does this say? Hub Blog is working on a new theory about the Progressive/Hack Alliance, an unspoken (perhaps unconscious) coordination of efforts to block: A.) Change and B.) Reform. Progressives get their pet projects. Hacks get their perks. Only a working theory, but Joan’s column fits into the growing body of evidence. Adrian's column, I don't know. Now Peter Gelzinis’ column doesn’t fit in. Definitely not.
7. Of course he’s using the budget as a political weapon to get his way and cover up cuts. Duh.
8. The new pundit buzz words of the day are “bold” and “cynical.” Already getting tired of them.
9. It’s good to have a two-newspaper town. Here’s the Globe’ editorial. Here’s the Herald’s editorial.
10. Quote of the day from Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation: ''It will definitely mean service reductions. ... I give him an A-plus on the boldness, but a somewhat lower grade on the fiscal document.''
11. Mitt just might get more of these reforms passed than previously thought, but definitely not all of them. When you have to count on the Republican Party of Massachusetts to rev up the troops, you’re in trouble. Still, he said he’s open to compromise -- and I think everyone is going to have to compromise, i.e. ‘I’ll spare Bulger if you give me the MDC.’ Etc. I think the budget should be seen for what it is: A big bargaining chip. Mitt doesn't have the troops on Beacon Hill. But what are Democrats going to do? Ignore the governor, then pass a budget (with tax increases) over his veto? Remember: Question 1.
12. Absolutely, positively worst metaphor to describe the budget: “pyrotechnics in a low-ceilinged nightclub." Joan Vennochi, take a bow and a few rotten tomatoes to the head while you’re at it. Comparing the budget to “pyrotechnics in a low-ceilinged nightclub”? What was she thinking? Where were her editors? That’s called “going overboard.” Ninety-seven people dead -- and Joan is using it as cheap fodder for an angry political column. Wonder how the Globe readers in Rhode Island will react.
1. Beacon Hill is reeling. Good.
2. He went for broke. The sheer audacity of it is hard to grasp, as Wayne approvingly notes. Mitt has the initiative. For now. Good.
3. It will take days, if not weeks, to sort out the numbers and details.
4. Not sure if the numbers add up. Seems like a total mess. Is that deliberate? Hmmmm.
5. $643 million in fee increases is a tax increase, in my book. But that’s OK. Look for more down the road.
6. Can’t believe some, like Joan Vennochi and Adrian Walker, are zeroing in on the UMass reforms and Bulger ties, of all things. Very curious. What does this say? Hub Blog is working on a new theory about the Progressive/Hack Alliance, an unspoken (perhaps unconscious) coordination of efforts to block: A.) Change and B.) Reform. Progressives get their pet projects. Hacks get their perks. Only a working theory, but Joan’s column fits into the growing body of evidence. Adrian's column, I don't know. Now Peter Gelzinis’ column doesn’t fit in. Definitely not.
7. Of course he’s using the budget as a political weapon to get his way and cover up cuts. Duh.
8. The new pundit buzz words of the day are “bold” and “cynical.” Already getting tired of them.
9. It’s good to have a two-newspaper town. Here’s the Globe’ editorial. Here’s the Herald’s editorial.
10. Quote of the day from Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation: ''It will definitely mean service reductions. ... I give him an A-plus on the boldness, but a somewhat lower grade on the fiscal document.''
11. Mitt just might get more of these reforms passed than previously thought, but definitely not all of them. When you have to count on the Republican Party of Massachusetts to rev up the troops, you’re in trouble. Still, he said he’s open to compromise -- and I think everyone is going to have to compromise, i.e. ‘I’ll spare Bulger if you give me the MDC.’ Etc. I think the budget should be seen for what it is: A big bargaining chip. Mitt doesn't have the troops on Beacon Hill. But what are Democrats going to do? Ignore the governor, then pass a budget (with tax increases) over his veto? Remember: Question 1.
12. Absolutely, positively worst metaphor to describe the budget: “pyrotechnics in a low-ceilinged nightclub." Joan Vennochi, take a bow and a few rotten tomatoes to the head while you’re at it. Comparing the budget to “pyrotechnics in a low-ceilinged nightclub”? What was she thinking? Where were her editors? That’s called “going overboard.” Ninety-seven people dead -- and Joan is using it as cheap fodder for an angry political column. Wonder how the Globe readers in Rhode Island will react.
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
Feeling a little better today, a little more strength. Nothing like power napping a bad cold/flu-like symptoms into semi-remission. Will quickly try to blog on a few items and then do some other much-needed work, in between the napping and cold medicine. ...
Give him credit but ...: Want to see more details of Mitt’s plans. His address yesterday was short on specifics. Today’s budget package should help. Overall impression: He’s boldly going down the reform route, with a lot of admirable ideas, as Scot Lehigh notes. We should almost keep a check list of reform items on the table to see how many pass and how many are killed. Unfortunately, through no lack of trying on Mitt’s part, I think we’re going to see more of the latter. Hope not. ... The Globe’s editorial board is hammering away at the Quinn Bill, and rightly so. Why isn’t that in the reform package? But let’s see how the Globe’s editorial board does on a long, long list of other reform items, from the Pacheco bill to revamping the judiciary to the pension-grab games to Billy’s mini-empire over at UMass to Trav’s ‘deeply emotional’ ties to the MDC and Bechtel Turnpike Authority, etc. etc. etc. It’s not just about the Quinn bill. Never was. ... Speaking of UMass and the higher-ed reform ideas, one might take a gander at Howie’s column this morning. How many chancellors do they need? Or put another way: How many cousins do these guys have? ...
... But I’ve long said this battle isn’t just about reform, though that should be a top, top priority if leaders don’t want to see a full-scale revolt in this state. It’s also about: Basic services, spending and taxes. ... Eileen McNamara, who only a few weeks ago asked why we can’t find compromises on the budget, is back to her complaining without offering up solutions. But, as far as complaints go, this isn’t a bad one. Which leads to the best observation of the day from Steve Bailey on: Health care. Specifically, how health care spending increases are absolutely killing Massachusetts and other states. I’ve only faintly touched upon this in the past as a major, major problem, but I’m embarrassed I didn’t stress it enough, perhaps because I was too consumed with disproving the myth that state spending didn’t go up dramatically throughout the ‘90s. Attention proponents and opponents of single-payer universal health care: Medicaid is a single-payer boondoggle. Fix it. And don’t run to corporations to fork over more dough for it. That won’t work. It’s a massive, massive SPENDING problem that’s causing a lot of our woes today. ... Suggestion for next Bailey-like column: How another state spending area -- education -- has contributed to the problem.
... As for taxes, still think we’ll need to raise them, in the end. As a compromise. Whether Mitt will go along with them, I don’t know. But I do admire him for putting his foot down. Things have got to change around here. Tommy, Billy and the Trav won’t reform. They won’t do the right thing if it means giving up their turf and perks. They’ll watch out for their own in the ‘permanent bureaucracy.’ Always. But things can’t go on like they have been. At least Mitt recognizes that.
Update -- Here's the Herald editorial on Mitt's speech yesterday, emphasizing his quote, ``For this budget to win, politics as usual has to lose.'' ... Or think of it this way: For this budget to lose, politics as usual has to win.
Give him credit but ...: Want to see more details of Mitt’s plans. His address yesterday was short on specifics. Today’s budget package should help. Overall impression: He’s boldly going down the reform route, with a lot of admirable ideas, as Scot Lehigh notes. We should almost keep a check list of reform items on the table to see how many pass and how many are killed. Unfortunately, through no lack of trying on Mitt’s part, I think we’re going to see more of the latter. Hope not. ... The Globe’s editorial board is hammering away at the Quinn Bill, and rightly so. Why isn’t that in the reform package? But let’s see how the Globe’s editorial board does on a long, long list of other reform items, from the Pacheco bill to revamping the judiciary to the pension-grab games to Billy’s mini-empire over at UMass to Trav’s ‘deeply emotional’ ties to the MDC and Bechtel Turnpike Authority, etc. etc. etc. It’s not just about the Quinn bill. Never was. ... Speaking of UMass and the higher-ed reform ideas, one might take a gander at Howie’s column this morning. How many chancellors do they need? Or put another way: How many cousins do these guys have? ...
... But I’ve long said this battle isn’t just about reform, though that should be a top, top priority if leaders don’t want to see a full-scale revolt in this state. It’s also about: Basic services, spending and taxes. ... Eileen McNamara, who only a few weeks ago asked why we can’t find compromises on the budget, is back to her complaining without offering up solutions. But, as far as complaints go, this isn’t a bad one. Which leads to the best observation of the day from Steve Bailey on: Health care. Specifically, how health care spending increases are absolutely killing Massachusetts and other states. I’ve only faintly touched upon this in the past as a major, major problem, but I’m embarrassed I didn’t stress it enough, perhaps because I was too consumed with disproving the myth that state spending didn’t go up dramatically throughout the ‘90s. Attention proponents and opponents of single-payer universal health care: Medicaid is a single-payer boondoggle. Fix it. And don’t run to corporations to fork over more dough for it. That won’t work. It’s a massive, massive SPENDING problem that’s causing a lot of our woes today. ... Suggestion for next Bailey-like column: How another state spending area -- education -- has contributed to the problem.
... As for taxes, still think we’ll need to raise them, in the end. As a compromise. Whether Mitt will go along with them, I don’t know. But I do admire him for putting his foot down. Things have got to change around here. Tommy, Billy and the Trav won’t reform. They won’t do the right thing if it means giving up their turf and perks. They’ll watch out for their own in the ‘permanent bureaucracy.’ Always. But things can’t go on like they have been. At least Mitt recognizes that.
Update -- Here's the Herald editorial on Mitt's speech yesterday, emphasizing his quote, ``For this budget to win, politics as usual has to lose.'' ... Or think of it this way: For this budget to lose, politics as usual has to win.
Mayor Menino, enjoy the warm weather: Tom Keane is right: The snow plowing in the neighborhoods was excellent last week. The mayor doesn’t deserve the cheap shots thrown at him for heading to Florida the day after the big blizzard. He did his job. Hub Blog has a suggestion: Start rewarding mayors with trips to Florida for good snow plowing. Enjoy the weather, mayor. You earned it. ... And, oh, mayor, I’m sure someone on your staff has already faxed down a copy of this morning's Globe editorial. Not sure, though, if they faxed down this article about the city’s spending habits in the ‘90s. As I said, enjoy the weather.
‘I pray the president grasps it’: I pray, too, for Bush did a lousy, lousy job reaching out to moderates, both here and abroad, for support on Iraq. The administration’s ‘might makes right’ approach has needlessly antagonized a lot of ‘silent majority’ moderates. Give Andrew Sullivan credit for saying it: “Bush can't reverse the tide of hatred on the far left. But he can try and reach out to the many liberals in the center who would support a proactive foreign policy, if they believed it was about more than mere national interest. That's the real opportunity ahead: a fusion of Bush's instincts and Blair's hopes. I pray the president grasps it.” ... As I said, I’ll pray too. Especially after watching the locally produced NOVA piece last night on ‘dirty bombs.’ Scary stuff. Extremely scary.
... Speaking of Blair, here’s a nice op-ed on the prime minister in the Boston-based Christian Science Monitor.
... Speaking of Blair, here’s a nice op-ed on the prime minister in the Boston-based Christian Science Monitor.
John Ellis, blogger hero: John Ellis has hinted at it before: He may quit blogging, or at least reduce the amount of his blogging. And he’s doing it again. He’s getting to be like Frank Sinatra on this. But this time I think he’s serious. What impresses me most about Ellis’ blogging is: A.) He says more in one two-sentence item than most of us say in ten 500-word items. B.) He doesn’t feel compelled to have an opinion on everything. C.) He doesn’t feel compelled to post an item every day. D.) The majority of his site’s hits undoubtedly come from fans like me who eagerly check in to see if he’s thrown a blogger thunderbolt recently. E.) If he’s serious about quitting, it’s a big, big blow to blogging. And, damn it, he quit before expressing his views on Phil Donahue’s firing and how Mitt is doing. It’s not fair! (John item via Cosmo and Dan Kennedy.)
Update -- A reader, who used to blog but gave it up, just wrote in saying how Ellis 'should be praised' for 'being able to walk away' from blogging.
Hub Blog's reaction: Agree. It takes up a lot of time, and John obviously has grappled in the past with how much time he should/can devote to blogging. In a strange way, that attitude is precisely/partly what makes his blogging so good. And, by the way, is that a hint, reader?
Update -- A reader, who used to blog but gave it up, just wrote in saying how Ellis 'should be praised' for 'being able to walk away' from blogging.
Hub Blog's reaction: Agree. It takes up a lot of time, and John obviously has grappled in the past with how much time he should/can devote to blogging. In a strange way, that attitude is precisely/partly what makes his blogging so good. And, by the way, is that a hint, reader?
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Feeling awful today. Have some flu-like symptoms and have already indulged in Nap No. 1. Just around the corner, Nap No. 2. No original blogging today, as a result. Did summon enough strength to check out a few other weblogs, and stumbled across Dan Kennedy’s feuding-sports-writers item (scroll down a bit) with an accompanying link to Chris Young’s insightful piece on the feud and the sports-media scene. ... Now off to get some cold medicine and then back to bed.
Monday, February 24, 2003
Hey, it’s ‘only’ $10 million: Next time someone pooh-poohs a savings of ‘only’ $5 million by eliminating the MDC or saving ‘only’ $9 million by reforming the judiciary, point them to this Globe editorial bemoaning the cut of $10 million from welfare programs. Strange, the Globe didn’t put the word ‘only’ in front of the $10 million figure. ...
... We can only hope the Bulger angle on this story is true. ...
Alas, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which isn’t a liberal advocacy group known to play loose with the facts, probably has it right: The state can’t just cut and reform its way out of a $3 billion deficit. We’ll see. Mitt presents his no-new-taxes budget tomorrow and Wednesday. At least let him make his case and see what’s there. Might have more on this later. But let me just say: I think Mitt has missed an opportunity to dangle the possibility of a tax hike in exchange for true, genuine reforms and logical control-the-spending cuts. That’s called ‘leverage’ and it would have, perhaps, pulled some key portions of the progressive wing of the Democratic party into Mitt’s reform camp, under the mantra: No reforms, no new taxes. Again, though, we’ll see. ... More pressure on Mitt from the business-community end of the budget debate.
... We can only hope the Bulger angle on this story is true. ...
Alas, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which isn’t a liberal advocacy group known to play loose with the facts, probably has it right: The state can’t just cut and reform its way out of a $3 billion deficit. We’ll see. Mitt presents his no-new-taxes budget tomorrow and Wednesday. At least let him make his case and see what’s there. Might have more on this later. But let me just say: I think Mitt has missed an opportunity to dangle the possibility of a tax hike in exchange for true, genuine reforms and logical control-the-spending cuts. That’s called ‘leverage’ and it would have, perhaps, pulled some key portions of the progressive wing of the Democratic party into Mitt’s reform camp, under the mantra: No reforms, no new taxes. Again, though, we’ll see. ... More pressure on Mitt from the business-community end of the budget debate.
‘Speaking of farewells’: That’s the headline of this morning’s column by Adrian Walker, who, in case you haven’t noticed, has quietly emerged as one of the city’s top columnists. This column is yet another example why. (Later this week, Walker is the type who could just as easily start an anti-Trav campaign, if the mood strikes him. Just throwing out ideas, Adrian.)
Prowar and anti-war annoyances: Hey, there’s a war going on -- and another conflict is about to break out in Iraq. One can’t just sit by and not have an opinion. But there are days you feel the same sentiments as expressed in this Dan Kennedy item. Those arguing in near fanatical absolutes, in particular, are annoying and exhausting. Thank goodness for columns like this one from Cathy Young. OK, she can be accused of the ultimate pundit sin: On the one hand ... on the other hand. Still, take a gander at some of what she writes:
“Both the prowar and the antiwar camp have some solid arguments - and sometimes each camp acts and talks in a way that is likely to make one root for the other side.”
Or:
“Other arguments for military action seem more dubious. Many supporters of a US-imposed regime change in Iraq, such as neoconservative commentator William Kristol, believe that America has a mission to overthrow evil tyrannies and champion liberty everywhere around the world. As someone who knows what it's like to live under a totalitarian dictatorship - I was raised in the Soviet Union until the age of 16 - I am instinctively sympathetic to this idealistic vision; as an American, I fear that it can impose an intolerable burden on the United States.”
Or:
“Unfortunately, the antiwar movement, in Europe and even here at home, is dominated by very different arguments. While no one should be called unpatriotic for opposing the war, the protesters' cause is inevitably tarnished by the fact that they have allowed their demonstrations to be coordinated by hard-left, anti-American front groups such as ANSWER (a fact exposed by the liberal online magazine Salon). Watching television coverage of the protests, it's easy to spot placards making the Orwellian claim that President Bush, not Hussein, is the unelected war-mongering tyrant.”
As a friend said to me not too long ago, “It’s tough being a moderate on Iraq these days. Everyone’s position is hardening.” Yes, clubbing down hard-core arguments coming at you from two directions can get tiring. But ...
“Both the prowar and the antiwar camp have some solid arguments - and sometimes each camp acts and talks in a way that is likely to make one root for the other side.”
Or:
“Other arguments for military action seem more dubious. Many supporters of a US-imposed regime change in Iraq, such as neoconservative commentator William Kristol, believe that America has a mission to overthrow evil tyrannies and champion liberty everywhere around the world. As someone who knows what it's like to live under a totalitarian dictatorship - I was raised in the Soviet Union until the age of 16 - I am instinctively sympathetic to this idealistic vision; as an American, I fear that it can impose an intolerable burden on the United States.”
Or:
“Unfortunately, the antiwar movement, in Europe and even here at home, is dominated by very different arguments. While no one should be called unpatriotic for opposing the war, the protesters' cause is inevitably tarnished by the fact that they have allowed their demonstrations to be coordinated by hard-left, anti-American front groups such as ANSWER (a fact exposed by the liberal online magazine Salon). Watching television coverage of the protests, it's easy to spot placards making the Orwellian claim that President Bush, not Hussein, is the unelected war-mongering tyrant.”
As a friend said to me not too long ago, “It’s tough being a moderate on Iraq these days. Everyone’s position is hardening.” Yes, clubbing down hard-core arguments coming at you from two directions can get tiring. But ...
‘USA Oui! Bush non!’ Part II: Cognizant I may be morphing into one of those Iraq ranters who should just shut up, I can’t help but throw out this op-ed as undeniable proof of Hub Blog’s theory that the anti-war movement is now sucking up to the French. The op-ed, entitled ‘The French Lesson,’ appears in the NYT's suck-up editorial pages and is written by Frenchman Regis DeBray (who I’ll let Andrew Sullivan describe). Samples from DeBray:
“To each its own geopolitics. ...
“Not having any training as a satellite state, unlike the countries of Eastern Europe, France has assumed the right to judge for itself (despite a number of elites firmly in the American camp). ...
“To be sure, in defending its interests a great nation may end up promoting freedom. Such was the situation with the concentration camps. It will not be the case for the $15 barrel of crude. ..."
“It is past the age of ultimatums, protectorates at the other end of the planet, and the white man's burden. Is that the age America is intent on entering? One can only wish it good luck. ...
“In its principles of action, America is two or three centuries behind ‘old Europe.’ Since our countries did not enter history at the same time, the gap should not surprise us. But as to which of the two worlds, the secular or the fundamentalist, is the more archaic, it is surely not the one that Donald Rumsfeld had in mind. ...”
Anti-Americanism? What anti-Americanism? See item below.
Update -- Attention all you anti-war types sucking up to the ‘anti-war’ French. Read this column from the Washington Post. Guess who French Foreign Minister Dominique Galouzeau de Villepin’s hero is? Hint: He’s a long-gone Corsican not known for his love of pacifism.
De Villepin’s views on Waterloo and Napolean remind me of this passage from the late Italian journalist Luigi Barzini’s book ‘The Europeans’: “Count Carlo Sforza, Italian foreign minister, defined the differences between the Italians and the French after World War II. He said to me: ‘Simple. The Italians must forget a defeat. The French must invent a victory. Our task is infinitely easier. ...’”
Update II -- James Lileks is fisking the DeBray op-ed (scroll down). (Via Instapundit.)
“To each its own geopolitics. ...
“Not having any training as a satellite state, unlike the countries of Eastern Europe, France has assumed the right to judge for itself (despite a number of elites firmly in the American camp). ...
“To be sure, in defending its interests a great nation may end up promoting freedom. Such was the situation with the concentration camps. It will not be the case for the $15 barrel of crude. ..."
“It is past the age of ultimatums, protectorates at the other end of the planet, and the white man's burden. Is that the age America is intent on entering? One can only wish it good luck. ...
