Monday, March 31, 2003
Oliver Willis, Blogger criminal: Oliver finally admits it: He's a criminal. Knew it! ... Wait. He was just buying water at a 7-11 and got stopped by the police. Or so he says. ... He notes he's African American. ... Hmmmmm. But might it have something to do with the type of water you were buying, Oliver? ... (Via Boston Online's Boston Common.)
‘Abandon All Cars, Ye Who Enter Here’: The other day, Reader BK suggested I take my ‘Hub-Bloggian Babes’ and test drive the new I-93 tunnel, north. Instead, another Hub Blog reader took up the challenge. His report from a Sunday drive:
“Just came back from a trip through the new 93 North tunnel.
“A radio news report mentioned a multi-car pileup in the tunnel on Sunday, and referred to comments from sources at the Turnpike Authority who said it will probably take drivers ‘a few’ drive-throughs to become acquainted with the tunnel. Once again reinforcing that Boston (a ‘world-class city’) welcomes out-of-towners with the transportation message: Abandon All Cars, Ye Who Enter Here.
“The entrance of the tunnel is bathed in brilliant and jarring yellow-gold lights that make one instinctively wince. I suspect this is a ‘Shock and Awe’ strategy to slow traffic upon entering the tunnel.
“I don't think speed will be the problem, however. On Sunday, instead of driving through Boston at a soul-deadening pace of 15 mph above the ground, I found myself driving through Boston at a soul-deadening pace of 15 mph below the ground.”
“Just came back from a trip through the new 93 North tunnel.
“A radio news report mentioned a multi-car pileup in the tunnel on Sunday, and referred to comments from sources at the Turnpike Authority who said it will probably take drivers ‘a few’ drive-throughs to become acquainted with the tunnel. Once again reinforcing that Boston (a ‘world-class city’) welcomes out-of-towners with the transportation message: Abandon All Cars, Ye Who Enter Here.
“The entrance of the tunnel is bathed in brilliant and jarring yellow-gold lights that make one instinctively wince. I suspect this is a ‘Shock and Awe’ strategy to slow traffic upon entering the tunnel.
“I don't think speed will be the problem, however. On Sunday, instead of driving through Boston at a soul-deadening pace of 15 mph above the ground, I found myself driving through Boston at a soul-deadening pace of 15 mph below the ground.”
Next up -- The Silver Line’s ‘Little Dig’: More evidence and opinions keep streaming in confirming Hub Blog’s profound bias against and loathing for the Silver Line, the overrated non-rail BUS boondoggle that T officials love and most of the public ridicules. Jane Holtz Kay, author of ‘Lost Boston’ and 'Asphalt Nation: How the Automobile Took Over America and How We Can Get It Back,’ blasts away:
“This senseless project not only demonstrates a myopic T management but also one blind to the nature of the region it serves. Boston is a first-class rail city, a streetcar city shaped and sustained by rail. Urban rail is the cheapest, most efficient way to go.”
Kay describes the decision to move ahead with the Silver Line as “a sign of transportation and city planning run amok.” And concludes: “We have lived through a decade and a half in the heaps of an auto-age project. Let's not let this one bury us.”
“This senseless project not only demonstrates a myopic T management but also one blind to the nature of the region it serves. Boston is a first-class rail city, a streetcar city shaped and sustained by rail. Urban rail is the cheapest, most efficient way to go.”
Kay describes the decision to move ahead with the Silver Line as “a sign of transportation and city planning run amok.” And concludes: “We have lived through a decade and a half in the heaps of an auto-age project. Let's not let this one bury us.”
‘Zoning at issue in affordable housing’: Duh. Not taking a dig at the reporter or copy editor who wrote the story and headline. Both are extremely accurate. It’s the 'duh' fact that it’s taken so long for some government officials to recognize the obvious:
“They are learning what many planners and academic observers have long known: Most of the problems associated with Chapter 40B, the affordable housing law, can be traced to Chapter 40A, the state's zoning law.”
“They are learning what many planners and academic observers have long known: Most of the problems associated with Chapter 40B, the affordable housing law, can be traced to Chapter 40A, the state's zoning law.”
The 'perception' about state government unions: Adrian Walker looks into the latest interest group to wage war against any and all attempts at reform. Adrian obviously leans on the side of unions, while not sinking to the level of demonizing and dismissing critics of unions. Taking a cue from Adrian about civil discourse, Hub Blog announces I’m going to lean on the side of reform, while not sinking to the level of demonizing and dismissing unions.
Question: Can anyone seriously defend ‘bumping rights’ and why such cushy union rules shouldn’t lead people to the logical ‘perception’ that unions are part (not all) of the problem on Beacon Hill? ... Good points raised by Adrian about the Quinn bill and Mitt. Hub Blog’s view: Kill or dramatically scale it back. The Quinn Bill is a union giveaway. Now, can we apply the same reform logic to the ‘bumbing rights’ issue?
Question: Can anyone seriously defend ‘bumping rights’ and why such cushy union rules shouldn’t lead people to the logical ‘perception’ that unions are part (not all) of the problem on Beacon Hill? ... Good points raised by Adrian about the Quinn bill and Mitt. Hub Blog’s view: Kill or dramatically scale it back. The Quinn Bill is a union giveaway. Now, can we apply the same reform logic to the ‘bumbing rights’ issue?
The war: Killing the ‘Dragon’ -- and the next ‘Dragon’: For those who sway back and forth about the progress/purpose of the war, read Cathy Young’s op-ed this morning, based on a dark comedy written by Russian author Evgeny Schwartz about Stalin’s actions during the early days of Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union:
“Schwartz's acid satire was rather transparently directed at Stalin's propaganda machine and its spin of the devastating defeats Soviet forces initially suffered in the war against Hitler's invading armies. Today, it can be seen as applying not only to the Stalinesque Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein but, to some degree, to the reckless promises of a quick and easy victory many of our own leaders and pundits offered in the early days of the war.”