“In its principles of action, America is two or three centuries behind ‘old Europe.’ Since our countries did not enter history at the same time, the gap should not surprise us. But as to which of the two worlds, the secular or the fundamentalist, is the more archaic, it is surely not the one that Donald Rumsfeld had in mind. ...”
Anti-Americanism? What anti-Americanism? See item below.
Update -- Attention all you anti-war types sucking up to the ‘anti-war’ French. Read this column from the Washington Post. Guess who French Foreign Minister Dominique Galouzeau de Villepin’s hero is? Hint: He’s a long-gone Corsican not known for his love of pacifism.
De Villepin’s views on Waterloo and Napolean remind me of this passage from the late Italian journalist Luigi Barzini’s book ‘The Europeans’: “Count Carlo Sforza, Italian foreign minister, defined the differences between the Italians and the French after World War II. He said to me: ‘Simple. The Italians must forget a defeat. The French must invent a victory. Our task is infinitely easier. ...’”
Update II -- James Lileks is fisking the DeBray op-ed (scroll down). (Via Instapundit.)
Sunday, February 23, 2003
‘USA Oui! Bush Non!’: More evidence keeps trickling in confirming Hub Blog’s theory that the anti-war left is embracing France as an anti-Bush utopia and saying, “But what anti-Americanism?” This latest piece of evidence is via Dexter Van Zile, analyzing an Eric ‘USA Oui! Bush Non!’ Alterman column about Bruce Springsteen. No offense to Dexter, but I couldn’t read the two pieces in full. Bruce’s ‘political message’ has always struck me as two-faced, you-won't-figure-me-out-today, reverse-drag-queen Madonna-like nonsense. But it IS evidence of my theory: Watch out for the ‘an-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend’ argument toward France. OK, that’s a little harsh. Let’s try this toned down version of a silly ideological, broken-record cliche: ‘An-ideological-opponent-of-my-ideological-opponent-is-my-friend.' A lot of people in the anti-war movement are sucking up to France these days. Big time. The case is slowly being made. They’ll live to regret it. Guaranteed. France is France. Warning: Chirac, a right-wing Gaullist, is just another Henry 'Balance of Power' Kissinger.
Mini-review of my mini-review of “Strange Victory”: The rainy weather is bringing out some classic readers of (and writers to) Hub Blog. Here’s Brighton Reader responding to my earlier hack review of Ernest May’s “Strange Victory: Hitler’s Invasion of France:”
“After reading your comments on ‘Strange Victory’ I hunted down some reviews. The ones from the NY Times and some others focused more on May's contention that that it was an intelligence failure as much as anything that led to the defeat. Perhaps so, but that is rather like saying the U.S. could have beaten the Japanese at Pearl Harbor if we had paid more attention to the information we had at hand. Overall they gave it a thumbs-up.
“Without having read May's tome, I agree with you that William Shirer's book (“The Collapse of the Third Republic”) is superior. The biggest problem for the French was not the battlefield defeat but the collaborationist Vichy regime after. Many nations were overrun by the Nazis, but their governments set up shop in London and supported the war in whatever way they could. Instead the French had DeGaulle as the self-appointed leader of the Free French and a government in France claiming it was the legitimate regime. If the French government, navy and whatever land forces they could extract had decamped to continue the fight, people would remember and appreciate the many lives lost in that brief campaign (I have seen estimates as high as 165,000). What happened after the catastrophe on the battlefield is what really haunts the French.”
Hub Blog’s response: The ‘failure of intelligence’ argument pushed by May didn’t/doesn’t hold water, in my opinion. May, once again, didn’t really make it clear what he was trying to say in his book. Did the French have the goods on Hitler’s Ardennes plans? Did they botch the analysis? He says French intelligence was, at one level, really good, but at another level, it was really bad. ... Shirer’s account about the formation of the Vichy government was chilling and dramatic, something May’s book doesn’t touch upon, incredibly. Abolition of the Third Republic, which was never popular in France, was overwhelmingly approved by the French parliament -- socialists, democrats, monarchists, communists, fascists, militarists. Granted, some had guns literally pointed at their faces as they voted. But very few stood up for the republic when it most counted. The French had ample opportunity to send their entire navy and intact air force to French North Africa (and, yes, Shirer shows how the French Air Force was largely intact at the end of the battle -- and in so doing he destroys the French myth that the RAF could have changed the course of the battle if only Churchill had committed the full RAF to the continental conflict). The French chose not to. They could have provided entire divisions, armadas and thousands of fighert planes to the Allied cause. They didn’t. One person who comes across quite well in Shirer’s book is Charles de Gaulle. He was one of the few to see the tragedy unfolding and angrily bolted, barely escaping the Petain government’s goon sqauds. Very dramatic tale in Shirer’s book. Part of de Gaulle's later anti-Americanism can be traced, I believe, to the shabby way he was treated by FDR. ... Disturbingly, there’s something deeper to May’s book, which I haven’t quite put my finger on, that has something to do with ‘revisionism,’ or as Josh Marshall put in his highly flattering review of May’s book, the attempt to discredit the “mythology of appeasement.” There’s something strange under way about France's new friends and defenders -- which is starting to resemble the old 'any-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend' argument. Keep an eye on it.
Bottom line (again): Shirer's classic "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" has withstood the test of time. His "Collapse of the Third Republic" passes the same test, with flying colors.
“After reading your comments on ‘Strange Victory’ I hunted down some reviews. The ones from the NY Times and some others focused more on May's contention that that it was an intelligence failure as much as anything that led to the defeat. Perhaps so, but that is rather like saying the U.S. could have beaten the Japanese at Pearl Harbor if we had paid more attention to the information we had at hand. Overall they gave it a thumbs-up.
“Without having read May's tome, I agree with you that William Shirer's book (“The Collapse of the Third Republic”) is superior. The biggest problem for the French was not the battlefield defeat but the collaborationist Vichy regime after. Many nations were overrun by the Nazis, but their governments set up shop in London and supported the war in whatever way they could. Instead the French had DeGaulle as the self-appointed leader of the Free French and a government in France claiming it was the legitimate regime. If the French government, navy and whatever land forces they could extract had decamped to continue the fight, people would remember and appreciate the many lives lost in that brief campaign (I have seen estimates as high as 165,000). What happened after the catastrophe on the battlefield is what really haunts the French.”
Hub Blog’s response: The ‘failure of intelligence’ argument pushed by May didn’t/doesn’t hold water, in my opinion. May, once again, didn’t really make it clear what he was trying to say in his book. Did the French have the goods on Hitler’s Ardennes plans? Did they botch the analysis? He says French intelligence was, at one level, really good, but at another level, it was really bad. ... Shirer’s account about the formation of the Vichy government was chilling and dramatic, something May’s book doesn’t touch upon, incredibly. Abolition of the Third Republic, which was never popular in France, was overwhelmingly approved by the French parliament -- socialists, democrats, monarchists, communists, fascists, militarists. Granted, some had guns literally pointed at their faces as they voted. But very few stood up for the republic when it most counted. The French had ample opportunity to send their entire navy and intact air force to French North Africa (and, yes, Shirer shows how the French Air Force was largely intact at the end of the battle -- and in so doing he destroys the French myth that the RAF could have changed the course of the battle if only Churchill had committed the full RAF to the continental conflict). The French chose not to. They could have provided entire divisions, armadas and thousands of fighert planes to the Allied cause. They didn’t. One person who comes across quite well in Shirer’s book is Charles de Gaulle. He was one of the few to see the tragedy unfolding and angrily bolted, barely escaping the Petain government’s goon sqauds. Very dramatic tale in Shirer’s book. Part of de Gaulle's later anti-Americanism can be traced, I believe, to the shabby way he was treated by FDR. ... Disturbingly, there’s something deeper to May’s book, which I haven’t quite put my finger on, that has something to do with ‘revisionism,’ or as Josh Marshall put in his highly flattering review of May’s book, the attempt to discredit the “mythology of appeasement.” There’s something strange under way about France's new friends and defenders -- which is starting to resemble the old 'any-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend' argument. Keep an eye on it.
Bottom line (again): Shirer's classic "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" has withstood the test of time. His "Collapse of the Third Republic" passes the same test, with flying colors.
Happy rainy Sunday Hubblog: Some random thoughts from Reader No. 1:
"Happy rainy Sunday Hubblog. ... A couple of thoughts on:
-- "West Warwick: 1. Are you sure you want to own a bar? 2. When will we see a call on rock'n'roll as a threat to public health? There's plenty of data in form of well-documented deaths, substance abuse, fan-stampede deaths... on a per capita basis, is the fast food industry worse than the rock biz? (I write as a longtime fan, not as the historical befuddled jazz or classical buff...)
-- "France: It seemed to me that Richard Vinen's Globe piece on France today "buried the lead" very effectively with his Oh-By-The-Way notation of the elite spawning ground of that country's political leadership in the next-to-last paragraph...
"I'm sure you'll get sick of this soon too, but I just collected another bit of evidence on France becoming the Left's favorite new country on taxpayer-subsidized NOW with Bill Moyers. The NATION's John Nichols asked pseudo-rhetorically if it was possible that France and Germany were opposed to Iraq because -- they KNEW more than we do?
-- "Reader BK and Mitt: I've got mainly a semantical problem with Reader BK as to how he characterizes the last 3 Republican administrations in Massachusetts. He might have noted that the background of the prior 3 was deeply rooted in politics, whereas Romney brings the significant management-business perspective. (Weld tried to get it by osmosis but it didn't take). I think it would be more accurate to note that the last 3 administrations were much like the Washington DC Republicans Tom Bethell characterizes as being in favor of 'the same but less of it.' And one way they managed to hold onto power was by allowing the same but more of it in state government (noting the growth in tax revenues which Jacoby cites today)."
"Happy rainy Sunday Hubblog. ... A couple of thoughts on:
-- "West Warwick: 1. Are you sure you want to own a bar? 2. When will we see a call on rock'n'roll as a threat to public health? There's plenty of data in form of well-documented deaths, substance abuse, fan-stampede deaths... on a per capita basis, is the fast food industry worse than the rock biz? (I write as a longtime fan, not as the historical befuddled jazz or classical buff...)
-- "France: It seemed to me that Richard Vinen's Globe piece on France today "buried the lead" very effectively with his Oh-By-The-Way notation of the elite spawning ground of that country's political leadership in the next-to-last paragraph...
"I'm sure you'll get sick of this soon too, but I just collected another bit of evidence on France becoming the Left's favorite new country on taxpayer-subsidized NOW with Bill Moyers. The NATION's John Nichols asked pseudo-rhetorically if it was possible that France and Germany were opposed to Iraq because -- they KNEW more than we do?
-- "Reader BK and Mitt: I've got mainly a semantical problem with Reader BK as to how he characterizes the last 3 Republican administrations in Massachusetts. He might have noted that the background of the prior 3 was deeply rooted in politics, whereas Romney brings the significant management-business perspective. (Weld tried to get it by osmosis but it didn't take). I think it would be more accurate to note that the last 3 administrations were much like the Washington DC Republicans Tom Bethell characterizes as being in favor of 'the same but less of it.' And one way they managed to hold onto power was by allowing the same but more of it in state government (noting the growth in tax revenues which Jacoby cites today)."
Forget yesterday’s note about how Hub Blog might be light on blogging this weekend. It’s cold and clammy outside. No spring-like weather today. So no walks. So ...
No more ‘dependably pliable’ relationships: Reader BK writes in:
“Reading Hubblog over the last week or so (and then reading the Globe and Herald stories linked-to via Hubblog,) leads me to ask Hubblog four related questions:
“Could it not be fairly argued that while Massachusetts has had three Republican Governors (Weld, Cellucci, and Swift) between 1990 and 2002, what, in fact, we've really had were two-and-a half dependably pliable Democratic Administrations (with only the first half or so of Weld's first term being dependably Republican or somewhat conservative)?
“And that what, in 2003, we're finally getting with Mitt Romney is a Conservative- Independent in the corner office on Beacon Hill -- and that this is not going down too well with Hubblog's many "warm" friends and acquaintances in the State's Democratic Party and throughout the ‘Hack-o-sphere?’
“One has to wonder if the Big Dig project might well have been managed better throughout those 1990-2002 Republican Governorships if we'd had three R-Governors who "managed-a-little-bit-more-by-walking-around" than Weld, Cellucci, and Swift were willing to warm to the task of doing so?
“Do you think this has crossed Mitt's mind a time or two (or three) during the last several weeks of ‘discovery’”?
No more ‘dependably pliable’ relationships: Reader BK writes in:
“Reading Hubblog over the last week or so (and then reading the Globe and Herald stories linked-to via Hubblog,) leads me to ask Hubblog four related questions:
“Could it not be fairly argued that while Massachusetts has had three Republican Governors (Weld, Cellucci, and Swift) between 1990 and 2002, what, in fact, we've really had were two-and-a half dependably pliable Democratic Administrations (with only the first half or so of Weld's first term being dependably Republican or somewhat conservative)?
“And that what, in 2003, we're finally getting with Mitt Romney is a Conservative- Independent in the corner office on Beacon Hill -- and that this is not going down too well with Hubblog's many "warm" friends and acquaintances in the State's Democratic Party and throughout the ‘Hack-o-sphere?’
“One has to wonder if the Big Dig project might well have been managed better throughout those 1990-2002 Republican Governorships if we'd had three R-Governors who "managed-a-little-bit-more-by-walking-around" than Weld, Cellucci, and Swift were willing to warm to the task of doing so?
“Do you think this has crossed Mitt's mind a time or two (or three) during the last several weeks of ‘discovery’”?
The myth of ‘stingy’ state spending in the ‘90s: Thank you, Jeff Jacoby. He confirmed Hub Blog’s prior windy, convoluted but still accurate hunch that the liberal Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center was playing loosely with the facts, as usual. According to Jeff’s column (with key information based on Cato Institute data), the state took in $9.37 billion in tax revenue in 1990. By 2001, the figure was $17.23 billion. As a simple analysis of CPI figures show (see the Hub Blog link above), state spending sometimes ran at nearly twice the rate of inflation throughout the 1990s. State spending didn’t contribute to today’s deficits? What a myth.
‘Newshound becomes hunted’: Would hate to be in Jeff Derderian’s shoes these days. It sure looks like his nightclub in West Warwick did have illegal pyrotechnic displays in the past. The big questions that are still unclear: After owners sound-proofed The Station, did they correspondingly change their policies about pyrotechnics? Did ‘Great White’ seek and receive permission to use pyrotechnics for that specific post-sound-proofing show? Not that this will help Jeff. He’s screwed and everyone knows it. ‘Great White,’ obviously, is screwed (or should be) too. They literally lit the fuse. ...
Do the French really hate us?: Hub Blog is keeping a careful eye on whether the politically correct are starting to mobilize in defense of France. The preliminary evidence trickling in indicates, yes indeed, the anti-war and anti-Bush crowd is starting to do just that, albeit slowly. This article in this morning’s ‘Ideas’ section of the Globe has a lot of fascinating information about anti-Americanism in France. The piece intelligently delves into the issues of both left-wing and right-wing anti-Americanism among the French, as well as the relatively new phenomenon in France of intellectuals criticizing simplistic anti-Americanism. So far, so good. But then there’s this line:
“The real problem here is not that the French people, or other Europeans for that matter, have become more ‘anti-American’ but rather that Americans have become ever more pressing in their insistence that anything less than unconditional support amounts to ‘disloyalty.’ George W. Bush's division of the world into ‘those for us and those against us’ is widely regarded as dangerously simplistic. This insistence on unconditional support marks an important change.”
The ‘real problem’ is Americans and Bush? And he suddenly drags in ‘other Europeans for that matter’? Please. Hub Blog, a harsh critic of the administration’s poor use of diplomacy, has consistently made this point: Bush has exacerbated anti-Americanism, but he certainly didn’t create it. It has existed, and deeply so, within European intellectual circles for decades and decades, well before World War II and well before George Bush was even born, for that matter. The French left, which is far more extreme than the American left, generally sees in America capitalism, imperialism, fascism, materialism. The French right, meanwhile, institutionalized its anti-Americanism under de Gaulle and within the Ecole Nationale d'Administration, where French leaders, a class truly onto themselves, learn about their Kissinger-like ‘balance of power’ etc. All of this occurred well before Bush. Summary: Knee-jerk anti-Americanism in France and Europe has been, and remains, a serious, serious problem and it can’t be smoothed over, as much as the author of the article tries.
FYI: For more proof of Hub Blog’s emerging theory that political correctness is seeping into any discussion of France these days, read Jan Freeman’s column this morning. God, she’s so condescending.
FYI II: Check out my post the other day about the new anti-war Euro and French suck-up artists. Remember: It's only an emerging theory of mine, but the evidence is growing. Jacques Chirac nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. How absurd, not to mention depressing.
“The real problem here is not that the French people, or other Europeans for that matter, have become more ‘anti-American’ but rather that Americans have become ever more pressing in their insistence that anything less than unconditional support amounts to ‘disloyalty.’ George W. Bush's division of the world into ‘those for us and those against us’ is widely regarded as dangerously simplistic. This insistence on unconditional support marks an important change.”
The ‘real problem’ is Americans and Bush? And he suddenly drags in ‘other Europeans for that matter’? Please. Hub Blog, a harsh critic of the administration’s poor use of diplomacy, has consistently made this point: Bush has exacerbated anti-Americanism, but he certainly didn’t create it. It has existed, and deeply so, within European intellectual circles for decades and decades, well before World War II and well before George Bush was even born, for that matter. The French left, which is far more extreme than the American left, generally sees in America capitalism, imperialism, fascism, materialism. The French right, meanwhile, institutionalized its anti-Americanism under de Gaulle and within the Ecole Nationale d'Administration, where French leaders, a class truly onto themselves, learn about their Kissinger-like ‘balance of power’ etc. All of this occurred well before Bush. Summary: Knee-jerk anti-Americanism in France and Europe has been, and remains, a serious, serious problem and it can’t be smoothed over, as much as the author of the article tries.
FYI: For more proof of Hub Blog’s emerging theory that political correctness is seeping into any discussion of France these days, read Jan Freeman’s column this morning. God, she’s so condescending.
FYI II: Check out my post the other day about the new anti-war Euro and French suck-up artists. Remember: It's only an emerging theory of mine, but the evidence is growing. Jacques Chirac nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. How absurd, not to mention depressing.
Terrific discussion on Iraq over at Josh Marshall’s site: Josh Marshall interviews Kenneth Pollack, author of the “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq” and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute. Don’t go there if you want to merely confirm your preconceived notions about Iraq, Bush, the UN. Etc. A calm, highly nuanced, engaging discussion that challenges a lot of myths and comfortable assumptions. Wish more discussions on Iraq were like this. (Via Instapundit.)
Saturday, February 22, 2003
Only a few quick posts today and hopefully this weekend. Feels like spring -- yes, I know nature is just teasing us -- and want to get outside, go for some walks, air out the apartment, get some much needed sun in my eyes. Here goes:
Update 6 p.m. -- The day was indeed like spring. Unfortunately, it was indeed like spring -- rain, rain, rain. Anyway:
The West Warwick fire: Too much to take in. Just glanced at all the headlines in the Globe, the Herald and at the Providence Journal. Probably because I’m too exhausted by all the tragedies we’ve seen in the past 18 months, it seemed only the off-the-beaten-path stories could grab my attention, such as this AP piece on how a rare emergency “blast” page alerted hundreds of doctors and nurses of a catastrophe and how they instantly rushed to R.I. hospitals to perform their duties; this story about the band ‘Great White,’ which, to my shock, gave the world the huge hit “Once Bitten, Twice Shy” (definitely trivial) and this story about WPRI-TV cameraman Brian D. Butler’s professionalism, sixth sense and luck.
Update 6 p.m. -- The day was indeed like spring. Unfortunately, it was indeed like spring -- rain, rain, rain. Anyway:
The West Warwick fire: Too much to take in. Just glanced at all the headlines in the Globe, the Herald and at the Providence Journal. Probably because I’m too exhausted by all the tragedies we’ve seen in the past 18 months, it seemed only the off-the-beaten-path stories could grab my attention, such as this AP piece on how a rare emergency “blast” page alerted hundreds of doctors and nurses of a catastrophe and how they instantly rushed to R.I. hospitals to perform their duties; this story about the band ‘Great White,’ which, to my shock, gave the world the huge hit “Once Bitten, Twice Shy” (definitely trivial) and this story about WPRI-TV cameraman Brian D. Butler’s professionalism, sixth sense and luck.