FYI: Schwartz’s drama doesn’t have a happy ending, as one Dragon is slain and replaced with another dragon.
“Schwartz's acid satire was rather transparently directed at Stalin's propaganda machine and its spin of the devastating defeats Soviet forces initially suffered in the war against Hitler's invading armies. Today, it can be seen as applying not only to the Stalinesque Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein but, to some degree, to the reckless promises of a quick and easy victory many of our own leaders and pundits offered in the early days of the war.”
FYI: Schwartz’s drama doesn’t have a happy ending, as one Dragon is slain and replaced with another dragon.
The war - ‘The Benchmark of victory’: Lots to worry about in Iraq: Saddam’s population-terrorizing thugs, suicide bombers, reports of more ‘martyrs’ entering the fray, early signs of a Pentagon/ex-generals/media rift etc. But then I read this editorial in the Boston-based Christian Science Monitor, which details what has been accomplished so far by allied forces in Iraq and, well, I felt a little better and even a little embarrassed for going wobbly a bit over the weekend. From CSM:
“The biggest victory so far is the resolve of the American people to see this job through. Hussein calculated he could deflate support for the war by forcing delays and creating civilian causalities. It's become increasingly clear he miscalculated.”
“The biggest victory so far is the resolve of the American people to see this job through. Hussein calculated he could deflate support for the war by forcing delays and creating civilian causalities. It's become increasingly clear he miscalculated.”
The war: Boston’s intrepid ‘embeds’: Two papers, two embeds, two good accounts of what it’s like being a journalist with the troops in Iraq.
From the Herald’s Jules Crittenden:
“Media commentators have asked what is the hardest part about being embedded. Well, it isn't that rough. I like it. ... We all wonder how long this will go on. I am sharing the soldier's life now and I don't want to leave before they have to. ... The soldiers wonder about this, ask if I volunteered for this, and if I can leave when I want to. Yes to all of the above. They are all fathers, brothers, sons. They signed up a few years ago. I sign my name every day. On days like little Devon's birthday, it's a hard choice."
From the Globe’s Brian MacQuarrie:
“I am counted among the official roster of this battalion, and every personnel check must account for me. I'm truly ‘embedded’ with the 1/10, and the way home for me matches the return ticket for the rest of these desert-weary troops -- through Baghdad.”
From the Herald’s Jules Crittenden:
“Media commentators have asked what is the hardest part about being embedded. Well, it isn't that rough. I like it. ... We all wonder how long this will go on. I am sharing the soldier's life now and I don't want to leave before they have to. ... The soldiers wonder about this, ask if I volunteered for this, and if I can leave when I want to. Yes to all of the above. They are all fathers, brothers, sons. They signed up a few years ago. I sign my name every day. On days like little Devon's birthday, it's a hard choice."
From the Globe’s Brian MacQuarrie:
“I am counted among the official roster of this battalion, and every personnel check must account for me. I'm truly ‘embedded’ with the 1/10, and the way home for me matches the return ticket for the rest of these desert-weary troops -- through Baghdad.”
On Boston protesters, Eric Alterman and Marty Baron: Reader No. 1 tackles a lot of issues mentioned in Hub Blog over the past weekend. Reader No. 1:
“To judge by what I read and saw on the antiwar march Saturday, the protesters are apparently not well informed about what is happening in Iraq now -- combatants machine-gunning citizens of the country they claim to be defending; using said citizens as human shields because they know our military won't shoot first and ask questions later. Many of the protesters express concern about how the rest of the world thinks about issues, which is a fair point, but how many protesters expressed much concern about the reality of Iraq before the invasion? Do the allegedly-well-educated look at the activities since the start of the war and think that more negotiations would have made any difference?
“Maybe they are hearing this on the news, which suggests 3 possibilities:
“1. They know and they rationalize it. (What would you do if someone invaded your country; poverty and lack of opportunity is the problem, etc)
“2. They know and they don't want to hear it, so they don't think about it. They're in denial.
“All of which suggests that the Globe's superbly revamped ‘IDEAS’ section is not catching on as well as I might have hoped. I agree that the Robert Kagan piece was very strong, although it would have been better without the obligatory trash-the-Americans closing which the rest of the article doesn't support. This is the kind of liberal bias which Eric Alterman doesn't acknowledge in his accompanying piece. A couple more thoughts on Alterman:
“1. Alterman doesn't help his own case by muddying the definition of ‘liberal.’ He acknowledges, correctly, that most journalists are liberal in terms of their social views. But he then bemoans the absence of media support for what is more correctly described as a statist or socialist agenda.
“2. To judge by the number of words spent on excoriating enthusiastic coverage of once-triumphant CEOs, what seems to bother Alterman more than ‘conservative bias’ is the triumph of capitalism in the past 20 years. While we weep and moan about the ‘concentration of media power,’ let's also acknowledge that paradoxically, it has given viewers choices that didn't exist -- you can watch Peter Jennings, or you can watch Bill O'Reilly.
“Finally, a kudos to Marty Barron for making the Globe eminently readable. It's still a ‘liberal’ paper but it's much more open to divergent opinion and much more focused on real live issues. ... So, now that Marty has put the Globe on the mostly right track, when does he get a chance to restore the reputation of the parent newspaper in NYC?”