Storming the Bastille ...: Here were are, storming the Statehouse Bastille, heroically throwing up street barricades, pikes and pitchforks in hand, screaming Liberte! -- and what does the evil Dan Kennedy do? He throws reality at us:
“The problem, of course, is that there's absolutely no need for the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature to do anything with Romney's proposals. The legislators can make paper airplanes out of them and toss them out the window: the Republicans are so outnumbered that they can't even force a roll-call vote.”
One quibble with Dan’s item -- besides the fact he seriously punctured our glorious fantasy -- is his use of the word ‘cynicism’ to describe Mitt’s numbers. Instead, I’d use the word ‘pettiness,’ for he could have just said, ‘Yes, my savings numbers are off. But the idea is still sound. Care to argue that point?’ But he didn’t say that, for petty political (and vain) reasons. As for lawmakers, whether they’re faced with idealism, cynicism, pettiness, whatever, they will not budge on giving up their power and perks. No Mitt, no referendum, no appeal to logic or to the Massachusetts Supreme Court will move them. Except, maybe, our Big Bertha secret weapon: Question 1, Redux. ... Citizens, to the barricades! Alors! Liberte!
“The problem, of course, is that there's absolutely no need for the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature to do anything with Romney's proposals. The legislators can make paper airplanes out of them and toss them out the window: the Republicans are so outnumbered that they can't even force a roll-call vote.”
One quibble with Dan’s item -- besides the fact he seriously punctured our glorious fantasy -- is his use of the word ‘cynicism’ to describe Mitt’s numbers. Instead, I’d use the word ‘pettiness,’ for he could have just said, ‘Yes, my savings numbers are off. But the idea is still sound. Care to argue that point?’ But he didn’t say that, for petty political (and vain) reasons. As for lawmakers, whether they’re faced with idealism, cynicism, pettiness, whatever, they will not budge on giving up their power and perks. No Mitt, no referendum, no appeal to logic or to the Massachusetts Supreme Court will move them. Except, maybe, our Big Bertha secret weapon: Question 1, Redux. ... Citizens, to the barricades! Alors! Liberte!
Friday, February 21, 2003
The West Warwick tragedy: More than 20 killed in a Chicago nightclub tragedy. Now more than 60 are confirmed dead -- and the death toll is rising -- from the West Warwick nightclub fire last night. One can’t help but recall, with these awful tragedies, the Concoanut Grove fire in 1942, when 492 people perished in yet another nightclub calamity. The more things change, the more they stay the same. ...
... Television coverage has been OK, but you can tell they’re already going into crisis team-coverage overdrive. How? Earlier this morning, Channel 7’s Steve Cooper spent ten minutes interviewing a ‘grief counselor,’ who talked about the need to cry, to let your emotions out, for closure, for the grieving process, for the ‘pain will always be there.’ The Modern Media Grieving Extravaganza has begun. The most offensive aspect of the interview with the ‘grief counselor’: He said those who go to these nightclubs have an “emptiness” in their lives and they “can find fulfillment in other ways.” ... I feel like I’m lowering myself by even bringing up this obnoxious drivel, this phony and shallow and offensive journalism. So I’ll end it here. What sadness.
Update -- Boston.com has pulled out of the Globe's archives a far superior link and account about the Cocoanut Grove fire. Very sad. ...P.S. As of 1:45 p.m., the death count now stands at 75 and will likely keep rising.
... Television coverage has been OK, but you can tell they’re already going into crisis team-coverage overdrive. How? Earlier this morning, Channel 7’s Steve Cooper spent ten minutes interviewing a ‘grief counselor,’ who talked about the need to cry, to let your emotions out, for closure, for the grieving process, for the ‘pain will always be there.’ The Modern Media Grieving Extravaganza has begun. The most offensive aspect of the interview with the ‘grief counselor’: He said those who go to these nightclubs have an “emptiness” in their lives and they “can find fulfillment in other ways.” ... I feel like I’m lowering myself by even bringing up this obnoxious drivel, this phony and shallow and offensive journalism. So I’ll end it here. What sadness.
Update -- Boston.com has pulled out of the Globe's archives a far superior link and account about the Cocoanut Grove fire. Very sad. ...P.S. As of 1:45 p.m., the death count now stands at 75 and will likely keep rising.
Tightening the ‘noose around the sacred cows’: Another day, another attack on the Bastille, another counter-offensive from hacks throwing boulders from the ramparts. Mitt: Keep it up. Yesterday’s target: The judiciary. Here’s a Herald analysis. Here’s a Howie column. Here’s the Herald’s editorial. The Globe’s coverage and editorial are a little more tame, but you can tell they fully understand Mitt has launched a full-scale assault on the patronage system here. ... OK, Hub Blog concedes: Mitt’s numbers don’t add up and some of the details are questionable. But that doesn’t take away from the overall fact that what he’s attempting to do is the right thing. ... The Globe’s coverage (actually, its tone) may be more tame for distinguished diplomatic purposes, but they’re getting into the fun and throwing punches too, though they wouldn’t phrase it that way. Oh, just a mere $214,000 because the Senate exempted itself from rules that apply to others. What can you say? ...
... On the MCAS front, the anti-reformers are still pressing their case to kill or mortally wound MCAS. Scot Lehigh meets their challenge. ...
... Where does all of this leave us? As of now, the anti-reformers are trying to block or kill: A.) MCAS B.) Charter schools C.) Clean Elections D.) English immersion E.) Elimination of the MDC F.) Reform/elimination of the Bechtel Turnpike Authority G.) Reform of the judiciary. The list could go on and on and on.
... On the MCAS front, the anti-reformers are still pressing their case to kill or mortally wound MCAS. Scot Lehigh meets their challenge. ...
... Where does all of this leave us? As of now, the anti-reformers are trying to block or kill: A.) MCAS B.) Charter schools C.) Clean Elections D.) English immersion E.) Elimination of the MDC F.) Reform/elimination of the Bechtel Turnpike Authority G.) Reform of the judiciary. The list could go on and on and on.
The Bechtel Turnpike Authority: Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff issued a rebuttal yesterday to the Globe’s series on Big Dig cost overruns. Don’t believe the counter charges. Not a bit. Why? Read this Steve Bailey column, which includes excerpts from one of the most amazing state government memos you’ll ever spill your coffee over. No exaggeration. Read it. It lays out, clearly, that the Swift administration knew about the cost overruns, knew who was responsible -- and then launched a full-scale assault on whom? On those calling loudest for tough actions and reforms. File the memo under: Standard political protocol in Massachusetts.
An anti-war/Euro-suck-up lefty in moderate sheep’s clothing: Oh, please. Who is Molly Ivins? She’s getting a lot of attention these days, such as over at Instapundit. Hub Blog’s conclusion: Molly is an anti-war/Euro-suck-up lefty in moderate sheep’s clothing. ...
... Anyway, this is a somewhat tricky Molly column (‘Trashing the war critics doesn’t help’) to trash -- but not too tricky -- because I’ve been very harsh on the Bush administration’s zigzagging, needlessly bellicose language and diplomacy over the past year. My and other moderates’ intention has always been to give the Bushies constructive criticism in order to achieve a desired result: Disarming and getting rid of Saddam, by military means if necessary. It’s a disagreement about the means, not the end. ... But, Molly, well, she’s hurt -- or feigning hurt -- that the Bush administration is trashing ‘critics of the war,’ i.e. the anti-war movement. Listen, Bush has been ‘trashing’ the UN and NATO and normal multilateralist venues. But he hasn’t been ‘trashing’ the anti-war critics, as much as the self-centered, self-pitying, self-appointed martyrs of the anti-war movement like Molly think and desperately hope. I suspect Bush could care less about the hard-core anti-war crowd. As Alistair Cooke recently wrote: “I do not think we have any obligation to debate anyone who is for peace at any price.”
... What the anti-war types like Molly are cleverly trying to do is co-opt the moderate language of legitimate criticism of the Bush administration’s means and then twist it to their own ends: No war. Read some of the silly things she writes: “Why not see if it (containment) will work this time? What about a UN resolution saying, 'Any place Saddam Hussein doesn't let the inspectors go into gets bombed immediately'?” Or: “Painting the antiwar movement as pro-Hussein gets us nowhere.” Or: “What the Europeans are trying to say is ..” Or: “Look, the rest of the world is deeply worried about the possibility that this war could set off a holocaust. That is not a concern that should be treated with contemptuous dismissal.” ... As I said: Molly is an anti-war/Euro-suck-up lefty in moderate sheep’s clothing.
France and the anti-war movement: Meanwhile, a fascinating, fascinating thing is now under way within the ‘peace movement’: Defending France. Molly did it the other day (via the link above at Instapundit). France. The ammoral, ‘balance of power,’ neocolonialist, UN and NATO and Eastern European trash-talking French. Yeah, the French. The Boston-based Christian Science Monitor had an excellent piece this morning on how the anti-war movement is now coalescing around France and Jacques Chirac in particular. (Which probably explains Molly’s French-defending column the other day.) Hub Blog thinks this development has a lot to do with France being the most notoriously anti-American country in Europe. Anyway, I couldn’t believe it when I read Chirac has actually been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Chirac? The Nobel Peace Prize? Is this the same guy who greased the deal for Saddam to build a nuclear plant that everyone knew he would use to try to build nuclear weapons? Is this the same Chirac who said the following to Time magazine the other day, "Any community with only one dominant power is always a dangerous one and provokes reactions. ... That's why I favor a multipolar world in which Europe obviously has its place"? He sounds like -- and has a track record resembling -- Henry Kissinger. Chirac? Anti-war? Nobel Prize? The world really is going mad.
... Speaking of France, my review of Ernest May’s ‘Strange Victory: Hitler’s Conquest of France’ is directly below. I’ll be adding an update at the end in light of Molly’s column and the Christian Science Monitor article on France.
... Anyway, this is a somewhat tricky Molly column (‘Trashing the war critics doesn’t help’) to trash -- but not too tricky -- because I’ve been very harsh on the Bush administration’s zigzagging, needlessly bellicose language and diplomacy over the past year. My and other moderates’ intention has always been to give the Bushies constructive criticism in order to achieve a desired result: Disarming and getting rid of Saddam, by military means if necessary. It’s a disagreement about the means, not the end. ... But, Molly, well, she’s hurt -- or feigning hurt -- that the Bush administration is trashing ‘critics of the war,’ i.e. the anti-war movement. Listen, Bush has been ‘trashing’ the UN and NATO and normal multilateralist venues. But he hasn’t been ‘trashing’ the anti-war critics, as much as the self-centered, self-pitying, self-appointed martyrs of the anti-war movement like Molly think and desperately hope. I suspect Bush could care less about the hard-core anti-war crowd. As Alistair Cooke recently wrote: “I do not think we have any obligation to debate anyone who is for peace at any price.”
... What the anti-war types like Molly are cleverly trying to do is co-opt the moderate language of legitimate criticism of the Bush administration’s means and then twist it to their own ends: No war. Read some of the silly things she writes: “Why not see if it (containment) will work this time? What about a UN resolution saying, 'Any place Saddam Hussein doesn't let the inspectors go into gets bombed immediately'?” Or: “Painting the antiwar movement as pro-Hussein gets us nowhere.” Or: “What the Europeans are trying to say is ..” Or: “Look, the rest of the world is deeply worried about the possibility that this war could set off a holocaust. That is not a concern that should be treated with contemptuous dismissal.” ... As I said: Molly is an anti-war/Euro-suck-up lefty in moderate sheep’s clothing.
France and the anti-war movement: Meanwhile, a fascinating, fascinating thing is now under way within the ‘peace movement’: Defending France. Molly did it the other day (via the link above at Instapundit). France. The ammoral, ‘balance of power,’ neocolonialist, UN and NATO and Eastern European trash-talking French. Yeah, the French. The Boston-based Christian Science Monitor had an excellent piece this morning on how the anti-war movement is now coalescing around France and Jacques Chirac in particular. (Which probably explains Molly’s French-defending column the other day.) Hub Blog thinks this development has a lot to do with France being the most notoriously anti-American country in Europe. Anyway, I couldn’t believe it when I read Chirac has actually been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Chirac? The Nobel Peace Prize? Is this the same guy who greased the deal for Saddam to build a nuclear plant that everyone knew he would use to try to build nuclear weapons? Is this the same Chirac who said the following to Time magazine the other day, "Any community with only one dominant power is always a dangerous one and provokes reactions. ... That's why I favor a multipolar world in which Europe obviously has its place"? He sounds like -- and has a track record resembling -- Henry Kissinger. Chirac? Anti-war? Nobel Prize? The world really is going mad.
... Speaking of France, my review of Ernest May’s ‘Strange Victory: Hitler’s Conquest of France’ is directly below. I’ll be adding an update at the end in light of Molly’s column and the Christian Science Monitor article on France.
Thursday, February 20, 2003
Mini-review of 'Strange Victory: Hitler's Conquest of France': As promised, here's my quick review (OK, so it’s not so quick and mini) of Harvard professor Ernest May's recent book, "Strange Victory," on the fall of France in ‘40, prompted by a prior discussion on Hub Blog about France and William Shirer's "Collapse of the Third Republic: An Inquiry Into the Fall of France in 1940." If you want to skip this, click here to go to the next item. Otherwise:
My erudite reaction to 'Strange Victory': I didn't like it very much. Not at all. It’s hard to get into a book, let alone respect and sympathize with it, when you read passages 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.” [The author'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.’”
Yeah. He wrote that. I could end the review here.
But there are indeed aspects of the book that are somewhat illuminating: how well individual French soldiers and units fought during the 'Battle of France'; how much the French sacrificed in the mere six weeks of fighting (anywhere from 85,000 to 150,000 killed, depending on whose numbers you trust); how the Allies had more and better weapons at the outset of the campaign; how the Allies had golden (but blown) opportunities to block the Germans' Ardennes offensive before and after it started -- and even after it was well under way; how nervous Hitler and German generals were about the fate of the battle before and during the conflict. Germany's victory in 1940 was not inevitable, as both May and Shirer observe. These points tend to get lost whenever we undergo periodic bouts of French bashing, as we’re experiencing today (with Hub Blog gleefully partaking in the fun).
But there May and Shirer part ways.
May seems determined to prove this point: The French were better prepared, more united and fiercer in battle than history has given them credit for. One wants to concede the point: OK, fine. But he keeps hammering away at this theme, almost to the point where you get the clear impression he’s out to twist logic to prove his case. He shrugs off assertions France was a divided country going into war, saying they pulled together in 1938-1940; downplays and buries arguments that French military doctrines were outdated and inadequate to meet the Blitzkrieg, saying the French did have armored divisions of their own. It all comes back to this: The French were better prepared, more united and fiercer in battle than history has given them credit for.
For these and other reasons, there's something strange, disingenuous about May's book. Take the Chamberlain quote above. In his chapter on Chamberlain, May starts out with this quote from Winston Churchill: “What a pity Hitler did not know when he met this sober English politician with his umbrella at Berchtesgaden, Godesberg and Munich, that he was actually talking to a hard-bitten pioneer from the outer marches of the British Empire!” ... Kind of flies in the face of everything we’ve heard Churchill say about Chamberlain and his pre-war policies, right? Then you notice the date Churchill said those words: Oct. 25, 1939. Think about it. Churchill said these words after the war had started. After Churchill was admitted into Chamberlain’s government. What else was Churchill going to mutter at that time? What a strange, disingenuous quote to attribute to Churchill, don’t you think?
Frankly, I couldn’t figure out May’s politics or motives as I read ‘Strange Victory,' except for the ever annoying sense he was trying too hard to make his ‘revisionist’ points, including how French intelligence services did/didn’t do their job. He makes a big deal about the intelligence failures in particular, as if they alone explain France's defeat. But he just didn’t succeed in revising my overall views beyond what I learned in Shirer's book. He doesn't deleve into his controversial positions head on and in detail, like the Chamberlain and Maginot quotes above. I searched and searched for some grand summary, after each chapter, to back up his provocative claims. Never materializes. Again and again, he raises fascinating points, then drops them. Plunk! Then lets you fend for yourself, as if he thinks you haven't noticed how he drops, switches, obscures, bends subjects etc. The gaps in his logic are sometimes glaring.
The late, great Italian journalist, Luigi Barzini, once wrote a classic book, “The Europeans,” a series of beautiful essays on Europe’s leading nations (and, tellingly, he includes a chapter on “The Baffling Americans.”) The chapter on the French is called the “The Quarrelsome French.” Among other great observations about France, Barzini wrote: “Count Carlo Sforza, Italian foreign minister, defined the differences between the Italians and the French after World War II. He said to me: ‘Simple. The Italians must forget a defeat. The French must invent a victory. Our task is infinitely easier. ...’”
For whatever reasons and motives, May seems to be performing somersaults and bending over backwards to help the French invent a victory. Or at least make it less of a defeat.
Now William Shirer, well, what can Hub Blog say? Shirer’s “Collapse of the Third Republic” -- which I read only a few months before ‘Strange Victory’ -- isn’t nearly as dramatic as his classic “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.” But “Collapse of the Third Republic” is still tremendous and breathtaking in its scope. Shirer, who used to be based in France as a correspondent and who absolutely loved the French, steps way back and provides a sweeping examination of the French nation and its people from 1870 (at the founding of the Third Republic, following France’s defeat in the Franco-Prussian War) to 1940. The picture he paints isn’t pretty: France was (and remains) a very proud but divided nation, with extreme politics that make our extreme politics look tame.
The Third Republic itself, while it had many accomplishments (such as winning World War I -- and, yes, France deserves credit for sacrificing more than a million men in that war), was deeply, deeply flawed, going through scores and scores and scores of governments, making the Italian government changes of the 1970s look downright stable in comparison. France was scarred by World War I, as was Britain, and repeatedly missed opportunities throughout the ‘30s to confront and crush the Nazis. Shirer is very brutal on Britain -- and America -- for the lack of support and sympathy for France’s unique peril. But he does lay primary blame on France itself. Shirer’s chapter on France’s military erosion during the ‘30s is jaw-dropping. His description of the battle itself is gripping. His account of the last, agonizing days of the Third Republic is heart breaking. And his detailed description of the surrender of France and the formation of the Vichy government will make your blood boil.
Bottom line: Shirer blows May away. No contest. If you want to learn about France in general and its 1940 defeat in particular, read Shirer’s “Collapse of the Third Republic.” Highly recommended.
Update 12:50 p.m.- 2-21-03 -- A couple of stories -- here and here -- have popped up recently, loosely having something to do with the subject of France and/or France's defeat in 1940. Notice how some on the anti-war left are now starting to suck up to/stick up for France as war approaches on Iraq. Not saying this was May's intention -- though he opens himself up to such suspicions -- but it's still a very, very curious development. P.S. Chirac reportedly has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Chirac. Interesting.
My erudite reaction to 'Strange Victory': I didn't like it very much. Not at all. It’s hard to get into a book, let alone respect and sympathize with it, when you read passages 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.” [The author'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.’”
Yeah. He wrote that. I could end the review here.
But there are indeed aspects of the book that are somewhat illuminating: how well individual French soldiers and units fought during the 'Battle of France'; how much the French sacrificed in the mere six weeks of fighting (anywhere from 85,000 to 150,000 killed, depending on whose numbers you trust); how the Allies had more and better weapons at the outset of the campaign; how the Allies had golden (but blown) opportunities to block the Germans' Ardennes offensive before and after it started -- and even after it was well under way; how nervous Hitler and German generals were about the fate of the battle before and during the conflict. Germany's victory in 1940 was not inevitable, as both May and Shirer observe. These points tend to get lost whenever we undergo periodic bouts of French bashing, as we’re experiencing today (with Hub Blog gleefully partaking in the fun).
But there May and Shirer part ways.
May seems determined to prove this point: The French were better prepared, more united and fiercer in battle than history has given them credit for. One wants to concede the point: OK, fine. But he keeps hammering away at this theme, almost to the point where you get the clear impression he’s out to twist logic to prove his case. He shrugs off assertions France was a divided country going into war, saying they pulled together in 1938-1940; downplays and buries arguments that French military doctrines were outdated and inadequate to meet the Blitzkrieg, saying the French did have armored divisions of their own. It all comes back to this: The French were better prepared, more united and fiercer in battle than history has given them credit for.
For these and other reasons, there's something strange, disingenuous about May's book. Take the Chamberlain quote above. In his chapter on Chamberlain, May starts out with this quote from Winston Churchill: “What a pity Hitler did not know when he met this sober English politician with his umbrella at Berchtesgaden, Godesberg and Munich, that he was actually talking to a hard-bitten pioneer from the outer marches of the British Empire!” ... Kind of flies in the face of everything we’ve heard Churchill say about Chamberlain and his pre-war policies, right? Then you notice the date Churchill said those words: Oct. 25, 1939. Think about it. Churchill said these words after the war had started. After Churchill was admitted into Chamberlain’s government. What else was Churchill going to mutter at that time? What a strange, disingenuous quote to attribute to Churchill, don’t you think?