“To judge by what I read and saw on the antiwar march Saturday, the protesters are apparently not well informed about what is happening in Iraq now -- combatants machine-gunning citizens of the country they claim to be defending; using said citizens as human shields because they know our military won't shoot first and ask questions later. Many of the protesters express concern about how the rest of the world thinks about issues, which is a fair point, but how many protesters expressed much concern about the reality of Iraq before the invasion? Do the allegedly-well-educated look at the activities since the start of the war and think that more negotiations would have made any difference?
“Maybe they are hearing this on the news, which suggests 3 possibilities:
“1. They know and they rationalize it. (What would you do if someone invaded your country; poverty and lack of opportunity is the problem, etc)
“2. They know and they don't want to hear it, so they don't think about it. They're in denial.
“All of which suggests that the Globe's superbly revamped ‘IDEAS’ section is not catching on as well as I might have hoped. I agree that the Robert Kagan piece was very strong, although it would have been better without the obligatory trash-the-Americans closing which the rest of the article doesn't support. This is the kind of liberal bias which Eric Alterman doesn't acknowledge in his accompanying piece. A couple more thoughts on Alterman:
“1. Alterman doesn't help his own case by muddying the definition of ‘liberal.’ He acknowledges, correctly, that most journalists are liberal in terms of their social views. But he then bemoans the absence of media support for what is more correctly described as a statist or socialist agenda.
“2. To judge by the number of words spent on excoriating enthusiastic coverage of once-triumphant CEOs, what seems to bother Alterman more than ‘conservative bias’ is the triumph of capitalism in the past 20 years. While we weep and moan about the ‘concentration of media power,’ let's also acknowledge that paradoxically, it has given viewers choices that didn't exist -- you can watch Peter Jennings, or you can watch Bill O'Reilly.
“Finally, a kudos to Marty Barron for making the Globe eminently readable. It's still a ‘liberal’ paper but it's much more open to divergent opinion and much more focused on real live issues. ... So, now that Marty has put the Globe on the mostly right track, when does he get a chance to restore the reputation of the parent newspaper in NYC?”
Sunday, March 30, 2003
You mean, the state hasn’t passed a budget yet?: So much war, so little attention to other issues. Such as the state budget debate. Almost forgot it was there. So let’s get back into the swing of things:
Mitt vs. the unions: Yet another interest group is warning the sky is falling -- on them, i.e. unions. The unions are saying Mitt is trying to ‘bust’ them by reclassifying many middle-level managers as non-union members. To a small extent, the charge is true. The move would indeed weaken unions -- and reduce their numbers. But, of course, they’re exaggerating the impact and hyping the numbers. Ultimately, the administration is going after ‘bumping rights’ -- the cushy union rule that allows senior state workers who are laid off “to take the job of virtually any colleague in their agency who has less seniority in state service. That can have a sometimes absurd 'domino effect’ where workers bump others down the line, resulting in employees who are only minimally qualified for their jobs, said John Jesensky, director of the state Office of Employee Relations.”
Says Jersensky: ''How do you put a price tag on all the inefficiency that results from not having the best qualified people filling jobs?''
Will unions compromise on the ‘bumping rights’ rule? Of course not. They want to frame the debate in the most stark union-vs.-antiunion terms possible.
That nutty gambling ‘shakedown’ idea: When Mitt first floated the idea of out-of-state casinos paying Massachusetts millions in exchange for our not approving casino gambling here, the idea was dismissed as nutty. Hub Blog also had a laugh at Mitt’s expense. But then it turned out there were indeed out-of-state casino owners willing to pay millions, though not as much as Mitt wanted. Suddenly, the idea was not so nutty. The idea had legs.
But Harvard law prof Laurence Tribe now says the idea still has no legs, for legal reasons having to do with restraining trade and anti-competition. Interesting.
Higher-education reform: Oh, what the heck. Let Eileen McNamara go off on Mitt’s higher-ed reforms and his no-new-taxes tuition/fee increases. Don’t agree with Eileen’s relentless, offer-no-solutions attacks on Mitt. But her column does get the old debate blood flowing again.
Mitt vs. the unions: Yet another interest group is warning the sky is falling -- on them, i.e. unions. The unions are saying Mitt is trying to ‘bust’ them by reclassifying many middle-level managers as non-union members. To a small extent, the charge is true. The move would indeed weaken unions -- and reduce their numbers. But, of course, they’re exaggerating the impact and hyping the numbers. Ultimately, the administration is going after ‘bumping rights’ -- the cushy union rule that allows senior state workers who are laid off “to take the job of virtually any colleague in their agency who has less seniority in state service. That can have a sometimes absurd 'domino effect’ where workers bump others down the line, resulting in employees who are only minimally qualified for their jobs, said John Jesensky, director of the state Office of Employee Relations.”
Says Jersensky: ''How do you put a price tag on all the inefficiency that results from not having the best qualified people filling jobs?''
Will unions compromise on the ‘bumping rights’ rule? Of course not. They want to frame the debate in the most stark union-vs.-antiunion terms possible.
That nutty gambling ‘shakedown’ idea: When Mitt first floated the idea of out-of-state casinos paying Massachusetts millions in exchange for our not approving casino gambling here, the idea was dismissed as nutty. Hub Blog also had a laugh at Mitt’s expense. But then it turned out there were indeed out-of-state casino owners willing to pay millions, though not as much as Mitt wanted. Suddenly, the idea was not so nutty. The idea had legs.
But Harvard law prof Laurence Tribe now says the idea still has no legs, for legal reasons having to do with restraining trade and anti-competition. Interesting.
Higher-education reform: Oh, what the heck. Let Eileen McNamara go off on Mitt’s higher-ed reforms and his no-new-taxes tuition/fee increases. Don’t agree with Eileen’s relentless, offer-no-solutions attacks on Mitt. But her column does get the old debate blood flowing again.
Cheap shot: The Herald’s ‘The buzz’ column throws what appears to be a cheap shot, though I’ll stand corrected if the ‘ties’ turn out to be different than what I suspect they are. The Herald:
“Ray Howell, a former campaign manager for ex-Gov. William F. Weld who used political ties to start a high-powered consulting business, now is peddling his ties to another powerful friend, new Boston Globe business editor Caleb Solomon.”
Turns out Howell’s web site has a pop-up ad bragging about how he organized a meeting with Solomon and ‘movers and shakers’ within the business and political community.
The item leaves a bad impression/doubt about Solomon, in my opinion.
Hub Blog’s reaction to the ‘meeting’: Big fucking deal. As a former business reporter/editor (at the Boston Business Journal), I was routinely paraded in front of corporate CEOs by PR types who wanted to brag to their clients about their contacts with business editors/reporters. Why did I do it? Because I wanted to meet with CEOs to build a relationship and to build up sources. CEOs are not like politicians: They’re based all across eastern Massachusetts, in non-public buildings you can’t just walk into while on a trolling mission for gossip and stories. Business leaders are just tough to meet and get hold of. As a business journalist, you take advantage of each and every opportunity you can to meet with private-sector ‘movers and shakers.’ That’s how the game is played in business journalism. ... Journalists also can't control the imbecilic rants/bragging of PR people. You should see their marketing brochures -- not just in their web pop-up ads -- about how they've 'placed' stories in papers like the Herald, Globe, BBJ, WSJ etc.
“Ray Howell, a former campaign manager for ex-Gov. William F. Weld who used political ties to start a high-powered consulting business, now is peddling his ties to another powerful friend, new Boston Globe business editor Caleb Solomon.”
Turns out Howell’s web site has a pop-up ad bragging about how he organized a meeting with Solomon and ‘movers and shakers’ within the business and political community.
The item leaves a bad impression/doubt about Solomon, in my opinion.
Hub Blog’s reaction to the ‘meeting’: Big fucking deal. As a former business reporter/editor (at the Boston Business Journal), I was routinely paraded in front of corporate CEOs by PR types who wanted to brag to their clients about their contacts with business editors/reporters. Why did I do it? Because I wanted to meet with CEOs to build a relationship and to build up sources. CEOs are not like politicians: They’re based all across eastern Massachusetts, in non-public buildings you can’t just walk into while on a trolling mission for gossip and stories. Business leaders are just tough to meet and get hold of. As a business journalist, you take advantage of each and every opportunity you can to meet with private-sector ‘movers and shakers.’ That’s how the game is played in business journalism. ... Journalists also can't control the imbecilic rants/bragging of PR people. You should see their marketing brochures -- not just in their web pop-up ads -- about how they've 'placed' stories in papers like the Herald, Globe, BBJ, WSJ etc.
Eric Alterman gets his say on the media in the Globe: Eric Alterman -- the Nation media writer and author of the new book ‘What Liberal Media?’ -- opines on the same subject in a Globe ‘Ideas’ piece. Quickly: Eric says conservatives have more media power than liberals. A liberal himself, Eric argues grunt reporters and editors, who he acknowledges are mostly liberal and Democratic in their leanings, really don’t have as much power to sway public opinion as conservatives think because of their attempts to be fair/objective and because of corporate dominance of the media.
I’ve written about this subject before. Sort of agree with Eric. Sort of. Quickly: I’ve made the distinction that the ‘opinion media' is definitely dominated by conservatives. I’ve also said that the ‘mainstream’ media is largely liberal -- and it’s admirably gotten less liberal in recent years. But that’s not to say they’re not powerful in their ability to choose, shape and spin stories to match their political views, consciously or unconsciously.
Still, I believe conservatives, through the opinion media, are definitely, undeniably setting the political agenda on most issues. Not only do they outnumber liberals in the opinion media, the hard-core conservatives are also fanatical and relentless. On that, I agree with Eric, 100 percent. But I also think that conservative dominance has something to do with their winning the war of ideas, while the left wallows in its silly, moralistic ‘60s nostalgia that turns off so many people.
I’ve written about this subject before. Sort of agree with Eric. Sort of. Quickly: I’ve made the distinction that the ‘opinion media' is definitely dominated by conservatives. I’ve also said that the ‘mainstream’ media is largely liberal -- and it’s admirably gotten less liberal in recent years. But that’s not to say they’re not powerful in their ability to choose, shape and spin stories to match their political views, consciously or unconsciously.
Still, I believe conservatives, through the opinion media, are definitely, undeniably setting the political agenda on most issues. Not only do they outnumber liberals in the opinion media, the hard-core conservatives are also fanatical and relentless. On that, I agree with Eric, 100 percent. But I also think that conservative dominance has something to do with their winning the war of ideas, while the left wallows in its silly, moralistic ‘60s nostalgia that turns off so many people.
Speaking of ideologues ...: A truly terrific, terrific op-ed this morning by NYU’s Jonathan Zimmerman, who writes about the ''Liberal Antiwar Fallacy.'' Zimmerman is liberal. He even uses the word to describe both himself and, yes, the antiwar movement. He blasts both liberals and conservatives who demonize their opponents over the issue of the war.
... He raises a fascinating point, both about antiwar protesters and Bush: The open and/or near religious-like fanaticism on both sides, i.e. the ‘moral absolution.’ Zimmerman:
“Both sides, then, are operating in profoundly bad faith: they each presume that decent, knowledgeable people will agree with them.”
... He raises a fascinating point, both about antiwar protesters and Bush: The open and/or near religious-like fanaticism on both sides, i.e. the ‘moral absolution.’ Zimmerman:
“Both sides, then, are operating in profoundly bad faith: they each presume that decent, knowledgeable people will agree with them.”