Frankly, I couldn’t figure out May’s politics or motives as I read ‘Strange Victory,' except for the ever annoying sense he was trying too hard to make his ‘revisionist’ points, including how French intelligence services did/didn’t do their job. He makes a big deal about the intelligence failures in particular, as if they alone explain France's defeat. But he just didn’t succeed in revising my overall views beyond what I learned in Shirer's book. He doesn't deleve into his controversial positions head on and in detail, like the Chamberlain and Maginot quotes above. I searched and searched for some grand summary, after each chapter, to back up his provocative claims. Never materializes. Again and again, he raises fascinating points, then drops them. Plunk! Then lets you fend for yourself, as if he thinks you haven't noticed how he drops, switches, obscures, bends subjects etc. The gaps in his logic are sometimes glaring.
The late, great Italian journalist, Luigi Barzini, once wrote a classic book, “The Europeans,” a series of beautiful essays on Europe’s leading nations (and, tellingly, he includes a chapter on “The Baffling Americans.”) The chapter on the French is called the “The Quarrelsome French.” Among other great observations about France, Barzini wrote: “Count Carlo Sforza, Italian foreign minister, defined the differences between the Italians and the French after World War II. He said to me: ‘Simple. The Italians must forget a defeat. The French must invent a victory. Our task is infinitely easier. ...’”
For whatever reasons and motives, May seems to be performing somersaults and bending over backwards to help the French invent a victory. Or at least make it less of a defeat.
Now William Shirer, well, what can Hub Blog say? Shirer’s “Collapse of the Third Republic” -- which I read only a few months before ‘Strange Victory’ -- isn’t nearly as dramatic as his classic “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.” But “Collapse of the Third Republic” is still tremendous and breathtaking in its scope. Shirer, who used to be based in France as a correspondent and who absolutely loved the French, steps way back and provides a sweeping examination of the French nation and its people from 1870 (at the founding of the Third Republic, following France’s defeat in the Franco-Prussian War) to 1940. The picture he paints isn’t pretty: France was (and remains) a very proud but divided nation, with extreme politics that make our extreme politics look tame.
The Third Republic itself, while it had many accomplishments (such as winning World War I -- and, yes, France deserves credit for sacrificing more than a million men in that war), was deeply, deeply flawed, going through scores and scores and scores of governments, making the Italian government changes of the 1970s look downright stable in comparison. France was scarred by World War I, as was Britain, and repeatedly missed opportunities throughout the ‘30s to confront and crush the Nazis. Shirer is very brutal on Britain -- and America -- for the lack of support and sympathy for France’s unique peril. But he does lay primary blame on France itself. Shirer’s chapter on France’s military erosion during the ‘30s is jaw-dropping. His description of the battle itself is gripping. His account of the last, agonizing days of the Third Republic is heart breaking. And his detailed description of the surrender of France and the formation of the Vichy government will make your blood boil.
Bottom line: Shirer blows May away. No contest. If you want to learn about France in general and its 1940 defeat in particular, read Shirer’s “Collapse of the Third Republic.” Highly recommended.
Update 12:50 p.m.- 2-21-03 -- A couple of stories -- here and here -- have popped up recently, loosely having something to do with the subject of France and/or France's defeat in 1940. Notice how some on the anti-war left are now starting to suck up to/stick up for France as war approaches on Iraq. Not saying this was May's intention -- though he opens himself up to such suspicions -- but it's still a very, very curious development. P.S. Chirac reportedly has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Chirac. Interesting.
Corporate taxes and job growth: Smart op-ed from BBJ editor George Donnelly: "Should we heap more burden on companies that are creating jobs in the commonwealth? I would suggest it's smarter fiscal policy to tax an income after a job has been created than to overtax a corporation into not creating a job in the first place. " ... He has a lot more on the subject of taxes, jobs, fairness and competition.
Pushing back at the boycotters: Some of the recent criticism aimed at Israel has clearly been anti-Semitic. Some hasn’t been anti-Semitic. But can you really blame Israelis -- and Israeli academics in particular -- if they think it’s more of the former? Good for them. Push back.
Winter Wonderland, my butt: God, it’s so ugly out there now. The beautiful snow trenches have melted and/or collapsed. The snow that’s left is covered in mud. Trash bags are heaped on top of the mud-covered snow. Traffic is horrible. .... But it was nice for at least one day, as this Christian Science Monitor op-ed makes clear.
‘What’s missing’ on Iraq: Excellent column by Joan Vennochi tracing the evolution/convolution of the president’s war strategy. After reading this column, I feel like I’ve been pretty hard on the president. He has good gut instincts. Or had good gut instincts when it counted right after Sept. 11. As for some of his advisers, though, well. ...
... Definitely check out tonight’s ‘Frontline’ show, which, judging by this review, traces the strains and tensions within the Bush administration, i.e. Powell vs. Wolfowitz. You know my opinion about Wolfowitz et gang. However, despite my admiration for Powell, I’m not a groupie of Powell. He’s too, well, risk averse at times, for lack of other words. He believes too much in multilateralism and seems paralyzed at times at making risky decisions. Remember: No one is perfect, including Powell's boss and Powell's nemesis, Wolfie. ...
Mais oui! -- Now here’s a boycott Hub Blog can -- and will -- support. Americans are furious at the French, as they should be. Hadn’t heard about the protest outside the French Consultate in Boston. The signs could have been more strongly worded, in my opinion. A sober quote, though, from the story: "It's not the first time Americans have poured French cognac down the sewers," says Helmut Sonnenfeldt of the Brookings Institution. "But it's a bad time ... because it encourages Saddam Hussein to hold tight, because he sees the West as split." ... Good point. But Saddam is getting help to hold tight from the French, n’est pas?
... Definitely check out tonight’s ‘Frontline’ show, which, judging by this review, traces the strains and tensions within the Bush administration, i.e. Powell vs. Wolfowitz. You know my opinion about Wolfowitz et gang. However, despite my admiration for Powell, I’m not a groupie of Powell. He’s too, well, risk averse at times, for lack of other words. He believes too much in multilateralism and seems paralyzed at times at making risky decisions. Remember: No one is perfect, including Powell's boss and Powell's nemesis, Wolfie. ...
Mais oui! -- Now here’s a boycott Hub Blog can -- and will -- support. Americans are furious at the French, as they should be. Hadn’t heard about the protest outside the French Consultate in Boston. The signs could have been more strongly worded, in my opinion. A sober quote, though, from the story: "It's not the first time Americans have poured French cognac down the sewers," says Helmut Sonnenfeldt of the Brookings Institution. "But it's a bad time ... because it encourages Saddam Hussein to hold tight, because he sees the West as split." ... Good point. But Saddam is getting help to hold tight from the French, n’est pas?
Build it -- and they will ride: Good editorial on the need to push ahead with the Greenbush line. ...
.... But this story is depressing and puts Hub Blog, a big transit backer, into the uncomfortable position of coming across as a Hingham-like hypocrite, to wit: The MBTA may want to close down the Chinatown YMCA to make way for the new Silver Line’s underground bus route linking the Boylston Street area with South Station. (A quick aside: Glad they’ve calling the Silver Line for what it truly is: a glorified ‘bus route.’) Anyway, here’s my dilemma: I’m a member of the Chinatown Y and don’t want to see it closed!
.... But this story is depressing and puts Hub Blog, a big transit backer, into the uncomfortable position of coming across as a Hingham-like hypocrite, to wit: The MBTA may want to close down the Chinatown YMCA to make way for the new Silver Line’s underground bus route linking the Boylston Street area with South Station. (A quick aside: Glad they’ve calling the Silver Line for what it truly is: a glorified ‘bus route.’) Anyway, here’s my dilemma: I’m a member of the Chinatown Y and don’t want to see it closed!
Saving ‘only’ $5 million: So eliminating and merging the MDC into another agency would “only” save $5 million. Mercy. FYI: That “only” $5 million is more than 10 percent of the MDC’s budget. ... And as Mitt said, according to this Herald story: ``What changes is, how many commissioners do we need at the top, how many assistant commissioners, how many boats? ... That's where you are going to see the reductions. It's the overhead that's duplicative, not the people doing the work that citizens see.'' ... But it’s that overhead that Trav and the boys are desperately trying to preserve for reasons that we all know too well. ...
... Mitt is apparently going to ruffle more feathers today when he announces his plans to revamp the state’s judiciary. This guy is on a roll. From the Herald: “Romney also pledged on the campaign trail to wrest hiring-and-firing power away from state lawmakers and turn it over to top court officials, claiming that lawmakers ‘threaten the balance of powers’ by stacking the court system with their cronies.”
... Mitt is apparently going to ruffle more feathers today when he announces his plans to revamp the state’s judiciary. This guy is on a roll. From the Herald: “Romney also pledged on the campaign trail to wrest hiring-and-firing power away from state lawmakers and turn it over to top court officials, claiming that lawmakers ‘threaten the balance of powers’ by stacking the court system with their cronies.”
RIP, Alta Vista: From Steve Syre: “Now one company is a ubiquitous Internet presence and the other is practically a trivia question. How did AltaVista end up this way?” Another favorite quote from his column: “AltaVista was the Google of its day.'' What a timely piece and good analysis.
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Ding, ding, ding! -- Reader No. 1. Does it again! On Iraq to boot: I’ve sworn to be more like Alistair Cooke in the future, a vow I don’t think I can keep but hope I can uphold in terms of controlling/extending constructive criticism to the Bush administration. Anyway, here’s Reader No. 1 on a prior Hub Blog post concerning Iraq:
“OK, I read the Tom Friedman, I read the Andrew Sullivan. Is it possible to admit everyone is mostly/mainly right? Sure, the Bush Administration could have been more solicitous of European opinion in the past 12 months. Doesn't mean it would have done us a bit of good (I'm open to seeing the data on how it would have swung the German election).
“The Clinton Administration was much more openly solicitous of world opinion (one reason the ex-Prez does so many of his big $ speaking engagements outside the US). Those efforts do not appear to have bought us much good will, or harmonizing of interests between the US and Europe over the last decade, however (Blair excepted, and after all, that's a Special Relationship). The problem didn't start with Bush.
“We can bitch and moan about whether the President has made it better, but we can't turn back the clock. Here's an alternative view for you: what really galls the handful of European nations remaining opposed to the war is the possibility that the US WINS THE DEBATE WITHIN THE UN??? Less than 50% probability, but it could happen. We have friends elsewhere in Europe, and apparently some quiet allies in the Middle East... to that end, it wouldn't surprise me if Bush winds up operationalizing Friedman's advice. In fact, I suspect he's already doing that. One of the many noteworthy segments of the Atlantic Fallows/Clinton article is that segment you noted where Man From Hope gives Bush credit for dialing down the rhetoric. It takes one clever card player to know another.”
Hub Blog’s response: As usual, thanks. Truly. Now, taking Reader No. 1’s message in order of selective quotes:
1. “Is it possible to admit everyone is mostly/mainly right?” ... This is first time an ardent Bush backer has written to Hub Blog even remotely suggesting that, well, those of us non-lefties might have a point. The ice is thawing.
2. “The problem didn't start with Bush.” ... I’ve been saying this all along: Bush didn’t create anti-Americanism. But he HAS exacerbated it.
3. “We can bitch and moan about whether the President has made it better, but we can't turn back the clock.” ... See first point. We’re making progress. The ice isn’t just thawing, it’s cracking into noticeable gaps. We can argue if Bush might have been wrong the past year? Perish the thought! Bush is Churchill, after all. The wild policy swings between unilateralism and multilateralism in the first half of 2002, ending up today within something, somewhere called the ‘middle’? Heresy!
4. “It wouldn't surprise me if Bush winds up operationalizing Friedman's advice. In fact, I suspect he's already doing that.” ... Don’t know what ‘operationalizing Friedman’s advice’ means, but I suspect it means conceding Friedman makes a hell of a lot of sense, so the Bushies will try to cover their tracks and claim the ideas/strategy for themselves to make it look as though they thought about it all the time. Remember: Churchill!
5. “One of the many noteworthy segments of the Atlantic Fallows/Clinton article is that segment you noted where Man From Hope gives Bush credit for dialing down the rhetoric. It takes one clever card player to know another.” ... Hub Blog is speechless. A kind (if backhanded) word about Clinton, who, in Hub Blog’s sincere view, doesn’t deserve many backhanded compliments. But it’s progress. Because he deserves compliments now and then. As radical as that sounds.
One last note: I sincerely wish we could, at this time, have a combination of Bush and Clinton, tilting clearly toward Bush. I like Bush’s sense of purpose, his clear sense of mission, his no-nonsense “boots on the ground” approach to problems. I wish we had Clinton’s sense of eloquent timing, his feel for what others happen to think, his feel that world opinion counts. We are, indeed, talking about “substance” over “style.” I’ll take substance any time. Therefore, I take Bush. But I sure wish he had more sensitive style and timing. It’s killing him -- and us. Is this such a radical thought to entertain? Bush has serious, serious problems overseas. And it ties in with the fact that he, not so long ago, tied into the silly rhetoric/logic about ‘pure’ unilateralism vs. multilateralism and ended up adopting a more intelligent unilateralist/multilateralist approach in the end. It’s probably too late to rectify the administration’s past mistakes on Iraq, but it’s not too late to start thinking/hoping about the Phase III/Post-Iraq phase of the war. This administration has been noble in its mission, but horribly inconsistent and crude in its use of, and respect for, diplomacy.
“OK, I read the Tom Friedman, I read the Andrew Sullivan. Is it possible to admit everyone is mostly/mainly right? Sure, the Bush Administration could have been more solicitous of European opinion in the past 12 months. Doesn't mean it would have done us a bit of good (I'm open to seeing the data on how it would have swung the German election).
“The Clinton Administration was much more openly solicitous of world opinion (one reason the ex-Prez does so many of his big $ speaking engagements outside the US). Those efforts do not appear to have bought us much good will, or harmonizing of interests between the US and Europe over the last decade, however (Blair excepted, and after all, that's a Special Relationship). The problem didn't start with Bush.
“We can bitch and moan about whether the President has made it better, but we can't turn back the clock. Here's an alternative view for you: what really galls the handful of European nations remaining opposed to the war is the possibility that the US WINS THE DEBATE WITHIN THE UN??? Less than 50% probability, but it could happen. We have friends elsewhere in Europe, and apparently some quiet allies in the Middle East... to that end, it wouldn't surprise me if Bush winds up operationalizing Friedman's advice. In fact, I suspect he's already doing that. One of the many noteworthy segments of the Atlantic Fallows/Clinton article is that segment you noted where Man From Hope gives Bush credit for dialing down the rhetoric. It takes one clever card player to know another.”
Hub Blog’s response: As usual, thanks. Truly. Now, taking Reader No. 1’s message in order of selective quotes:
1. “Is it possible to admit everyone is mostly/mainly right?” ... This is first time an ardent Bush backer has written to Hub Blog even remotely suggesting that, well, those of us non-lefties might have a point. The ice is thawing.
2. “The problem didn't start with Bush.” ... I’ve been saying this all along: Bush didn’t create anti-Americanism. But he HAS exacerbated it.
3. “We can bitch and moan about whether the President has made it better, but we can't turn back the clock.” ... See first point. We’re making progress. The ice isn’t just thawing, it’s cracking into noticeable gaps. We can argue if Bush might have been wrong the past year? Perish the thought! Bush is Churchill, after all. The wild policy swings between unilateralism and multilateralism in the first half of 2002, ending up today within something, somewhere called the ‘middle’? Heresy!
4. “It wouldn't surprise me if Bush winds up operationalizing Friedman's advice. In fact, I suspect he's already doing that.” ... Don’t know what ‘operationalizing Friedman’s advice’ means, but I suspect it means conceding Friedman makes a hell of a lot of sense, so the Bushies will try to cover their tracks and claim the ideas/strategy for themselves to make it look as though they thought about it all the time. Remember: Churchill!
5. “One of the many noteworthy segments of the Atlantic Fallows/Clinton article is that segment you noted where Man From Hope gives Bush credit for dialing down the rhetoric. It takes one clever card player to know another.” ... Hub Blog is speechless. A kind (if backhanded) word about Clinton, who, in Hub Blog’s sincere view, doesn’t deserve many backhanded compliments. But it’s progress. Because he deserves compliments now and then. As radical as that sounds.
One last note: I sincerely wish we could, at this time, have a combination of Bush and Clinton, tilting clearly toward Bush. I like Bush’s sense of purpose, his clear sense of mission, his no-nonsense “boots on the ground” approach to problems. I wish we had Clinton’s sense of eloquent timing, his feel for what others happen to think, his feel that world opinion counts. We are, indeed, talking about “substance” over “style.” I’ll take substance any time. Therefore, I take Bush. But I sure wish he had more sensitive style and timing. It’s killing him -- and us. Is this such a radical thought to entertain? Bush has serious, serious problems overseas. And it ties in with the fact that he, not so long ago, tied into the silly rhetoric/logic about ‘pure’ unilateralism vs. multilateralism and ended up adopting a more intelligent unilateralist/multilateralist approach in the end. It’s probably too late to rectify the administration’s past mistakes on Iraq, but it’s not too late to start thinking/hoping about the Phase III/Post-Iraq phase of the war. This administration has been noble in its mission, but horribly inconsistent and crude in its use of, and respect for, diplomacy.
A Winter Wonderland, Part II: Amazing how everyone took the storm in stride. The street plowing was excellent on Beacon Hill. Hope other neighborhoods fared as well. Hearing no major gripes across the city, I assume one can safely say, ‘Mayor Menino, well done!’ ... But the really extraordinary thing was the sidewalks, the vast majority of them dutifully shoveled, creating a lovely maze of Beacon Hill snow trenches one could weave in and out of at strategic points. Who shoveled these strategic exit/entrance portals into and out of our beloved snow trenches? Don’t know, but: ‘Thank you! Well done!’ ... Scot Lehigh brings up a very, very sensitive subject: Post-blizzard parking-space wars. The magical sense of community a major storm causes will soon crack. No doubt. Yesterday, as the storm ebbed, I looked out my window and saw my neighbor digging out his car, a black VW Golf. This morning, I see a beat-up late ‘80s Toyota tucked in his parking-space snow cave. If this isn’t evil, I don’t know what is. ...
... Steve Bailey is trying to sow post-blizzard discord, calling those who didn’t go to work yesterday “weenies.” Admire the old-fashioned New England sentiment behind it: Tough it out, New Englanders! Tough it out! Don’t be weenies! At the same time, though, I got the impression Steve was like one of those Wayland students who never get a snow day and hate the world for it. I didn’t go to a movie yesterday. Instead, I did the logical non-essential manly thing: I went to a bar. And it was packed at 2 p.m.! Very festive, snug atmosphere among us happy non-essentials. Pints went down quite well. Nah, nah. Take that, Steve!
... Steve Bailey is trying to sow post-blizzard discord, calling those who didn’t go to work yesterday “weenies.” Admire the old-fashioned New England sentiment behind it: Tough it out, New Englanders! Tough it out! Don’t be weenies! At the same time, though, I got the impression Steve was like one of those Wayland students who never get a snow day and hate the world for it. I didn’t go to a movie yesterday. Instead, I did the logical non-essential manly thing: I went to a bar. And it was packed at 2 p.m.! Very festive, snug atmosphere among us happy non-essentials. Pints went down quite well. Nah, nah. Take that, Steve!
Jeff Jacoby, you’re wrong -- oh, never mind: A true incestuous blogosphere spat going on over at Mickey Kaus’ site (scroll down until you see the ‘Update: Kaus Files gets results’ item) involving Jeff Jacoby, Roger Ailes etc. In case you need a scorecard: Roger challenged Jacoby’s assertion in this column that John Kerry didn't try to correct past page-one references in the Globe to Kerry being Irish. Jacoby fired back an email to Mickey with his evidence. Roger admitted defeat and apologized.
A piece of humble pie on Iraq: Alistair Cooke. Can’t believe he’s still alive and cranking out beautiful pieces like this column (indirectly via Andrew Sullivan). What magnificent, calm, take-your-time journalism. There’s enough humble pie here for everyone. Cooke:
-- “His (Bush’s) strength - and his weakness - is that he is a Christian idealist on the Woodrow Wilson model. He truly proposes what most of us find simply undoable -- to depose tyrants and introduce democracy everywhere. The first European fear about him when he took office was that he would retreat into the old, inter-war Republican isolationism. Now he's accused of wanting to police the world. He believes it's America's duty, as it once was Spain's, France's, Britain's. ”
- “... I do not think we have any obligation to debate anyone who is for peace at any price.”