Robert Kagan -- the neoconservative mentor of the ‘Bush Doctrine’: Gee, a lot of discussion today on ideological/war matters, left and right. Anyway, here’s a good piece on Robert Kagan. I disagree with so many issues Kagan pushes, but the article is fair and insightful. Kagan managed to clear up a few matters for me on his neoconservative philosophy on American power, foreign policy and pre-emption in the modern age. I still don’t think the unilateralist neoconservatives understand/appreciate how they can better use the UN and our alliances in a more realistic, less dismissive fashion, but Kagan’s at least aware of the argument. Appreciated this graf from the story:
“The Bush administration could certainly have tried harder to avoid the break with European allies, Kagan concedes. As he told a crowd of politicians and notables in London in mid-March, ‘There has been undoubtedly a lapse of statesmanship on the American side. No one not in the direct employ of the Bush administration could deny that. The way the administration has handled things couldn't be better designed to create ill will.’ But Kagan comes down much harder on the Europeans.”
Ding, ding, ding! Hub Blog’s He’s-Botched-It Hawk position partially vindicated/acknowledged from someone on the neoconservative right! ... And the digs at Europe, well, who can not love that? ...
Speaking of the ‘Bush Doctrine,’ the Herald tackles the issue in this piece, which looks at how the doctrine is being tested today in Iraq. ... One more: ‘Rumsfeld's tipping-point strategy’ and how it flopped in Iraq.
“The Bush administration could certainly have tried harder to avoid the break with European allies, Kagan concedes. As he told a crowd of politicians and notables in London in mid-March, ‘There has been undoubtedly a lapse of statesmanship on the American side. No one not in the direct employ of the Bush administration could deny that. The way the administration has handled things couldn't be better designed to create ill will.’ But Kagan comes down much harder on the Europeans.”
Ding, ding, ding! Hub Blog’s He’s-Botched-It Hawk position partially vindicated/acknowledged from someone on the neoconservative right! ... And the digs at Europe, well, who can not love that? ...
Speaking of the ‘Bush Doctrine,’ the Herald tackles the issue in this piece, which looks at how the doctrine is being tested today in Iraq. ... One more: ‘Rumsfeld's tipping-point strategy’ and how it flopped in Iraq.
The non-political political peace rally in Boston: From today's Globe story about yesterday's antiwar rally on Boston Common and subsequent antiwar march (see two posts below for context):
Mention of the words ‘liberal’ or ‘liberals’ in the story: 0. As in ‘zero’ mention.
Mention of the words ‘left’ or ‘leftist’ or ‘left-wing’ or ‘radical’ etc.: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of the words ‘politics’ or ‘political’: 1. As in ‘one.’
Mention of the words ‘ideology’ or ‘ideological’: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of any other politically related word commonly used in all other ‘political’ stories that might indicate where antiwar and prowar citizens might be coming from in terms of their ‘political’ identity: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Nope. The rally/march was not about politics. Nor is the war, I guess.
P.S. -- The article makes a good point: It was indeed very peaceful, and I had interesting conversations with a lot of good-natured people. At one point, I told a protester I was a 'moderate conservative,' for lack of other words, and how there was a big debate within conservative circles about the war and the future of American foreign policy. She looked at me incredulously and said, 'Conservatives are arguing among themselves?' I assured her it was true.
Update -- The Herald has two stories on the rally/march -- here and then here. Again, no serious political analysis of the rally/march, as if politics and the political views of organizers/speakers/attendees don't matter. The first story does have a political reference to a 'conservative.' The second article does mention the word 'politically.' ... I wonder if Eric Alterman, whose Globe article this morning will/should be posted above, has any explanation for this strange phenomenon?. ... I have my suspicions, which comes down to this: Are reporters afraid to call the vast, vast majority of protesters 'liberal' or of the 'left' -- descriptions that would bring down charges of 'McCarthyism' if they did so? Just wondering. ... I would love to have a reporter/editor explain to me why yesterday's rally/march wasn't 'political' in nature -- and thus why the debate over the war isn't 'political' in nature -- and therefore why such stories should not emphasize 'politics.'
Mention of the words ‘liberal’ or ‘liberals’ in the story: 0. As in ‘zero’ mention.
Mention of the words ‘left’ or ‘leftist’ or ‘left-wing’ or ‘radical’ etc.: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of the words ‘politics’ or ‘political’: 1. As in ‘one.’
Mention of the words ‘ideology’ or ‘ideological’: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of any other politically related word commonly used in all other ‘political’ stories that might indicate where antiwar and prowar citizens might be coming from in terms of their ‘political’ identity: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Nope. The rally/march was not about politics. Nor is the war, I guess.
P.S. -- The article makes a good point: It was indeed very peaceful, and I had interesting conversations with a lot of good-natured people. At one point, I told a protester I was a 'moderate conservative,' for lack of other words, and how there was a big debate within conservative circles about the war and the future of American foreign policy. She looked at me incredulously and said, 'Conservatives are arguing among themselves?' I assured her it was true.
Update -- The Herald has two stories on the rally/march -- here and then here. Again, no serious political analysis of the rally/march, as if politics and the political views of organizers/speakers/attendees don't matter. The first story does have a political reference to a 'conservative.' The second article does mention the word 'politically.' ... I wonder if Eric Alterman, whose Globe article this morning will/should be posted above, has any explanation for this strange phenomenon?. ... I have my suspicions, which comes down to this: Are reporters afraid to call the vast, vast majority of protesters 'liberal' or of the 'left' -- descriptions that would bring down charges of 'McCarthyism' if they did so? Just wondering. ... I would love to have a reporter/editor explain to me why yesterday's rally/march wasn't 'political' in nature -- and thus why the debate over the war isn't 'political' in nature -- and therefore why such stories should not emphasize 'politics.'
Saturday, March 29, 2003
Oh, no, the Boston Common antiwar rally wasn’t really ‘left wing’: Boy, I can’t wait to read tomorrow morning’s newspaper accounts of today’s antiwar rally/march in Boston -- especially after reading this pre-rally article and then this pre-rally sidebar in today’s Globe. (More on the two pre-antiwar rally articles directly below.) I was at today’s rally on the Common. Here is what I saw and heard:
Signs: ‘A.N.S.W.E.R’ ... ‘Vive la France’ ... ‘No blood for oil’ ... ‘CNN - Profiteering’ ... ‘911/WTC - Bush’s Reichstag Fire’ ... ‘Bomb Texas-It Has Oil.’ ... ‘Eat Another Pretzel, Asshole’ ... ‘Industrial Workers of the World’ ... ‘No War in Iraq - Free Palestine’ ... ‘Impeach the Dictator’ .... Lots and lots of Green Peace signs and colors ... Lots and lots of peace-symbol signs, in various sizes and shapes and styles ... ‘Bush and Kerry lie/Iraq and Children die’ ... ‘Dean for President’ ... ‘Welcome to fascist America’ (with photos of Hitler and Bush with a Hitler mustache) ... ‘Class war towards social revolution’ ... ‘The real ‘Shock and Awe’ is our country’s nuclear cock.’ ... ‘Victims of of Terrorism - NYC, Belgrade, Grozny, Baghdad’ ... ‘Radical Organizers for Peace’ ... ‘Bring our troops home/NOW!’ ... ‘War is illogical’ ... ‘Support our troops/Bring them home’ ... ‘It’s all about oil’ ... ‘No war for oil’ ... ‘Imperial Bush - the Dictator’ ... Lots of photos of Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in not-so-flattering
poses/captions ...
Signs that might be construed as ‘moderate’ if you willfully refused to believe there was no political motive behind them: ‘Veterans Against War’ ... ‘Airline employees against the war’ ... ‘Arlington Street Church Against ...’ ... ‘Support our troops’ ... ‘Boston Jews for Peace’ ... ‘Mother of All Blunders’ ... American flags, some waved, some worn around their shoulders ala Woodstock, one with a swatzstika where the stars should be. ...
My favorite sign: ‘911/WTC - Bush’s Reichstag Fire.’
Most accurate ideological/religious sign (when you think about it): ‘The world is my country/My religion is to do good’ ... (Along the same lines, saw lots of kids at the rally being ‘baptized,’ for lack of other words, into the ‘religion.’)
Best political costumes/Mardi Gras ‘festive’ antics: The M*A*S*H ‘Street Medics’ tent with a woman out front wearing a warlock/wizard/Merlin-like hat; no ‘patients’ seen inside ... Women dancing around in Vestal Virgin outfits ... Lots of cool, elaborate, time-consuming-to-make and gigantic plaster/whatever Bush masks and heads. ... Protesters on stilts. ... Protesters with skull masks. ... dolls covered with fake blood. ... Musicians Against the War ... Strange/Hard-to-categorize Anarchists with ominous black bandannas tied around their faces -- and rightly surrounded by cops ... Buddhas banging drums. ... Non-Asian Buddhas banging drums. ... Lots of earthy-looking people beating drums, tambourines etc. ... Someone wearing a cardboard dolphin outfit with the sign, ‘Bush - Mine your own business’ ... A Mardi Gras-like street band playing ragtime tunes ... Lots of aging and smiling ‘60s-era Boomers taking pictures of grandchildren posing with protesters wearing George Bush masks and giving the peace sign etc. ... and etc. etc.
Average dress of average protester: Upper-middle-class/GAP/Banana Republic garb; a disappointing low number of ‘hippie’ clothes; definitely no shortage of the grungy Seattle look and what might be described by the Globe as the ‘more educated’ uniforms of every-day ‘longtime liberal activists’ from Newton/Cambridge. ... No sign of what might be described as ‘working-class New England Patriots fans,’ i.e. not ONE Drew Bledsoe, Tom Brady or Bruins jersey.
Booths and stands selling books, stickers, sweat shirts etc. for: ANSWER. ... Revolution Books. ... Peace Products. ... Socialism. ... Peace Resource Project ... Noam Chomsky books etc. ... No NRA or ROTC stands spotted.
Among the non-partisan organizers of the rally/march: A.N.S.W.E.R and United For Justice With Peace.
Among the partisan groups who didn’t claim credit for the rally/march: YAF, the Moral Majority, the Rotary Club, VFW Halls, the Boy Scouts of Massachusetts, Our Lady of Fatima CYO Basketball League, the Boston Firefighters union etc. etc. etc.
Speakers, poets and random chants/rants: A representative from ‘Military Families Speak Out’ ... An MC who kept shouting in between speakers, ‘You’re beautiful! Look at you! You’re beautiful!’ -- to cheers ... Lots of talk of patriotism and attacks on those who questioned their patriotism while constantly mocking patriotism. ... ‘The people united will not be defeated!’ ... ‘Sisters and brothers!’ ... ‘No war in Iraq! Free Palestine!’ ... ‘I am an Iraqi!/I don’t want war!’ She read from a poem that didn’t make it clear if she really had gone through gas attacks, war, Saddam etc., as she appeared/implied to be claiming. Could be wrong about that. Willing to stand corrected. ... ‘I say we look like America!’ ... City councilor Chuck Turner, who ranted about the ‘military industrial complex’ ... Kaffia-wearing ‘traditional Palestinian dancers’ ... Rappers talking about ‘Revolution!’ and ‘Diversity!’ and 'Racism!' ... ‘activist’ students from Emerson and MIT who belong to the Green Party and who ‘organize’ on campus against racism and for feminism and ‘queers’ (their word, not mine) etc. ... ‘What do we want?’ ‘Peace!’ ‘When do we want it?’ ‘Now!’ ... ‘Fight for Jobs, not War!’ ‘Bring home the troops!’ ... ‘Revolution!’ etc. ... A lot of union leaders; no rank-and-file union members. Biggest chant disappointment: No ‘Hey ho ...’ nor ‘One, two, three, four, we don’t want ...’ Couldn’t believe it! I felt cheated!