- “... Contrary to the foreign tabloid obsession, nobody is breathing fire and smoke, nobody wants to go to war. The very latest polls show 65% of Americans willing to go to war if the United Nations sanctions it. Only 37% if not. But it has to be said that as the prospect darkens, no more than half the American people want to go to war at all.”
There’s much, much more. Cooke is simply the most dignified anti-ranter around. Makes me feel silly for any number of rants I’ve had since starting Hub Blog last summer.
-- “His (Bush’s) strength - and his weakness - is that he is a Christian idealist on the Woodrow Wilson model. He truly proposes what most of us find simply undoable -- to depose tyrants and introduce democracy everywhere. The first European fear about him when he took office was that he would retreat into the old, inter-war Republican isolationism. Now he's accused of wanting to police the world. He believes it's America's duty, as it once was Spain's, France's, Britain's. ”
- “... I do not think we have any obligation to debate anyone who is for peace at any price.”
- “... Contrary to the foreign tabloid obsession, nobody is breathing fire and smoke, nobody wants to go to war. The very latest polls show 65% of Americans willing to go to war if the United Nations sanctions it. Only 37% if not. But it has to be said that as the prospect darkens, no more than half the American people want to go to war at all.”
There’s much, much more. Cooke is simply the most dignified anti-ranter around. Makes me feel silly for any number of rants I’ve had since starting Hub Blog last summer.
Boston, a biotech mecca: One week, it’s panic time over our place within the biotech world. The next week, you read stories like this and how people are genuinely excited about transferring to Boston. Talk about humble pie. One note: Housing in Boston is critical to our economic future. This point comes across loud and clear in the story. ...
... Another update on another healthcare/research development. Hub Blog is very excited about this MGH/Charles River Plaza development. Like the retail component -- and love the Bread & Circus component above all else. Hub Blog, with a lot of time on my hands these days, has taken cooking classes lately and I’ve really begun to appreciate how bad Stop & Shop’s meat and fish sections are compared to Bread & Circus’ meat and fish sections. Not that this has much to do with a 350,000-square-foot development going up on Cambridge Street.
... Another update on another healthcare/research development. Hub Blog is very excited about this MGH/Charles River Plaza development. Like the retail component -- and love the Bread & Circus component above all else. Hub Blog, with a lot of time on my hands these days, has taken cooking classes lately and I’ve really begun to appreciate how bad Stop & Shop’s meat and fish sections are compared to Bread & Circus’ meat and fish sections. Not that this has much to do with a 350,000-square-foot development going up on Cambridge Street.
Pounding the French: The Globe has swung back to its more clear-eyed views on Iraq, NATO and France. God, they beat the crap out of France in this editorial, taking obligatory swats at Bush, of course, but clearly relishing the time-honored fun of pounding away against French arrogance. The Globe:
“One irony in French President Jacques Chirac's tirade Monday against East European countries supporting the US and British position on Iraq is that Chirac indulged in the same arrogance and bullying that Paris inveterately attributes to the US ‘hyperpower.’ Indeed, Chirac added an offensive tone that no American head of state could be expected to match, a condescension that only a conservative mandarin of the French governing class might express toward the new democratic countries of Eastern Europe that are eager to join the European Union.”
Postscript: See post directly below. Also, Hub Blog has finished reading Harvard prof Ernest May’s “Strange Victory: Hitler’s Conquest of France.” (Did I mention earlier that I finished it? Anyway ...) Hope to have my mini-review within the next few days.
Update -- Perfecto. Simply a great column by a frustrated Tom Friedman. As a friend said to me the other day, "It's tough being a moderate on Iraq these days. Everyone's position on Iraq is hardening into pro-Bush or anti-Bush, as if you can't praise him for some things and criticize him for others." ... Or like saying we're doing the right thing but not necessarily in the right way. Or like saying you have to be sensitve to world opinion but not be necessarily swayed by it. But I'll stop there. I'm going to strive to take Alistair Cooke's anti-rant approach in the future on Iraq.
A reader responds -- 3:45 p.m.: Reader Matt has this to say about the Friedman column:
“Unfortunately, Friedman ruins what was shaping up to be a pretty good column by trying to make the case that Bush should've taken Kyoto more seriously. If the price of support against Iraq is paying lip service to the Kyoto protocol and the dubious UN-funded junk-science behind it, we should be prepared to go it alone in Iraq or not go at all.
“I'm mildly hawkish on Iraq, but there are only so many polite fictions I'm willing to entertain (and isn't that what "multilateralism" really is?) to placate the socialists in Brussels, Paris, and Berlin. Clinton signing that treaty knowing full well he wasn't going to be the one expending political capital fighting for its ratification meant that someone else was going to have to pay the price for pointing out the unpleasant truth -- it's a treaty meant to cripple the economy of the United States while only reducing CO2 emissions by a few percent. Utterly disgusting, and utterly Clintonian.”
Hub Blog’s response: When you agree with a column on the most critical points and its overall thrust, I think that's important. Maybe I shouldn't have said the Friedman article was 'Perfecto.' But it was ‘Near Perfecto’ in expressing a genuine, widespread complaint/concern/frustration/whatever about the administration. (I kind of glanced over the Kyoto reference, frankly, in the Friedman piece. I’m no fan of Kyoto -- not at all. However, I did read somewhere, not too long ago, that the Bush administration, today, deeply regrets how they handled rejection of Kyoto. Again, it’s always screwing up the ‘means’ when it comes to these guys.) Friedman made an awful lot of sense, and, in my opinion, you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water when you object to a few of the non-critical underpinnings of his argument.
Nothing to do with Matt’s email: Read Andrew Sullivan’s post on the same column. Look at what he seizes on in Friedman’s column. The utterly astonishing thing to me is how so many Bush backers adamantly reject any criticism of the president on Iraq, even from people like me who are naturally inclined to support him. This is a critical, critical flaw in the administration -- and with its most ardent supporters. One would think they would welcome good old-fashioned, as-corny-as-it-sounds constructive criticism. Nope. Bush, good; Bush criticism, bad. They won’t even concede an ounce of criticism on the issue of whether he’s diplomatically handled the Iraq crisis well/consistently over the past year. ... Wait. Stop. Hub Blog, what did you say to yourself this morning? No ranting on Iraq. Remember: Alistair Cooke, Alistair Cooke, Alistair Cooke. No Ron Borges-like obsessions. There, there, that’s a good Hub Blog.
Reader Matt writes in again (and it's funny):
"Well, I didn't mean to beat you up over your praise of the column. My email might have been better directed at Friedman himself. For the most part, Friedman gets it with respect to Iraq. And I have no problem with many of his criticisms regarding GWB's handling of this particular crisis. His exercise in contrasting Bush II with Bush I was pretty good. The frustrating thing is that he can't keep his inner Lefty-bot hidden for too long. I mean, jeez, Kyoto???!!!!"
“One irony in French President Jacques Chirac's tirade Monday against East European countries supporting the US and British position on Iraq is that Chirac indulged in the same arrogance and bullying that Paris inveterately attributes to the US ‘hyperpower.’ Indeed, Chirac added an offensive tone that no American head of state could be expected to match, a condescension that only a conservative mandarin of the French governing class might express toward the new democratic countries of Eastern Europe that are eager to join the European Union.”
Postscript: See post directly below. Also, Hub Blog has finished reading Harvard prof Ernest May’s “Strange Victory: Hitler’s Conquest of France.” (Did I mention earlier that I finished it? Anyway ...) Hope to have my mini-review within the next few days.
Update -- Perfecto. Simply a great column by a frustrated Tom Friedman. As a friend said to me the other day, "It's tough being a moderate on Iraq these days. Everyone's position on Iraq is hardening into pro-Bush or anti-Bush, as if you can't praise him for some things and criticize him for others." ... Or like saying we're doing the right thing but not necessarily in the right way. Or like saying you have to be sensitve to world opinion but not be necessarily swayed by it. But I'll stop there. I'm going to strive to take Alistair Cooke's anti-rant approach in the future on Iraq.
A reader responds -- 3:45 p.m.: Reader Matt has this to say about the Friedman column:
“Unfortunately, Friedman ruins what was shaping up to be a pretty good column by trying to make the case that Bush should've taken Kyoto more seriously. If the price of support against Iraq is paying lip service to the Kyoto protocol and the dubious UN-funded junk-science behind it, we should be prepared to go it alone in Iraq or not go at all.
“I'm mildly hawkish on Iraq, but there are only so many polite fictions I'm willing to entertain (and isn't that what "multilateralism" really is?) to placate the socialists in Brussels, Paris, and Berlin. Clinton signing that treaty knowing full well he wasn't going to be the one expending political capital fighting for its ratification meant that someone else was going to have to pay the price for pointing out the unpleasant truth -- it's a treaty meant to cripple the economy of the United States while only reducing CO2 emissions by a few percent. Utterly disgusting, and utterly Clintonian.”
Hub Blog’s response: When you agree with a column on the most critical points and its overall thrust, I think that's important. Maybe I shouldn't have said the Friedman article was 'Perfecto.' But it was ‘Near Perfecto’ in expressing a genuine, widespread complaint/concern/frustration/whatever about the administration. (I kind of glanced over the Kyoto reference, frankly, in the Friedman piece. I’m no fan of Kyoto -- not at all. However, I did read somewhere, not too long ago, that the Bush administration, today, deeply regrets how they handled rejection of Kyoto. Again, it’s always screwing up the ‘means’ when it comes to these guys.) Friedman made an awful lot of sense, and, in my opinion, you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water when you object to a few of the non-critical underpinnings of his argument.
Nothing to do with Matt’s email: Read Andrew Sullivan’s post on the same column. Look at what he seizes on in Friedman’s column. The utterly astonishing thing to me is how so many Bush backers adamantly reject any criticism of the president on Iraq, even from people like me who are naturally inclined to support him. This is a critical, critical flaw in the administration -- and with its most ardent supporters. One would think they would welcome good old-fashioned, as-corny-as-it-sounds constructive criticism. Nope. Bush, good; Bush criticism, bad. They won’t even concede an ounce of criticism on the issue of whether he’s diplomatically handled the Iraq crisis well/consistently over the past year. ... Wait. Stop. Hub Blog, what did you say to yourself this morning? No ranting on Iraq. Remember: Alistair Cooke, Alistair Cooke, Alistair Cooke. No Ron Borges-like obsessions. There, there, that’s a good Hub Blog.
Reader Matt writes in again (and it's funny):
"Well, I didn't mean to beat you up over your praise of the column. My email might have been better directed at Friedman himself. For the most part, Friedman gets it with respect to Iraq. And I have no problem with many of his criticisms regarding GWB's handling of this particular crisis. His exercise in contrasting Bush II with Bush I was pretty good. The frustrating thing is that he can't keep his inner Lefty-bot hidden for too long. I mean, jeez, Kyoto???!!!!"
Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Bush vs. Chirac: I've been tempted for days to compare the two. They're strangely the same, when you think about it. Unilateralist vs. unilateralist, two peas in the pod, acting as if they're both multilateralists trying to save a multilateralist world and UN (and EU and NATO). Instapundit, which tipped me over the edge to bring up this point (shame on me), has one slightly different view of the Iraq matter. I have another. ... But I will give Bush this credit: He's bumbled his way into the deft use of using unilateralism and multilateralism together, something the pure unilateralist and phony multilateralist Chirac hasn't figured out yet. Score one for the reluctant unilateralist/multilateralist Bush. Go, George! Go! Keep it up!
Clinton on everything: James Fallows interviews Bill Clinton over at Boston-based Atlantic. The interview was conducted last fall, just as the UN/Iraq process got under way. Only now was the interview published. Interesting thoughts on Bush, the UN, Tony Blair's tenuous postition, how he wants to be like Jimmy Carter in his post-president years. In other words, enough there to find something to love or hate. Typical Clinton. Here are some excerpts from Clinton on Iraq:
On Kosovo and Iraq: "My model here (for Iraq) is Kosovo, where the Russians couldn't quite let us go. They're Slavs, they're Orthodox Christians... But then it was a bona fide emergency. You had NATO, you had the nonaligned countries, you had the Muslim countries, and then Russians could feel that they were part of a deal." [See note below.]
On meeting with Tony Blair late last year: "He was somewhat bullish on our ability to have good things happen in Iraq. But he also was determined to pull for the moderates in the Bush Administration who wanted to do this, if at all possible, with broader Allies and in a way that strengthened the multilateral process and the UN. So I always thought Blair did not get enough credit within Great Britain for trying to bring the Europeans and Americans together, under the UN rubric, or as close as possible to it. That's what I hope will happen."
On Bush embracing the UN process: "Furthermore I think President Bush has pretty good political instincts. I think his antennae are sharper than, you know, than the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz wing. I think he's got a sense of what the traffic will bear. But for whatever reason... And Colin, you know, Secretary Powell, he must have been weighing in. And he, after all, has more military experience than all those people counseling war. I just think they're coming to a place—and it might all be a ruse, but it looks legitimate. It looks like they're really trying to get this passed. It looks to me like it's a real straight-up deal."
Note: Tom Oliphant in today's Globe notes how Clinton, when faced with a likely Security Council veto over Kosovo, simply yanked the resolution and went the NATO route in order to take action there. Clinton also mentions in the interview how, if Bush plays this out at the UN to the very end, he'll support him. He's on the record as saying it.
On Kosovo and Iraq: "My model here (for Iraq) is Kosovo, where the Russians couldn't quite let us go. They're Slavs, they're Orthodox Christians... But then it was a bona fide emergency. You had NATO, you had the nonaligned countries, you had the Muslim countries, and then Russians could feel that they were part of a deal." [See note below.]
On meeting with Tony Blair late last year: "He was somewhat bullish on our ability to have good things happen in Iraq. But he also was determined to pull for the moderates in the Bush Administration who wanted to do this, if at all possible, with broader Allies and in a way that strengthened the multilateral process and the UN. So I always thought Blair did not get enough credit within Great Britain for trying to bring the Europeans and Americans together, under the UN rubric, or as close as possible to it. That's what I hope will happen."
On Bush embracing the UN process: "Furthermore I think President Bush has pretty good political instincts. I think his antennae are sharper than, you know, than the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz wing. I think he's got a sense of what the traffic will bear. But for whatever reason... And Colin, you know, Secretary Powell, he must have been weighing in. And he, after all, has more military experience than all those people counseling war. I just think they're coming to a place—and it might all be a ruse, but it looks legitimate. It looks like they're really trying to get this passed. It looks to me like it's a real straight-up deal."
Note: Tom Oliphant in today's Globe notes how Clinton, when faced with a likely Security Council veto over Kosovo, simply yanked the resolution and went the NATO route in order to take action there. Clinton also mentions in the interview how, if Bush plays this out at the UN to the very end, he'll support him. He's on the record as saying it.
A Winter Wonderland?: It’s not like the Blizzard of ‘78. Something’s missing. Maybe it’s peace. Whatever the mood, it’s still a beautiful pain-in-the-ass outside.
Those darn tax cuts did it: Refereeing arguments between ideologues is tiring. Like weeding the old garden, you just have to yank them out, sadly knowing they’ll grow back. Never ends. Today’s installment of tax-and-spend versus no-new-taxes comes from the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, a liberal advocacy group. Their conclusion about the state budget deficit: Past tax cuts caused the current budget gap, not overspending by the legislature. Obligatory lip service is given to the (shhhhhhhhh! don’t say it too loud, for it will disrupt the ideological arguments on both sides) recession. Oh, the liberal policy center doesn’t come right out and say tax cuts were the cause, I should be fair. But they do come up with a list of past tax cuts that amount to about $3 billion -- or roughly what the projected worst-case budget deficit is for next fiscal year. What a coincidence! (Never mind if you add up all the deficits in the past two years -- the projected $3 billion deficit next year, the current $650 million gap, the hundreds of millions of dollars in past spending cuts enacted by the legislature and ex-Gov. Swift, the $1.5 billion in tax hikes already approved by lawmakers -- and they don’t add up to that near perfect $3 billion figure. The mathematical difference is the obligatory part that the center probably blames exclusively on the recession. Sigh.) But, ah, ...
... tucked into the Globe story (which was pretty well balanced, I might stress) there’s this passage: “The budget and policy center's study found that while personal income rose at a 2.6 percent annual average clip above inflation between 1991 and 2002, the budget rose just 2.3 percent above inflation on average.”... Now, throw out the “personal income” part. That’s
nothing but policy-wonk smoke; they’re comparing personal income growth to the inflation rate growth, i.e. comparing apples to oranges. I’ll address that in a bit. Until then ...
What do we have left? A little clause acknowledging that, each and every year, state spending “rose just 2.3 percent above inflation on average.” Don’t quite know what “2.3 percent above inflation” means, for it’s not explained. Does it literally mean 2.3 percent above the rate itself? Meaning: If inflation was 2.5 percent in one year, the legislature spent about .06 above that rate, bringing the overall spending growth to 2.56 percent for that theoretical year? In that case, the adjective “just” is deserved. Or, more likely, does it mean the legislature spent 2.3 percentage POINTS above the average inflation rate? If it’s the latter, the word “just” is ludicrous and indicates, if memory serves well, that the rate of spending was indeed well ahead, sometimes double, the rate of inflation during a low-inflation decade. That, in the policy-wonk world, is called a smoking gun. (Because Hub Blog isn’t paid for this blog, I’m not going to immediately fetch the inflation-rate numbers. Got other work to do. Also have a book on King Arthur I want to finish. I’m sorry. The commentary is free; the reporting is not. But you get the picture of what I believe the policy center is trying to obscure. ... )
... There is one other curious aspect to the center’s apples-to-oranges comparison: Unless I’m misreading the center’s intentions (and I don’t think I am), there seems to be an assumption that government spending is modest and therefore out of whack when the state isn’t taking all of your income increases above the inflation rate. Think about it. ...
... Where does this leave us? The state DID overspend in the ‘90s, sometimes comfortably and consistently above the inflation rate, and, therefore, spending is part of today’s problems. Now, we can argue and argue about whether Taxachusetts/Massachusetts is “overtaxed” or “undertaxed.” But, please, stop with the truly radical-liberal assumption that reducing spending isn’t an important part of the solution to the state’s budget woes. FYI: Hub Blog is on record as saying increasing taxes is part of the solution, too, despite Mitt’s no-new-taxes pledge on the deficit. But Hub Blog does have one caveat on taxes: No reforms, no new taxes.
Postscript: For the sake of argument, Hub Blog concedes the point about past spending increases going mostly to education and health, though one has a hunch that the liberal center ... oh, never mind.
Update on CPI and state spending-- What the hell. An appointment was canceled and I’m not interested in reading about King Arthur. So Hub Blog had some free time to check out some Consumer Price Index stats. These are national numbers, not Massachusetts numbers (which I couldn’t find). Assume Massachusetts’ inflation numbers are higher because of housing costs here. But that would still prove my point about the size of overall state spending each year. National numbers will do. Keep in mind the center’s own assertion that state spending exceeded inflation by an average 2.3 percentage points (and I’m assuming points) per year. Here goes (with annual CPI averages and December to December CPI averages):
1991 -- Average: 4.2/Dec. to Dec. average: 3.1
1992 -- Average: 3.0/Dec. to Dec. average: 2.9
1993 -- Average: 3.0/Dec. to Dec. average: 2.1
1994 -- Average: 2.6/Dec. to Dec. average: 2.7
1995 -- Average: 2.8/Dec. to Dec. average: 2.5
1996 -- Average: 3.0/Dec. to Dec. average: 3.3
1997 -- Average: 2.3/Dec. to Dec. average: 1.7
1998 -- Average: 1.8/Dec. to Dec. average: 1.6
1999 -- Average: 2.2/Dec. to Dec. average: 2.7
2000 -- Average: 2.4/Dec. to Dec. average: 3.4
2001 -- Average: 2.8/Dec. to Dec. average: 1.6
2002 -- Average: 1.6/Dec. to Dec. average: 2.4
Whatever annual numbers you prefer to use (Average or Dec. to Dec.), what’s the common thread here if you assume state spending rose 2.3 percentage points on average per year above the inflation rate? You can generally draw the reasonable conclusion that in some years spending doubled or nearly doubled the rate of inflation or increased by more than 50 percent in other years. Don't have year-to-year state spending stats to make definitive comparisons. We're still talking generalities here. Also, if you assume that Massachusetts’ inflation rates were higher, the percentage increases aren’t as damning, but they’re still pretty damning.
Repeat: This is NOT to say tax cuts and the recession haven’t contributed to the state’s current budget woes. They have. But it does show, generally, that spending DID contribute if you measure it by inflation rate increases, which is a legitmate and widely used method of, well, measuring the rate of spending. Please, don’t tell me about how wise the legislature was to put money aside in emergency reserves. It was wise. And prudent. But they’ve now spent most of it in a desperate attempt to keep spending at increased levels you see above -- and so spending reserves is still a form of spending that has to be factored into figures.