Estimate of crowd: I’ll give it to them -- 50,000. Definitely tens of thousands. No doubt. But definitely less than the average attendance at a New England Patriots game -- and those fans pay up the ass to drive 45 miles to see a game in Foxborough. (Update - Today's papers are reporting the rally attendance at about 25,000. I thought it looked larger, personally, but I'm not a crowd-estimate expert.)
Estimate of non-leftist/non-Democratic attendees at the rally: In Massachusetts? C’mon. Use your friggin’ common sense.
Conclusion: Oh, no, the rally wasn’t really ‘leftist’ in nature or preponderance. Lots of diversity. ...
Signs: ‘A.N.S.W.E.R’ ... ‘Vive la France’ ... ‘No blood for oil’ ... ‘CNN - Profiteering’ ... ‘911/WTC - Bush’s Reichstag Fire’ ... ‘Bomb Texas-It Has Oil.’ ... ‘Eat Another Pretzel, Asshole’ ... ‘Industrial Workers of the World’ ... ‘No War in Iraq - Free Palestine’ ... ‘Impeach the Dictator’ .... Lots and lots of Green Peace signs and colors ... Lots and lots of peace-symbol signs, in various sizes and shapes and styles ... ‘Bush and Kerry lie/Iraq and Children die’ ... ‘Dean for President’ ... ‘Welcome to fascist America’ (with photos of Hitler and Bush with a Hitler mustache) ... ‘Class war towards social revolution’ ... ‘The real ‘Shock and Awe’ is our country’s nuclear cock.’ ... ‘Victims of of Terrorism - NYC, Belgrade, Grozny, Baghdad’ ... ‘Radical Organizers for Peace’ ... ‘Bring our troops home/NOW!’ ... ‘War is illogical’ ... ‘Support our troops/Bring them home’ ... ‘It’s all about oil’ ... ‘No war for oil’ ... ‘Imperial Bush - the Dictator’ ... Lots of photos of Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in not-so-flattering
poses/captions ...
Signs that might be construed as ‘moderate’ if you willfully refused to believe there was no political motive behind them: ‘Veterans Against War’ ... ‘Airline employees against the war’ ... ‘Arlington Street Church Against ...’ ... ‘Support our troops’ ... ‘Boston Jews for Peace’ ... ‘Mother of All Blunders’ ... American flags, some waved, some worn around their shoulders ala Woodstock, one with a swatzstika where the stars should be. ...
My favorite sign: ‘911/WTC - Bush’s Reichstag Fire.’
Most accurate ideological/religious sign (when you think about it): ‘The world is my country/My religion is to do good’ ... (Along the same lines, saw lots of kids at the rally being ‘baptized,’ for lack of other words, into the ‘religion.’)
Best political costumes/Mardi Gras ‘festive’ antics: The M*A*S*H ‘Street Medics’ tent with a woman out front wearing a warlock/wizard/Merlin-like hat; no ‘patients’ seen inside ... Women dancing around in Vestal Virgin outfits ... Lots of cool, elaborate, time-consuming-to-make and gigantic plaster/whatever Bush masks and heads. ... Protesters on stilts. ... Protesters with skull masks. ... dolls covered with fake blood. ... Musicians Against the War ... Strange/Hard-to-categorize Anarchists with ominous black bandannas tied around their faces -- and rightly surrounded by cops ... Buddhas banging drums. ... Non-Asian Buddhas banging drums. ... Lots of earthy-looking people beating drums, tambourines etc. ... Someone wearing a cardboard dolphin outfit with the sign, ‘Bush - Mine your own business’ ... A Mardi Gras-like street band playing ragtime tunes ... Lots of aging and smiling ‘60s-era Boomers taking pictures of grandchildren posing with protesters wearing George Bush masks and giving the peace sign etc. ... and etc. etc.
Average dress of average protester: Upper-middle-class/GAP/Banana Republic garb; a disappointing low number of ‘hippie’ clothes; definitely no shortage of the grungy Seattle look and what might be described by the Globe as the ‘more educated’ uniforms of every-day ‘longtime liberal activists’ from Newton/Cambridge. ... No sign of what might be described as ‘working-class New England Patriots fans,’ i.e. not ONE Drew Bledsoe, Tom Brady or Bruins jersey.
Booths and stands selling books, stickers, sweat shirts etc. for: ANSWER. ... Revolution Books. ... Peace Products. ... Socialism. ... Peace Resource Project ... Noam Chomsky books etc. ... No NRA or ROTC stands spotted.
Among the non-partisan organizers of the rally/march: A.N.S.W.E.R and United For Justice With Peace.
Among the partisan groups who didn’t claim credit for the rally/march: YAF, the Moral Majority, the Rotary Club, VFW Halls, the Boy Scouts of Massachusetts, Our Lady of Fatima CYO Basketball League, the Boston Firefighters union etc. etc. etc.