... tucked into the Globe story (which was pretty well balanced, I might stress) there’s this passage: “The budget and policy center's study found that while personal income rose at a 2.6 percent annual average clip above inflation between 1991 and 2002, the budget rose just 2.3 percent above inflation on average.”... Now, throw out the “personal income” part. That’s
nothing but policy-wonk smoke; they’re comparing personal income growth to the inflation rate growth, i.e. comparing apples to oranges. I’ll address that in a bit. Until then ...
What do we have left? A little clause acknowledging that, each and every year, state spending “rose just 2.3 percent above inflation on average.” Don’t quite know what “2.3 percent above inflation” means, for it’s not explained. Does it literally mean 2.3 percent above the rate itself? Meaning: If inflation was 2.5 percent in one year, the legislature spent about .06 above that rate, bringing the overall spending growth to 2.56 percent for that theoretical year? In that case, the adjective “just” is deserved. Or, more likely, does it mean the legislature spent 2.3 percentage POINTS above the average inflation rate? If it’s the latter, the word “just” is ludicrous and indicates, if memory serves well, that the rate of spending was indeed well ahead, sometimes double, the rate of inflation during a low-inflation decade. That, in the policy-wonk world, is called a smoking gun. (Because Hub Blog isn’t paid for this blog, I’m not going to immediately fetch the inflation-rate numbers. Got other work to do. Also have a book on King Arthur I want to finish. I’m sorry. The commentary is free; the reporting is not. But you get the picture of what I believe the policy center is trying to obscure. ... )
... There is one other curious aspect to the center’s apples-to-oranges comparison: Unless I’m misreading the center’s intentions (and I don’t think I am), there seems to be an assumption that government spending is modest and therefore out of whack when the state isn’t taking all of your income increases above the inflation rate. Think about it. ...
... Where does this leave us? The state DID overspend in the ‘90s, sometimes comfortably and consistently above the inflation rate, and, therefore, spending is part of today’s problems. Now, we can argue and argue about whether Taxachusetts/Massachusetts is “overtaxed” or “undertaxed.” But, please, stop with the truly radical-liberal assumption that reducing spending isn’t an important part of the solution to the state’s budget woes. FYI: Hub Blog is on record as saying increasing taxes is part of the solution, too, despite Mitt’s no-new-taxes pledge on the deficit. But Hub Blog does have one caveat on taxes: No reforms, no new taxes.
Postscript: For the sake of argument, Hub Blog concedes the point about past spending increases going mostly to education and health, though one has a hunch that the liberal center ... oh, never mind.
Update on CPI and state spending-- What the hell. An appointment was canceled and I’m not interested in reading about King Arthur. So Hub Blog had some free time to check out some Consumer Price Index stats. These are national numbers, not Massachusetts numbers (which I couldn’t find). Assume Massachusetts’ inflation numbers are higher because of housing costs here. But that would still prove my point about the size of overall state spending each year. National numbers will do. Keep in mind the center’s own assertion that state spending exceeded inflation by an average 2.3 percentage points (and I’m assuming points) per year. Here goes (with annual CPI averages and December to December CPI averages):
1991 -- Average: 4.2/Dec. to Dec. average: 3.1
1992 -- Average: 3.0/Dec. to Dec. average: 2.9
1993 -- Average: 3.0/Dec. to Dec. average: 2.1
1994 -- Average: 2.6/Dec. to Dec. average: 2.7
1995 -- Average: 2.8/Dec. to Dec. average: 2.5
1996 -- Average: 3.0/Dec. to Dec. average: 3.3
1997 -- Average: 2.3/Dec. to Dec. average: 1.7
1998 -- Average: 1.8/Dec. to Dec. average: 1.6
1999 -- Average: 2.2/Dec. to Dec. average: 2.7
2000 -- Average: 2.4/Dec. to Dec. average: 3.4
2001 -- Average: 2.8/Dec. to Dec. average: 1.6
2002 -- Average: 1.6/Dec. to Dec. average: 2.4
Whatever annual numbers you prefer to use (Average or Dec. to Dec.), what’s the common thread here if you assume state spending rose 2.3 percentage points on average per year above the inflation rate? You can generally draw the reasonable conclusion that in some years spending doubled or nearly doubled the rate of inflation or increased by more than 50 percent in other years. Don't have year-to-year state spending stats to make definitive comparisons. We're still talking generalities here. Also, if you assume that Massachusetts’ inflation rates were higher, the percentage increases aren’t as damning, but they’re still pretty damning.
Repeat: This is NOT to say tax cuts and the recession haven’t contributed to the state’s current budget woes. They have. But it does show, generally, that spending DID contribute if you measure it by inflation rate increases, which is a legitmate and widely used method of, well, measuring the rate of spending. Please, don’t tell me about how wise the legislature was to put money aside in emergency reserves. It was wise. And prudent. But they’ve now spent most of it in a desperate attempt to keep spending at increased levels you see above -- and so spending reserves is still a form of spending that has to be factored into figures.
‘When Boston was a theater hub’: Why is the Herald writing this story? Doesn’t matter. It’s a great, out-of-the-blue look at Boston’s once thriving theater district, thanks largely to Benjamin Franklin Keith, a New Hampshire native “whose Boston storefront spawned a nationwide vaudeville empire of more than 500 theaters.” ... Slap Mayor Menino around all you want, but one thing he deserves enormous credit for is helping to revive the theater district, though I’m still bummed about his decision on Hayward Place. Should have been housing, mayor. ... Postscript: There are a lot of ‘retro’ trends all around. With ‘reality’ TV and other gross junk posing as entertainment these days, do you think a modern version of vaudeville might work? Just wondering. Hub Blog thinks the ‘clean wholesomeness’ would be a big hit with parents and kids. Again, just wondering.
Phil Donahue, Oliver Willis wants your job: Boston blogger Oliver Willis is chomping at the bit for a talk-show audition, here and here. And Instapundit is pushing it. Alex Knapp is pushing it. And Hub Blog chimes in: Anyone but Phil Donahue would work. Give Oliver a try! (FYI: If Oliver does get an audition and/or job, it will be another sign of the blogosphere’s growing influence. I have good vibes about some blogger-reading executive at a TV or radio station/network actually giving Oliver a chance. Just a hunch. Hope it’s true. Stay tuned.) ... Postscript: Can Instapundit and other bloggers start a lobbying campaign to get Hub Blog a job anywhere within the media? (I prefer a foreign correspondent job covering food and wine trends in Tuscany, but I’m not going to be picky.)
Journalists and poets -- and Krugman on the Trans-Atlantic media: The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen has a few words about the holier-than-thou-poets issue. Cohen:
“They (poets) have become a sort of secular clergy, as fixated with ‘the word’ as some preachers and just as likely to confuse metaphor with truth. ...
“Those of us who were against the Vietnam War but who now find ourselves enlisted in Bush's Brigade are always looking over our shoulder, fearing history doing a reprise. (I have been re-reading Norman Mailer's wonderful ‘Armies of the Night.’) I scan the new poetry, as I do the placards at the peace marches, alert to the cathartic nugget of wisdom that would avert war while dealing realistically with Hussein. What I find, instead, is yesterday's wisdom about Vietnam misapplied to today's challenge of Iraq.”
Cohen also took a whack at journalists waxing poetry about poets. Wonder if he saw the editorial in the Globe about the noble nature of poets. ...
... Ah, Paul Krugman. I’m not one of those bloggers who’s usually on his case. Because I usually ignore him. But when he writes an entire column about media bias, Hub Blog’s journalistic bunny ears go up. Krugman writes about the differences between the American media’s coverage of Iraq versus the European media’s coverage of Iraq -- and which one better reflects reality. He ends the column: “So which is it? I've reported, you decide.” ... Gee, Paul, that’s a tough one. Where do you stand Paul? Could it be the side that best reflects your views? ... He makes no mention, by the way and needless to say, that most broadcast outlets in Europe are owned and run by the government.
“They (poets) have become a sort of secular clergy, as fixated with ‘the word’ as some preachers and just as likely to confuse metaphor with truth. ...
“Those of us who were against the Vietnam War but who now find ourselves enlisted in Bush's Brigade are always looking over our shoulder, fearing history doing a reprise. (I have been re-reading Norman Mailer's wonderful ‘Armies of the Night.’) I scan the new poetry, as I do the placards at the peace marches, alert to the cathartic nugget of wisdom that would avert war while dealing realistically with Hussein. What I find, instead, is yesterday's wisdom about Vietnam misapplied to today's challenge of Iraq.”
Cohen also took a whack at journalists waxing poetry about poets. Wonder if he saw the editorial in the Globe about the noble nature of poets. ...
... Ah, Paul Krugman. I’m not one of those bloggers who’s usually on his case. Because I usually ignore him. But when he writes an entire column about media bias, Hub Blog’s journalistic bunny ears go up. Krugman writes about the differences between the American media’s coverage of Iraq versus the European media’s coverage of Iraq -- and which one better reflects reality. He ends the column: “So which is it? I've reported, you decide.” ... Gee, Paul, that’s a tough one. Where do you stand Paul? Could it be the side that best reflects your views? ... He makes no mention, by the way and needless to say, that most broadcast outlets in Europe are owned and run by the government.
The dot-com energy companies: Charlie Stein has a nice piece that sort of bumps into a pet-peeve of mine: The monopolistic local electric industry that emerged from our poorly implemented deregulation. Charlie isn’t talking about the local electric industry, but this quote about the national scene covers it well: “Surely a business as old and stable as the power industry couldn't have been seduced by the siren song of the new economy (of the ‘90s), could it? It turns out the answer is yes.” ... And we’ll be paying for the folly very soon and for a long time if something isn’t done.
Monday, February 17, 2003
The Keystone Hacks to the Rescue: Don’t panic! Everything is under control! The Keystone Hacks have arrived! The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority is going to go after Bechtel to recoup the money that shouldn’t have been lost in the first place! ...
... Unbelievable, eh? What a news town! They’re like shooting fish in a barrel. This is the fall-off-your-chair-laughing part of playing follow-the-dots: As chairman of the Turnpike, Matthew Amorello, described as a “former state senator who is fighting to keep the Turnpike Authority and his job intact,” rehires attorney James Aloisi, who is described as being “fired two years ago by former chairman Andrew Natsios after the Big Dig costs spiraled out of control.” Both Amorello and Aloisi, in turn, are described as having “close ties” with Senate President Robert Travaglini, who last week was described as “speaking in deeply personal terms (and) stressing his working-class roots” when defending the Turnpike and MDC against planned reforms and/or elimination and ....
... Don’t panic! Everything is under control! The Keystone Hacks have arrived! The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority is going to go after Bechtel to recoup the money that shouldn’t have been lost in the first place! ...
... Note to readers: In the second link above, you have to hack (no pun intended) your way through the first item about judges secretly plotting their anti-reform strategies before reaching the part about Amorello rehiring Aloisi and their connections to the deeply emotional Trav.
... Unbelievable, eh? What a news town! They’re like shooting fish in a barrel. This is the fall-off-your-chair-laughing part of playing follow-the-dots: As chairman of the Turnpike, Matthew Amorello, described as a “former state senator who is fighting to keep the Turnpike Authority and his job intact,” rehires attorney James Aloisi, who is described as being “fired two years ago by former chairman Andrew Natsios after the Big Dig costs spiraled out of control.” Both Amorello and Aloisi, in turn, are described as having “close ties” with Senate President Robert Travaglini, who last week was described as “speaking in deeply personal terms (and) stressing his working-class roots” when defending the Turnpike and MDC against planned reforms and/or elimination and ....
... Don’t panic! Everything is under control! The Keystone Hacks have arrived! The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority is going to go after Bechtel to recoup the money that shouldn’t have been lost in the first place! ...
... Note to readers: In the second link above, you have to hack (no pun intended) your way through the first item about judges secretly plotting their anti-reform strategies before reaching the part about Amorello rehiring Aloisi and their connections to the deeply emotional Trav.
Some call it ‘The Maze’: More reform ideas from Mitt. More carping.
Why we should be helping Africa: Their ‘thank you’ is enough to be moved to do the right thing. Good column. And can’t wait for President Bush’s AIDs program to kick in. More worthy lives will be saved, perhaps (probably) millions, if done right.
Wait! Maybe we need the UN!: Andrew Sullivan (scroll down a bit to the ‘Saving Blair’ item), who recently said it was “over” for the UN, now says: “But this weekend changes one thing, I think. Blair may not survive politically if we go to war with no further attempt to bring the U.N. around, and the war is in any way complicated or prolonged. It makes no logical sense to go back to the U.N. But it makes a lot of political sense -- if only to show the world American reluctance to go to war and to shore up an absolutely critical ally. ... It would put the onus back on Saddam, help Blair, show a little flexibility on the part of the U.S., maybe bring around a few more Security Council members and not lose any significant time. Again, this isn't logical from the point of view of 1441. But it is a reflection of the political pressures on a key U.S. ally. Recognizing that political pressure is not surrendering to it. But ignoring it when we can still offer an alternative would be foolish. We can afford to be a little flexible. So let's be.” ...
... Let’s repeat those last four sentences: “Recognizing that political pressure is not surrendering to it. But ignoring it when we can still offer an alternative would be foolish. We can afford to be a little flexible. So let's be.” ...
... And let’s hope the administration, in Phase III of the post-Iraq portion of the war, remembers that we may not always need the UN, but some of our allies need and want the UN, and we just have to live with that. And Andrew’s right: It’s not always logical to go to the UN, but it is does make a lot of political sense now and then. So let’s junk this foolish talk about pure ‘unilateralism’ or pure ‘multilateralism.’ Again: You use them in conjunction with each other, like knives and forks, and there’s no escaping the value of using both at the same time to achieve desired results. And I’ll stop making this point. Starting to feel like Ron Borges going on and on and on about Drew Bledsoe
... Speaking of the war: There are some who go when called to duty; there are some who rush to the courts.
... Let’s repeat those last four sentences: “Recognizing that political pressure is not surrendering to it. But ignoring it when we can still offer an alternative would be foolish. We can afford to be a little flexible. So let's be.” ...
... And let’s hope the administration, in Phase III of the post-Iraq portion of the war, remembers that we may not always need the UN, but some of our allies need and want the UN, and we just have to live with that. And Andrew’s right: It’s not always logical to go to the UN, but it is does make a lot of political sense now and then. So let’s junk this foolish talk about pure ‘unilateralism’ or pure ‘multilateralism.’ Again: You use them in conjunction with each other, like knives and forks, and there’s no escaping the value of using both at the same time to achieve desired results. And I’ll stop making this point. Starting to feel like Ron Borges going on and on and on about Drew Bledsoe
... Speaking of the war: There are some who go when called to duty; there are some who rush to the courts.
Sunday, February 16, 2003
More on Mitt and reform: Brighton Reader sends along the following message. Haven’t read the Seth piece, but, if Brighton Reader vouches for it, so be it. From Brighton Reader with added bonus comments:
“Here is a link to an article by Seth Gitell of the Phoenix about Finneran. Thought it was pretty good. I think it ties in to how Romney's initiatives will fare.
“Romney is making the right move in putting his restructuring into one package with a big ‘reform’ label on it. Make them vote it up or down. What he needs to do next is what other governors, but not his recent Republican predecessors, did -- pick up the phone and ask legislators for support. The last time most of them were asked for their opinion it was by a telemarketer. Making the effort to woo the rank and file, especially in the climate after the strong support for income tax repeal, could get him the votes he needs. Getting out there, making his argument to the public will make a difference, too.
“I was amused, somewhat disgusted but not at all surprised by Trav's defense of the MDC and the Mass Pike at the Boston Chamber of Commerce recently. It always comes down to patronage with him. Note the only passing reference to aid to schools. How about setting out some policy priorities, Bob?”
“Here is a link to an article by Seth Gitell of the Phoenix about Finneran. Thought it was pretty good. I think it ties in to how Romney's initiatives will fare.
“Romney is making the right move in putting his restructuring into one package with a big ‘reform’ label on it. Make them vote it up or down. What he needs to do next is what other governors, but not his recent Republican predecessors, did -- pick up the phone and ask legislators for support. The last time most of them were asked for their opinion it was by a telemarketer. Making the effort to woo the rank and file, especially in the climate after the strong support for income tax repeal, could get him the votes he needs. Getting out there, making his argument to the public will make a difference, too.
“I was amused, somewhat disgusted but not at all surprised by Trav's defense of the MDC and the Mass Pike at the Boston Chamber of Commerce recently. It always comes down to patronage with him. Note the only passing reference to aid to schools. How about setting out some policy priorities, Bob?”
Iraq and ‘Intelligent Consensus Building,’ Part II: Once again, thanks for all the email. Have gotten a lot. One humble request: No need to send me links to the photo with the left-wing protester holding the Chamberlain sign. Already know they’re idiots. Don’t send me the 10,000th article I’ve read about the Europeans being idiots. Already know. Don’t send me the 20,000th article about Saddam being evil. Already know. You’re preaching to the converted, which is kind of my point: Too many people on the right are preaching to the converted these days. Repeat: My beef with the administration is with the means, not the ends. But, ah, Reader No. 1 has returned! With an excellent retort on the original "Iraq and ‘Intelligent Consensus Building’" post below, which was based on musings of a friend, which, obviously, Hub Blog agreed with. From Reader No. 1:
“1. I think it is dangerous to assume "Americans" or "the French" think as one. There are many different reasons to support or oppose the conflict. (Apologies in advance for violating this principal.)
“2. I humbly offer the most obvious reason why so many express at best hesitant support for the US government against Iraq: our country rarely initiates wars; we're primarily reactive. The most famous examples: September 11th and Pearl Harbor. And we NEVER go looking for fights for dangerous opponents who probably possess weapons of mass destruction that could kill us in large numbers. (This is a critical distinction from the adventures of the Clinton years, in which the US played a rescuing or peacekeeping role. One might argue the first Iraq war's efforts on behalf of the Kuwaitis served as a precedent -- although the prospect of oil-induced-economic catastrophe certainly loomed large in 1991 albeit not rhetorically.)
"3. Having said that we don't historically start fights with big dogs, let's also acknowledge that we have entered a period in human history where waiting for those aforementioned weapons of mass destruction to be used first should be construed as a dereliction of duty in assuring national defense.
"4. I will also submit that the "consensus-building" which my fellow HubBlog reader (talks about) is greatly overrated and terribly unlikely to have had any better outcome than where we are today. To the extent that lawyers have achieved greater prominence in US society and so dominate the legislative ranks and the political process, many have developed a tendency to think practically anything can be negotiated or if necessary, litigated to resolution. Tell it to Neville Chamberlain.
One reason to conclude that sweeter talk from Donald Rumsfeld wouldn't have made any difference: the response of foreign governments to the Blix reports which pretty unequivocally state that Iraq has lied and misled on its inspections. Those who have asked for more time all along are still asking for more time. Incidentally, has anyone suggested that the minimal progress Iraq has made so far is entirely because of the "swaggering" actions of the US in preparing for a war?
"5. What bothers me about Bush Administration bashing is that it lays the blame for European opposition at the US' feet when there is evidence for some number of years that many European governments don't share our interests. Anyone in doubt on this point should read the excellent December 2002 issue of The American Enterprise, excerpt here:
"6. Lastly, I think it is entirely possible that the President does believe what he told the troops about the UN turning into a debating society. This is why it was so critical to have the case for forcible disarmament made there so powerfully by Secretary Powell (whose advice in 1991 is one factor leading us to today's juncture). I suspect the real problem, particularly for the diplomatic professionals and the reporters who cover them, is that this President like several of his predecessors doesn't value the UN's interests more highly than the US'. Nor should he."
Hub Blog’s response: Since my friend can’t really defend himself and since I agreed, obviously, with many of his points, I’ll respond. Here goes, point by point: 1.) Agreed. Advanced apologies accepted. Always do the same thing myself. 2.) Agree, again. Just wish the Bush administration had better respected this obviously legitimate fear/concern from the outset, as well as the fact that many (not all) non-leftist Americans happen to have been raised on believing in the UN and NATO, as silly and naive as that may sound. It’s just a PR reality the president didn’t deal with. Again. 3.) Notice my emphasis in past posts about agreeing with the ‘goal’ of the administration. It’s the administration’s methods (the means) that I disagree with. And no one is asking him to neglect his duties. 4.) Ah, aren't we now involved in multilateralism? Up to our teeth. My repeated contention: We could have done better if we had tried it more deftly and differently. Again: The means. 5.) What bothers me about Bush cheerleaders is that they will never, ever, attribute even a tiny bit of blame to him. He’s Churchill, after all. If I had to lay blame for events of recent weeks as they apply to our affairs in Europe, I’d put about 20 percent on Bush, 60 percent on France and Germany, the rest sprinkled about. With that said, I’d love to hear, one day, somewhere, a true Bush believer acknowledging he’s at least partly to blame (10 percent, 15 percent, whatever) and that, well, yes, OK, he’s not perfect. Just partly. Details, please. By the way, that 10, 15, 20 percent matters. Could have swung the German election the other way, for instance. Hope he does better on the diplomatic front in the Phase III, post-Iraq portion of the war. 6.) I also believe he believes what he told the troops about the UN turning into a debating society. What I don’t believe is that he's trying to save the UN. Nor should you.
An aside note: Sorry we disagree on this issue, Reader No. 1. One of the few where we do. Let's hear more on your views about, oh, Mitt. Welcome back!
“1. I think it is dangerous to assume "Americans" or "the French" think as one. There are many different reasons to support or oppose the conflict. (Apologies in advance for violating this principal.)
“2. I humbly offer the most obvious reason why so many express at best hesitant support for the US government against Iraq: our country rarely initiates wars; we're primarily reactive. The most famous examples: September 11th and Pearl Harbor. And we NEVER go looking for fights for dangerous opponents who probably possess weapons of mass destruction that could kill us in large numbers. (This is a critical distinction from the adventures of the Clinton years, in which the US played a rescuing or peacekeeping role. One might argue the first Iraq war's efforts on behalf of the Kuwaitis served as a precedent -- although the prospect of oil-induced-economic catastrophe certainly loomed large in 1991 albeit not rhetorically.)
"3. Having said that we don't historically start fights with big dogs, let's also acknowledge that we have entered a period in human history where waiting for those aforementioned weapons of mass destruction to be used first should be construed as a dereliction of duty in assuring national defense.
"4. I will also submit that the "consensus-building" which my fellow HubBlog reader (talks about) is greatly overrated and terribly unlikely to have had any better outcome than where we are today. To the extent that lawyers have achieved greater prominence in US society and so dominate the legislative ranks and the political process, many have developed a tendency to think practically anything can be negotiated or if necessary, litigated to resolution. Tell it to Neville Chamberlain.
One reason to conclude that sweeter talk from Donald Rumsfeld wouldn't have made any difference: the response of foreign governments to the Blix reports which pretty unequivocally state that Iraq has lied and misled on its inspections. Those who have asked for more time all along are still asking for more time. Incidentally, has anyone suggested that the minimal progress Iraq has made so far is entirely because of the "swaggering" actions of the US in preparing for a war?
"5. What bothers me about Bush Administration bashing is that it lays the blame for European opposition at the US' feet when there is evidence for some number of years that many European governments don't share our interests. Anyone in doubt on this point should read the excellent December 2002 issue of The American Enterprise, excerpt here:
"6. Lastly, I think it is entirely possible that the President does believe what he told the troops about the UN turning into a debating society. This is why it was so critical to have the case for forcible disarmament made there so powerfully by Secretary Powell (whose advice in 1991 is one factor leading us to today's juncture). I suspect the real problem, particularly for the diplomatic professionals and the reporters who cover them, is that this President like several of his predecessors doesn't value the UN's interests more highly than the US'. Nor should he."
Hub Blog’s response: Since my friend can’t really defend himself and since I agreed, obviously, with many of his points, I’ll respond. Here goes, point by point: 1.) Agreed. Advanced apologies accepted. Always do the same thing myself. 2.) Agree, again. Just wish the Bush administration had better respected this obviously legitimate fear/concern from the outset, as well as the fact that many (not all) non-leftist Americans happen to have been raised on believing in the UN and NATO, as silly and naive as that may sound. It’s just a PR reality the president didn’t deal with. Again. 3.) Notice my emphasis in past posts about agreeing with the ‘goal’ of the administration. It’s the administration’s methods (the means) that I disagree with. And no one is asking him to neglect his duties. 4.) Ah, aren't we now involved in multilateralism? Up to our teeth. My repeated contention: We could have done better if we had tried it more deftly and differently. Again: The means. 5.) What bothers me about Bush cheerleaders is that they will never, ever, attribute even a tiny bit of blame to him. He’s Churchill, after all. If I had to lay blame for events of recent weeks as they apply to our affairs in Europe, I’d put about 20 percent on Bush, 60 percent on France and Germany, the rest sprinkled about. With that said, I’d love to hear, one day, somewhere, a true Bush believer acknowledging he’s at least partly to blame (10 percent, 15 percent, whatever) and that, well, yes, OK, he’s not perfect. Just partly. Details, please. By the way, that 10, 15, 20 percent matters. Could have swung the German election the other way, for instance. Hope he does better on the diplomatic front in the Phase III, post-Iraq portion of the war. 6.) I also believe he believes what he told the troops about the UN turning into a debating society. What I don’t believe is that he's trying to save the UN. Nor should you.
An aside note: Sorry we disagree on this issue, Reader No. 1. One of the few where we do. Let's hear more on your views about, oh, Mitt. Welcome back!
Mitt and playing hard-ball reform: Fascinating strategy. Hope the all-or-nothing plan works. But I have my doubts. The Weld and Cellucci administrations tried similar ploys. I know Mitt -- by threatening to invoke the state’s Article 87 clause in the constitution -- says he’s willing to negotiate before putting the gun to the legislature’s head. Still, keep in mind: This is the same legislature that blocked Clean Elections, even to the extent of all but defying the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Then there are the other voter-approved referendums they routinely ignore. Etc. They don’t care. Meanwhile, Tommy and Trav are already talking about keeping the MDC. Others are threatening to kill MCAS, the new voter-approved English immersion law, charter schools, etc. etc. etc. and ...
... and look how deep the ‘permanent bureaucracy’ reaches. The politically connected judges are mobilizing to block Mitt’s judicial reforms and budget plans (when one of their own isn't getting busted on DUI charges). The Turnpike is mobilizing. They’re all mobilizing and maneuvering to kill off what? Reform.
... Seems like the only way to get rid of these guys is if we buy them off. Literally. Favorite line from the same ‘Ki$$’ story comes from Lou DiNatale, a political analyst at UMass-Boston's McCormack Institute: “Joyce may end up as a poster boy for public-sector greed, but it's unlikely he will stick in the public's memory any more than any of the others have. ... It is certainly worth something to the state to have him out of the way.'' Think about that last sentence. We have to pull slimy pension-grab tricks to get these guys to go. Lordy.
... Here’s an interesting story about how Mitt’s press/message management style is very similar to George Bush’s tactics. Good article.
A reader responds: Mysterious S Reader responds to the Mitt press/message story directly above. Personally, I still think it was a good story, but here's Mysterious S' view:
"Was not going to drop you a line about that Stephanie Ebbert article today, but since you commented first... As with the previous Phillips piece, I feel like it's a bit of navel-gazing for the Globe to keep writing articles complaining about lack of access.
"I don't have empirical data, but wasn't one of the knocks on Jane Swift that she was never around (calling in by speakerphone, at home in W. Mass with the kids, etc.)? It seems like Romney is at least as available if not more.
"And the close of the article came right out of the 'growing in office' article-o-matic, (i.e.) The politician is doing more of what you want (being more accessible) and making it a 'significant development.'
"I know I hold the Globe to a high standard, but its seems to me that a paper which can digest 15 years of Big Dig paperwork can do better than turn out multiple thumb-suckers on Romney's process as opposed to his substance."
... and look how deep the ‘permanent bureaucracy’ reaches. The politically connected judges are mobilizing to block Mitt’s judicial reforms and budget plans (when one of their own isn't getting busted on DUI charges). The Turnpike is mobilizing. They’re all mobilizing and maneuvering to kill off what? Reform.
... Seems like the only way to get rid of these guys is if we buy them off. Literally. Favorite line from the same ‘Ki$$’ story comes from Lou DiNatale, a political analyst at UMass-Boston's McCormack Institute: “Joyce may end up as a poster boy for public-sector greed, but it's unlikely he will stick in the public's memory any more than any of the others have. ... It is certainly worth something to the state to have him out of the way.'' Think about that last sentence. We have to pull slimy pension-grab tricks to get these guys to go. Lordy.
... Here’s an interesting story about how Mitt’s press/message management style is very similar to George Bush’s tactics. Good article.
A reader responds: Mysterious S Reader responds to the Mitt press/message story directly above. Personally, I still think it was a good story, but here's Mysterious S' view:
"Was not going to drop you a line about that Stephanie Ebbert article today, but since you commented first... As with the previous Phillips piece, I feel like it's a bit of navel-gazing for the Globe to keep writing articles complaining about lack of access.
"I don't have empirical data, but wasn't one of the knocks on Jane Swift that she was never around (calling in by speakerphone, at home in W. Mass with the kids, etc.)? It seems like Romney is at least as available if not more.
"And the close of the article came right out of the 'growing in office' article-o-matic, (i.e.) The politician is doing more of what you want (being more accessible) and making it a 'significant development.'
"I know I hold the Globe to a high standard, but its seems to me that a paper which can digest 15 years of Big Dig paperwork can do better than turn out multiple thumb-suckers on Romney's process as opposed to his substance."
Iraq and ‘Intelligent Consensus Building’: After hashing over the merits and flaws of the Atkins Diet while stuffing our faces with beer, wine and steak tips at a restaurant the other night, a friend and I had a most interesting conversation about Iraq. My friend, a regular reader of Hub Blog, was posed this question by yours truly: "Am I crazy for harshly criticizing the anti-war left while at the same time harshly criticizing the Bush administration’s clumsy swaggering on Iraq?" He said: No ... but.
Here goes with what my friend, who describes himself as drifting between libertarianism and conservatism, said about Iraq and Bush (and I’m mostly paraphrasing):
The American public is generally a conservative but idealistic bunch. For whatever reasons. But the Bush administration’s initial talk of “unilaterally” taking on Iraq was jarring to many Americans. It is in the best American tradition to seek to build an intelligent consensus for our actions-- to be unafraid of frank and democratic debate. Americans instinctively believe that when we’re right, we can marshal the facts, in plain view, to state our case, debate it, and gain the support we need. It can be argued that mouthing off about a desire to “go it alone” (with Britain in tow) before launching our case before the U.N. was pre-empting the necessary, intelligent consensus-building phase with our allies; it was poor diplomacy, it was ham-fisted, it wasn’t in the American “tradition” of clear-eyed, honest diplomacy. That’s why so many (including Hub Blog) register a preference for reasonable UN and NATO involvement for any armed action against Iraq – as poll after poll of Americans show. Hub Blog’s criticism of the administration’s “swaggering” tone is a legitimate area of debate. It’s a legitimate concern over methods and means. It isn’t a rejection of the issue at hand. ... It should be noted -- and can’t be overemphasized -- how utterly brutal my friend was on the political left. Their problem, he said, is that those on the hard-core political left are blinded by their knee-jerk anti-American, so convinced America is imperial in its aspirations, so willing to abandon traditions for a new utopian-like future, so out of it in terms of how the real world really works as Americans see it. And my friend added: "The French don’t understand the American approach." They don’t get the pragmatic side of American democratic consensus-building. They think it’s a trick that has to be thwarted, he said.
His verdict on Hub Blog and others’ with similar views on Iraq: “Criticizing the administration for its ‘swaggering tone’ is perfectly within the legitimate realm of debate over Iraq. I may not agree entirely, but at the end of the day we’re in agreement about the goals. You think we could have gotten to this same point in a better way with better results ... I'm in agreement."
Update(s) -- My friend has seen this post and -- with some quick and small editing changes -- he says it accurately reflects what he said over multiple beers, wine and steak tips. ...
I should add that, personally, the gulf between the Bush administration and good old mighty Hub Blog began to widen not when Bush initially balked at the UN option, but when the administration actually suggested, in a trial balloon some time ago, that it didn’t need Congressional authority to move against Iraq, arguing that the original Gulf War resolution from 1990 (or ‘91 -- forget) was sufficient. It was at that moment I became convinced the administration wasn’t just interested in international democratic consensus-building, but also it wasn’t interested in genuine domestic democratic consensus-building. Again, we’re arguing over methods here, not the goal. I just think the administration has blown opportunity after opportunity to garner more support for this cause. The methods have been ugly to behold. ...
... Count the Herald’s Wayne Woodlief as one of those who isn’t impressed with how we got to where we are today, faced with “a war on Iraq that few people wanted but that many are being cajoled, convinced and, yes, even bullied into accepting as inevitable.” Wayne isn’t a knee-jerk leftist liberal, folks. Don't dismiss him. ... Anyway, Wayne raises yet another loose-talking/tough-talking peeve about the administration: Talk of possible use of nukes in Iraq. I know. I know. They’re doing it largely for deterrence reasons, but ... but it’s just another example of the administration’s talk-tough/backtrack approach, with Rummy now having to clarify the administration’s position. Why does the administration always find itself in this position? It’s not because of a left-wing conspiracy to misuse their words. They’re unnerving a lot of people. Constantly. FYI: The nuke issue was debated on PBS’s “McLaughlin Group” the other week. You know, the “McLaughlin Group,” that beehive of left-wing anti-Americanism. And it’s slowly been seeping into the mainstream press, such as this op-ed the other week in the Christian Science Monitor. Now it’s being aired in that left-wing commie newspaper, the Boston Herald. Wayne on if war breaks out: “How we fight that war and how we handle its aftermath - the necessary reconstruction of Iraq and its democratization - then become vitally important.”
... From an AP story: “British and American diplomats conceded they would need to go home, consider the views of others (at the UN) and soften the tone of the draft.” ... Tough talk, back track. Again. Well, at least this time it involves the Brits. ...
.... Andrew Sullivan says the U.N. approach (and probably the U.N. itself) is “over.” And he adds: “But (the UN approach) was still worth trying, even if only to give it one last chance.” And then he adds the U.S. has to reassess its future with the U.N.: “I'm not saying complete U.S. withdrawal (from the UN), although I'm beginning to think that now makes a lot of sense.” ... As they say, you can’t be half pregnant. Might as well go all the way, which leads logically to what a lot of hard-core conservatives have been advocating for a long, long time: The US out of the UN. Connect the dots, as they say. ...
But, ah, the president told troops recently: ``Free nations will not allow the United Nations to fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant debating society.'' ... Does anyone really believe the president believes this? I.e. “... not allow the United Nations to fade away.” Christ, he had to be dragged into the U.N. approach, and now he’s championing its noble nature and its need to exist? But the key phrase is “an ineffective, irrelevant debating society.'' Mark my words: That’s going to be the pretext to get the U.S. out of a UN that Bush says he won’t let fade away. Also mark my words: NATO already is, and probably will remain so at the end, in shambles because of the Iraq crisis. But will the Bush groupies accept even an ounce of responsibility? Nope. None. It's all the fault of the evil French -- and crocodile tears will be shed as hard-core conservatives wave good-bye and say 'good riddance' under their breaths to both institutions. They're already doing it.
Here goes with what my friend, who describes himself as drifting between libertarianism and conservatism, said about Iraq and Bush (and I’m mostly paraphrasing):
The American public is generally a conservative but idealistic bunch. For whatever reasons. But the Bush administration’s initial talk of “unilaterally” taking on Iraq was jarring to many Americans. It is in the best American tradition to seek to build an intelligent consensus for our actions-- to be unafraid of frank and democratic debate. Americans instinctively believe that when we’re right, we can marshal the facts, in plain view, to state our case, debate it, and gain the support we need. It can be argued that mouthing off about a desire to “go it alone” (with Britain in tow) before launching our case before the U.N. was pre-empting the necessary, intelligent consensus-building phase with our allies; it was poor diplomacy, it was ham-fisted, it wasn’t in the American “tradition” of clear-eyed, honest diplomacy. That’s why so many (including Hub Blog) register a preference for reasonable UN and NATO involvement for any armed action against Iraq – as poll after poll of Americans show. Hub Blog’s criticism of the administration’s “swaggering” tone is a legitimate area of debate. It’s a legitimate concern over methods and means. It isn’t a rejection of the issue at hand. ... It should be noted -- and can’t be overemphasized -- how utterly brutal my friend was on the political left. Their problem, he said, is that those on the hard-core political left are blinded by their knee-jerk anti-American, so convinced America is imperial in its aspirations, so willing to abandon traditions for a new utopian-like future, so out of it in terms of how the real world really works as Americans see it. And my friend added: "The French don’t understand the American approach." They don’t get the pragmatic side of American democratic consensus-building. They think it’s a trick that has to be thwarted, he said.
His verdict on Hub Blog and others’ with similar views on Iraq: “Criticizing the administration for its ‘swaggering tone’ is perfectly within the legitimate realm of debate over Iraq. I may not agree entirely, but at the end of the day we’re in agreement about the goals. You think we could have gotten to this same point in a better way with better results ... I'm in agreement."
Update(s) -- My friend has seen this post and -- with some quick and small editing changes -- he says it accurately reflects what he said over multiple beers, wine and steak tips. ...
I should add that, personally, the gulf between the Bush administration and good old mighty Hub Blog began to widen not when Bush initially balked at the UN option, but when the administration actually suggested, in a trial balloon some time ago, that it didn’t need Congressional authority to move against Iraq, arguing that the original Gulf War resolution from 1990 (or ‘91 -- forget) was sufficient. It was at that moment I became convinced the administration wasn’t just interested in international democratic consensus-building, but also it wasn’t interested in genuine domestic democratic consensus-building. Again, we’re arguing over methods here, not the goal. I just think the administration has blown opportunity after opportunity to garner more support for this cause. The methods have been ugly to behold. ...
... Count the Herald’s Wayne Woodlief as one of those who isn’t impressed with how we got to where we are today, faced with “a war on Iraq that few people wanted but that many are being cajoled, convinced and, yes, even bullied into accepting as inevitable.” Wayne isn’t a knee-jerk leftist liberal, folks. Don't dismiss him. ... Anyway, Wayne raises yet another loose-talking/tough-talking peeve about the administration: Talk of possible use of nukes in Iraq. I know. I know. They’re doing it largely for deterrence reasons, but ... but it’s just another example of the administration’s talk-tough/backtrack approach, with Rummy now having to clarify the administration’s position. Why does the administration always find itself in this position? It’s not because of a left-wing conspiracy to misuse their words. They’re unnerving a lot of people. Constantly. FYI: The nuke issue was debated on PBS’s “McLaughlin Group” the other week. You know, the “McLaughlin Group,” that beehive of left-wing anti-Americanism. And it’s slowly been seeping into the mainstream press, such as this op-ed the other week in the Christian Science Monitor. Now it’s being aired in that left-wing commie newspaper, the Boston Herald. Wayne on if war breaks out: “How we fight that war and how we handle its aftermath - the necessary reconstruction of Iraq and its democratization - then become vitally important.”
... From an AP story: “British and American diplomats conceded they would need to go home, consider the views of others (at the UN) and soften the tone of the draft.” ... Tough talk, back track. Again. Well, at least this time it involves the Brits. ...
.... Andrew Sullivan says the U.N. approach (and probably the U.N. itself) is “over.” And he adds: “But (the UN approach) was still worth trying, even if only to give it one last chance.” And then he adds the U.S. has to reassess its future with the U.N.: “I'm not saying complete U.S. withdrawal (from the UN), although I'm beginning to think that now makes a lot of sense.” ... As they say, you can’t be half pregnant. Might as well go all the way, which leads logically to what a lot of hard-core conservatives have been advocating for a long, long time: The US out of the UN. Connect the dots, as they say. ...
But, ah, the president told troops recently: ``Free nations will not allow the United Nations to fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant debating society.'' ... Does anyone really believe the president believes this? I.e. “... not allow the United Nations to fade away.” Christ, he had to be dragged into the U.N. approach, and now he’s championing its noble nature and its need to exist? But the key phrase is “an ineffective, irrelevant debating society.'' Mark my words: That’s going to be the pretext to get the U.S. out of a UN that Bush says he won’t let fade away. Also mark my words: NATO already is, and probably will remain so at the end, in shambles because of the Iraq crisis. But will the Bush groupies accept even an ounce of responsibility? Nope. None. It's all the fault of the evil French -- and crocodile tears will be shed as hard-core conservatives wave good-bye and say 'good riddance' under their breaths to both institutions. They're already doing it.
Friday, February 14, 2003
Mitt: No reforms, no new taxes, Part II: A really good email just came my way from a regular Hub Blog reader, who raised a lot of interesting points about the subject matters raised in the original “Mitt: No reforms, no new taxes” below. From the reader:
“YOUR ASSIGNMENT -- Frank Phillips buries the most likely ongoing story of interest in the third to last column of his piece on business vs. environment in the Romney administration -- the Foy vs. Pozen angle. I don't have any hard facts here, but I think this will be one to watch. Given Foy's background in advocacy versus Pozen's in business, it is not hard to believe that Pozen is being outmaneuvered.
“ALL IN THE TIMIMG -- Remember that Finneran roast that was filmed earlier in the month to be shown sometime in March? Given that Romney's budget proposal is coming out Feb. 26 (and should start a huge wave of outrage), I think everyone involved is going to be sorry that a time capsule of this sort is being replayed.
“PET PEEVE -- I often feel that certain individuals throw ... (around) the term 'corporate interests' and 'big business' without doing any type of homework or follow through. Now that the Romney administration has proposed limiting certain loopholes -- REIT tax avoidance and tax avoiding corporate shells -- where are the articles in support?”
Hub Blog’s response: 1.) You’re absolutely right: The Foy vs. Pozen angle is intriguing. And it’s cause for some concern, even though I’m relatively certain Foy, who may be outmaneuvering Pozen for now, is unlikely to outmaneuver Mitt. I just can’t see Mitt abandoning business. By the way, Mitt’s insistence on closing the Salem plant is the right one, even if Foy is pushing it and the business community is concerned about it. The damn plant is killing people. It goes without saying Mitt isn’t getting the credit he deserves for it. 2.) Time capsule indeed. 3.) No, Mitt’s not getting the credit he deserves for closing the loopholes, though Steve Bailey did give him a thumbs up. ...
... This entire day (or, more accurately, what transpired yesterday and came out today) is very, very discouraging and ominous. The Usual Suspects are banging their tax, tax, tax war drums. They’ve been banging away since Day 1 of the budget crisis. Now they’re turning their guns on corporations. I’ll repeat: If I was a business executive reading all these stories, I’d be nervous too about a return to ‘Taxachusetts.’ What we’re seeing unfold (and I hope Mitt understands it) is, I believe, the old extremist progressives/hacks alliance reforming again. I.e.: If the self-anointed extremist progressives like Jill Stein get their tax hikes, there won’t be any need for cuts. And, if there’s no need for cuts, there’s no leverage for reform. Which will make Trav and the boys very, very happy. And that will leave the electorate pissed: More taxes with no reforms. Remember Question 1. The clowns on Beacon Hill don’t think voters will pull the trigger. Next time, I think they will.
“YOUR ASSIGNMENT -- Frank Phillips buries the most likely ongoing story of interest in the third to last column of his piece on business vs. environment in the Romney administration -- the Foy vs. Pozen angle. I don't have any hard facts here, but I think this will be one to watch. Given Foy's background in advocacy versus Pozen's in business, it is not hard to believe that Pozen is being outmaneuvered.
“ALL IN THE TIMIMG -- Remember that Finneran roast that was filmed earlier in the month to be shown sometime in March? Given that Romney's budget proposal is coming out Feb. 26 (and should start a huge wave of outrage), I think everyone involved is going to be sorry that a time capsule of this sort is being replayed.
“PET PEEVE -- I often feel that certain individuals throw ... (around) the term 'corporate interests' and 'big business' without doing any type of homework or follow through. Now that the Romney administration has proposed limiting certain loopholes -- REIT tax avoidance and tax avoiding corporate shells -- where are the articles in support?”
Hub Blog’s response: 1.) You’re absolutely right: The Foy vs. Pozen angle is intriguing. And it’s cause for some concern, even though I’m relatively certain Foy, who may be outmaneuvering Pozen for now, is unlikely to outmaneuver Mitt. I just can’t see Mitt abandoning business. By the way, Mitt’s insistence on closing the Salem plant is the right one, even if Foy is pushing it and the business community is concerned about it. The damn plant is killing people. It goes without saying Mitt isn’t getting the credit he deserves for it. 2.) Time capsule indeed. 3.) No, Mitt’s not getting the credit he deserves for closing the loopholes, though Steve Bailey did give him a thumbs up. ...
... This entire day (or, more accurately, what transpired yesterday and came out today) is very, very discouraging and ominous. The Usual Suspects are banging their tax, tax, tax war drums. They’ve been banging away since Day 1 of the budget crisis. Now they’re turning their guns on corporations. I’ll repeat: If I was a business executive reading all these stories, I’d be nervous too about a return to ‘Taxachusetts.’ What we’re seeing unfold (and I hope Mitt understands it) is, I believe, the old extremist progressives/hacks alliance reforming again. I.e.: If the self-anointed extremist progressives like Jill Stein get their tax hikes, there won’t be any need for cuts. And, if there’s no need for cuts, there’s no leverage for reform. Which will make Trav and the boys very, very happy. And that will leave the electorate pissed: More taxes with no reforms. Remember Question 1. The clowns on Beacon Hill don’t think voters will pull the trigger. Next time, I think they will.
Home of the fools and the brave: So they’ve filed a lawsuit here in Boston trying to stop the war in Iraq, using a few local and other soldiers as cover. The fools who are using these soldiers might want to look at this local story -- one of many, many such articles in recent months -- to find out the real sentiment of the thousands of Massachusetts Reserve and National Guard troops (as well as their family members) who have answered the call to duty without running to the courts. Pathetic.
Mitt: No reforms, no new taxes: What a day. The state budget-deficit/Mitt stories are zinging in from all angles. ...
... The most laughable piece (not the reporter’s fault) is about the business community complaining that Mitt -- Mitt -- is not being pro-business enough and is tilting too much toward environmentalists. Now, over the past few weeks, Hub Blog has seen nothing but snide references to Mitt being a ‘CEO’ or to his ‘private-sector management style’ or to the fact he’s a CEO who likes to lay off people or the mockery heaped on him for using a PowerPoint in presentations. And now the business community is whining about Mitt not being pro-business? Mitt? ...
... But this story of business carping is more legitimate: Business leaders are worried about a return to ‘Taxachusetts,’ i.e. they’re resisting calls to roll back corporate tax incentives/deals enacted in the ‘90s. They’re making good points. Why? Not because every tax incentive/deal is defensible, though some surely are, as Steve Bailey noted a week or so ago. Instead, they’re making good points because there are indeed many people who, in fact, believe in a return to ‘Taxachusetts.’ There’s this ‘soak the rich’ argument from Jill Stein and Chuck Turner. There’s this story from today’s paper in which lawmakers, asked to cut programs, dodged their responsibilities (again) and are now patting themselves on the back for doing so. There are a lot of people out there who want to exclusively -- yes, exclusively -- get out of this fiscal mess through taxation. And, oh, they want to preserve the status quo. ...
Preserve the status quo? Absolutely. Look at this Howie column on The Trav and the MDC. (Confession: Hub Blog once had a summer job with the MDC many, many moons ago. I can say this from personal experience: Howie is being way too kind to the MDC.) ... And, oh, look at what Tom Keane is writing about today. Tom tees it up and whacks the point 300 yards in the first three sentences: “School reform could well be a casualty of the commonwealth's fiscal crisis -- not because money is tight, but rather because tight money makes for a good excuse. Over the last few weeks we have seen calls to halt the MCAS graduation requirement and to delay voter-passed bilingual education reforms. Yesterday saw the kickoff of a major push to kill charter schools as well.” Notice, please, how the emphasis is on killing ‘reform.’ ...
And, oh, hey, while we’re at it, let’s look at Brian McGrory’s column from this morning. Remember Christy Mihos? Turns out he was right about the Big Dig, as the Globe’s series on the status-quo management of the Big Dig proves. Mihos might be a true knucklehead in real life, for all I know, a genuine pain-in-the-ass complainer in general. But he was right about the Big Dig. Again: Notice how McGrory ends the column with a certain reference to ‘reform.’ All I can say is: Good-bye Mass Turnpike. And thanks for the $1 billion status-quo screw ups, you standard-political-protocol morons. ...
Where does this leave us? If I were a business executive looking at all these stories, I’d be damn nervous too about a return to ‘Taxachusetts.’
One last point: Scot Lehigh has an intelligent piece on borrowing to help in getting out of the fiscal mess. No objections here. One of many legitimate tools to use in times like these. We’ve borrowed before. We’ll borrow again. But ... but: No reforms, no new taxes. And now Hub Blog shall expand the mantra: No reforms, no new borrowing. Why not? If everyone else is using the fiscal crisis to block reforms, it’s time to fight fire with fire by using the fiscal crisis to promote reform.
... The most laughable piece (not the reporter’s fault) is about the business community complaining that Mitt -- Mitt -- is not being pro-business enough and is tilting too much toward environmentalists. Now, over the past few weeks, Hub Blog has seen nothing but snide references to Mitt being a ‘CEO’ or to his ‘private-sector management style’ or to the fact he’s a CEO who likes to lay off people or the mockery heaped on him for using a PowerPoint in presentations. And now the business community is whining about Mitt not being pro-business? Mitt? ...
... But this story of business carping is more legitimate: Business leaders are worried about a return to ‘Taxachusetts,’ i.e. they’re resisting calls to roll back corporate tax incentives/deals enacted in the ‘90s. They’re making good points. Why? Not because every tax incentive/deal is defensible, though some surely are, as Steve Bailey noted a week or so ago. Instead, they’re making good points because there are indeed many people who, in fact, believe in a return to ‘Taxachusetts.’ There’s this ‘soak the rich’ argument from Jill Stein and Chuck Turner. There’s this story from today’s paper in which lawmakers, asked to cut programs, dodged their responsibilities (again) and are now patting themselves on the back for doing so. There are a lot of people out there who want to exclusively -- yes, exclusively -- get out of this fiscal mess through taxation. And, oh, they want to preserve the status quo. ...
Preserve the status quo? Absolutely. Look at this Howie column on The Trav and the MDC. (Confession: Hub Blog once had a summer job with the MDC many, many moons ago. I can say this from personal experience: Howie is being way too kind to the MDC.) ... And, oh, look at what Tom Keane is writing about today. Tom tees it up and whacks the point 300 yards in the first three sentences: “School reform could well be a casualty of the commonwealth's fiscal crisis -- not because money is tight, but rather because tight money makes for a good excuse. Over the last few weeks we have seen calls to halt the MCAS graduation requirement and to delay voter-passed bilingual education reforms. Yesterday saw the kickoff of a major push to kill charter schools as well.” Notice, please, how the emphasis is on killing ‘reform.’ ...
And, oh, hey, while we’re at it, let’s look at Brian McGrory’s column from this morning. Remember Christy Mihos? Turns out he was right about the Big Dig, as the Globe’s series on the status-quo management of the Big Dig proves. Mihos might be a true knucklehead in real life, for all I know, a genuine pain-in-the-ass complainer in general. But he was right about the Big Dig. Again: Notice how McGrory ends the column with a certain reference to ‘reform.’ All I can say is: Good-bye Mass Turnpike. And thanks for the $1 billion status-quo screw ups, you standard-political-protocol morons. ...
Where does this leave us? If I were a business executive looking at all these stories, I’d be damn nervous too about a return to ‘Taxachusetts.’
One last point: Scot Lehigh has an intelligent piece on borrowing to help in getting out of the fiscal mess. No objections here. One of many legitimate tools to use in times like these. We’ve borrowed before. We’ll borrow again. But ... but: No reforms, no new taxes. And now Hub Blog shall expand the mantra: No reforms, no new borrowing. Why not? If everyone else is using the fiscal crisis to block reforms, it’s time to fight fire with fire by using the fiscal crisis to promote reform.
Who is John Kerry? (or 'Oh, God, not again!'): H.D.S Greenway has found the answer: He’s Irish again! Just wish H.D.S. could have addressed the ‘epiphany’ episode a little more.
Derailing two good projects: The Massachusetts Horticultural Society’s plan for a botanical garden is great, but it’s time to pull the plug. They just can’t do it. Put a museum there. ... But it’s not time to derail the Greenbush line. We need more rail transit in Massachusetts. Period.
Thursday, February 13, 2003
Kerry's post-recovery recovery?: Mickey Kaus links to an interesting article over at The New Republic on the subject of John Kerry. Mickey: "(Kerry's) best hope, after what one hopes will be his speedy post-surgery recovery, may be that his many enemies press the obvious 'two-faced' charge so early and overzealously that it plays out before too many actual voters are paying attention." ... And while you're at it, check out Dan Kennedy's take on Mickey's coverage of the Kerry-has-cancer story. Didn't see Dan's item from yesterday until just now. My own take was best summed up yesterday here at Hub Blog. I still say: Give the guy a break. He just learned he has cancer. As for taking on other aspect's of Kerry's life and his presidential campaign, it's still fair game, obviously.
Housing sales, office woes: An amazing economy. But I won’t be convinced the economy is recovering until these type of $0 deals go away.
A nation on alert: It’s finally sinking in. People are stockpiling supplies in case of an attack. And resolve is hardening. Joan Vennochi has a solid piece on the inevitability of war. She doesn’t tip her hand too much on how she feels. Perhaps because it doesn’t matter at this point. The die is cast. Other pundits are coming to the same conclusion, largely because of Colin Powell’s UN presentation last week, according to Mark Jurkowitz. ...
... Meanwhile, the Globe, which last week published this critical editorial about the administration’s handling of European affairs (and France and Germany in particular), is now taking heavy-duty whacks at France and Germany, which deserve it. The editorial rightly bashes the administration where it deserves to be bashed. But, if you judge the editorial based on who they go after first and hardest, this is a distinct shift. France and Germany. God, what a pair.
... Meanwhile, the Globe, which last week published this critical editorial about the administration’s handling of European affairs (and France and Germany in particular), is now taking heavy-duty whacks at France and Germany, which deserve it. The editorial rightly bashes the administration where it deserves to be bashed. But, if you judge the editorial based on who they go after first and hardest, this is a distinct shift. France and Germany. God, what a pair.
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
So zany, it’s intriguing: Mitt’s non-gambling gambling proposal is so zany, it’s intriguing. But it ain’t going anywhere. ... Howie hates the idea. Hub Blog? I don’t know. Can’t get worked up over it. If we legally shake some money out of the deep pockets of people who legally pick the pockets of people, I say: Why the hell not? Again, though, it’s going nowhere. It’s an intriguing idea, but too zany. ...
... On the subject of gambling, Cosmo has an interesting column on what’s wrong with the Lottery. The answer is partly this: Advertising. Or lack thereof. Very strange. They KNOW they can raise more money if they advertise more, but they won’t. ...
... The entire gambling issue doesn’t rev me up. I’m not against it for moral reasons, nor for it for economic reasons. There’s a part of me who says: Fine. Go ahead. The city needs a little more New Orleans-style decadence and naughtiness. Throw in a couple more high-class strip clubs, and out-of-town convention attendees will love it here. That’s how it works. Etc. But there’s another part of me who says: This is Massachusetts. I lived in Illinois when they introduced gambling there. Immediately changed the political landscape. The gaming industry became one of the biggest donors to politicians. Ex-lawmakers made a killing landing lobbying contracts with gaming interests. Nieces, nephews, brothers-in-law, wives etc. of lawmakers suddenly started getting jobs with riverboat gambling outfits. Repeat: This is Massachusetts, a political kissing-cousin of Illinois.
Update - 2:35 p.m. -- Reader M sent in a quick email on the item above about the Lottery and advertising, noting the Lottery can’t advertise because the Legislature, specifically Tom Birmingham, yanked its advertising funds. My response: I worded the item poorly. My use of ‘they’ refers to lawmakers. Cosmo does, in fact, explain the legislative angle in his column. The reader added: “Birmingham’s argument was always that spending tax revenues to induce the commonwealth’s citizens to place a sucker’s bet was inappropriate. I believe — with no evidence — it was also a nice way to take $10 million plus in advertising contracts away from Joe Malone’s friends.” My response: And with no evidence, but with this being Massachusetts, I agree with the Joe theory. Thanks.
... On the subject of gambling, Cosmo has an interesting column on what’s wrong with the Lottery. The answer is partly this: Advertising. Or lack thereof. Very strange. They KNOW they can raise more money if they advertise more, but they won’t. ...
... The entire gambling issue doesn’t rev me up. I’m not against it for moral reasons, nor for it for economic reasons. There’s a part of me who says: Fine. Go ahead. The city needs a little more New Orleans-style decadence and naughtiness. Throw in a couple more high-class strip clubs, and out-of-town convention attendees will love it here. That’s how it works. Etc. But there’s another part of me who says: This is Massachusetts. I lived in Illinois when they introduced gambling there. Immediately changed the political landscape. The gaming industry became one of the biggest donors to politicians. Ex-lawmakers made a killing landing lobbying contracts with gaming interests. Nieces, nephews, brothers-in-law, wives etc. of lawmakers suddenly started getting jobs with riverboat gambling outfits. Repeat: This is Massachusetts, a political kissing-cousin of Illinois.
Update - 2:35 p.m. -- Reader M sent in a quick email on the item above about the Lottery and advertising, noting the Lottery can’t advertise because the Legislature, specifically Tom Birmingham, yanked its advertising funds. My response: I worded the item poorly. My use of ‘they’ refers to lawmakers. Cosmo does, in fact, explain the legislative angle in his column. The reader added: “Birmingham’s argument was always that spending tax revenues to induce the commonwealth’s citizens to place a sucker’s bet was inappropriate. I believe — with no evidence — it was also a nice way to take $10 million plus in advertising contracts away from Joe Malone’s friends.” My response: And with no evidence, but with this being Massachusetts, I agree with the Joe theory. Thanks.
‘The capital sluice fund’: What the heck is the ‘capital sluice fund’? I mean, I know the Herald described it as “an unrestricted pot of cash that governors have traditionally used to reward supporters with pet projects.” I know. I know. Repeat to yourself Hub Blog: This is Massachusetts. But now the governor’s office and lawmakers are arguing over the $40 million, with some lawmakers saying Mitt’s trying to spend it before lawmakers can get their hands on it. Well, yeah. Duh. Who wouldn’t gobble down the last cookies when they saw Fat Elmo walking toward the kitchen?
‘Friends rule roost in Menino’s world’: Interesting column from Tom Keane, who only a week or so ago was nominating Mayor Menino for the U.S. Senate. Now I understand the logic. He just wants him out of City Hall.
Kerry and cancer: There is no ‘right’ way or ‘wrong’ way to announce you have cancer. Give the guy a break. He just learned he has cancer.
Mitt’s listening: Joan Vennochi, take a bow. He’s listening. ... This is getting weird. He actually admits mistakes and/or subtly acknowledges bloopers. Is this Massachusetts?
Lame Journalistic Lovefest With Lame Poets Society: Responding to Hub Blog’s appeal for help, Reader WS kindly sent in the full text of the Feb. 1 Globe editorial about the White House poetry controversy. No permanent link, alas. Seems the editorial got sucked into the paid-archive vortex (there goes old Ezra Pound again) and we can’t link ya here. But WS’s suggested excerpts are enough to prove my point that there’s nothing more embarrassing than reading journalists waxing poetry about poets. From MS:
“Hello, Am sending along the text of the Globe editorial you were seeking re poets and the White House. Favorite excerpts (from the Globe editorial):
‘What a fine, crackling public debate it would have been if the first lady had said: Let the angry poets come. Let them bring their metaphors of outrage, their similes of despair. Let the poets' grievances clash with the passions of politics. Let poets explain the wisdom of wielding compassion against a man who murders his own people. ...
‘One day there should be a White House that admits that poets are a dangerous bunch, unwilling to let us settle into a pleasant afternoon. These poets poke, prod, and pester -- which is precisely why they can speak so eloquently the beauty of the American voice.’ "
Hub Blog’s response: It’s as bad as I remember. ... As I was preparing this post last night, a friend and regular Hub Blog reader called up on another matter, so I took the opportunity to read him the excerpts from the editorial. After he listened, there was a long silence and he responded, “Is that a parody? Is this from The Onion?”
“Hello, Am sending along the text of the Globe editorial you were seeking re poets and the White House. Favorite excerpts (from the Globe editorial):
‘What a fine, crackling public debate it would have been if the first lady had said: Let the angry poets come. Let them bring their metaphors of outrage, their similes of despair. Let the poets' grievances clash with the passions of politics. Let poets explain the wisdom of wielding compassion against a man who murders his own people. ...
‘One day there should be a White House that admits that poets are a dangerous bunch, unwilling to let us settle into a pleasant afternoon. These poets poke, prod, and pester -- which is precisely why they can speak so eloquently the beauty of the American voice.’ "
Hub Blog’s response: It’s as bad as I remember. ... As I was preparing this post last night, a friend and regular Hub Blog reader called up on another matter, so I took the opportunity to read him the excerpts from the editorial. After he listened, there was a long silence and he responded, “Is that a parody? Is this from The Onion?”
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.