Speakers, poets and random chants/rants: A representative from ‘Military Families Speak Out’ ... An MC who kept shouting in between speakers, ‘You’re beautiful! Look at you! You’re beautiful!’ -- to cheers ... Lots of talk of patriotism and attacks on those who questioned their patriotism while constantly mocking patriotism. ... ‘The people united will not be defeated!’ ... ‘Sisters and brothers!’ ... ‘No war in Iraq! Free Palestine!’ ... ‘I am an Iraqi!/I don’t want war!’ She read from a poem that didn’t make it clear if she really had gone through gas attacks, war, Saddam etc., as she appeared/implied to be claiming. Could be wrong about that. Willing to stand corrected. ... ‘I say we look like America!’ ... City councilor Chuck Turner, who ranted about the ‘military industrial complex’ ... Kaffia-wearing ‘traditional Palestinian dancers’ ... Rappers talking about ‘Revolution!’ and ‘Diversity!’ and 'Racism!' ... ‘activist’ students from Emerson and MIT who belong to the Green Party and who ‘organize’ on campus against racism and for feminism and ‘queers’ (their word, not mine) etc. ... ‘What do we want?’ ‘Peace!’ ‘When do we want it?’ ‘Now!’ ... ‘Fight for Jobs, not War!’ ‘Bring home the troops!’ ... ‘Revolution!’ etc. ... A lot of union leaders; no rank-and-file union members. Biggest chant disappointment: No ‘Hey ho ...’ nor ‘One, two, three, four, we don’t want ...’ Couldn’t believe it! I felt cheated!
Estimate of crowd: I’ll give it to them -- 50,000. Definitely tens of thousands. No doubt. But definitely less than the average attendance at a New England Patriots game -- and those fans pay up the ass to drive 45 miles to see a game in Foxborough. (Update - Today's papers are reporting the rally attendance at about 25,000. I thought it looked larger, personally, but I'm not a crowd-estimate expert.)
Estimate of non-leftist/non-Democratic attendees at the rally: In Massachusetts? C’mon. Use your friggin’ common sense.
Conclusion: Oh, no, the rally wasn’t really ‘leftist’ in nature or preponderance. Lots of diversity. ...
The Globe’s strange Sociology Journalism -- as applied to antiwar stories: In this pre-antiwar rally story and in this sidebar pre-antiwar rally story -- both in the Globe today; didn’t check the Herald -- Hub Blog counted the following in both stories, combined:
Mention of the words ‘liberal’ or ‘liberals’: 1. As in ‘one’ mention. That’s it.
Mention of the words ‘left’ or ‘leftist’ or ‘left-wing’ or ‘radical’ etc.: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of the words ‘politics’ or ‘political’: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of the words ‘ideology’ or ‘ideological’: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of any other politically related word commonly used in all other ‘political’ stories that might indicate where antiwar and prowar citizens might be coming from in terms of their ‘political’ identity: 0. As in ‘zero.’
So what does the Globe talk about? ‘Class’ and ‘geography’ and ‘demographics,’ etc. In other words, the articles are classic examples of -- drum roll please -- pseudo-sophisticated Sociological Journalism, devoid of any political analysis about what is, ultimately, a political debate and movement. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh! These stories should be every grizzled city editor’s worst nightmare: Reporters pulling political punches by covering up the politically obvious with pseudo-sophisticated sociological mumbo jumbo. ...
... The second sidebar story -- with the headline 'Peace activists work to cross boundaries of class, geography' -- is utteraly fascinating because it actually tries to explain the cultural/political divide between the antiwar and prowar sides. Without using political terminology to explain it. Can you imagine reading political coverage of the past gubernatorial election with this type of pseudo-sophisticated sociological language and analysis? No use of the words ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘moderate’ or ‘radical’ or ‘far right-wing’ or ‘far left wing’ or ‘muddled middle’ or ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’ or ‘Libertarian’ or ‘Green’ or ‘Independent’? Can you imagine everything in the past gubernatorial election being boiled down to just where voters lived (‘geography’) and what income/education level they’re at (‘class’) or what racial group they belonged to (‘ethnicity’)? Granted, there’s a time and place for such analysis. But it breaks down at some point in POLITICAL reporting -- and usually quite quickly, especially in America. ...
Back to the war and antiwar rally: Can you imagine reading any other story about the raging domestic debate over the war -- unless it’s about the antiwar movement -- in which reporters don’t employ commonly used political words and phrases to describe events and people and their ideas? ... Or is the Globe suggesting, based on these two antiwar stories, that there are no 'politics' involved in the debate over the war? ...
Hub Blog LOVED this part of the Globe story in the second of the above-linked stories:
“Some antiwar activists said this week that they still sense a divide between the city's intellectual elite and its working-class population. ... ‘We're more upper-class,’ said Dan Kantoff of Brighton, an activist with the group Food Not Bombs. ‘The more educated you are, the more you're going to see, the more you're going to be aware of what's going on.’”
Wow. They ‘still sense’ a cultural/political divide (without referring to 'politics') after everything we saw and learned in the 20th Century? What planet are they on? ... Hello, Dan Kantoff! Can I ask a few questions, Dan? ... You see, Hub Blog is in a complex socio-political and economic quandary. I’m upper-class/upper-middle-class. I’m among those ‘more educated’ from elite, private universities. I’m from the ‘professional’ class. I think I’m a little ‘intellectual,’ or at least as ‘intellectual’ as the average ‘antiwar activist,’ Dan. My questions, Dan: Why don’t I see the world the same way as you do, given all our socio-political and economic similarities, Dan? Why am I not more ‘aware’ like you, Dan? Why am I a ‘moderate conservative’ with deep reservations about the war and how it started and still disagree with you, Dan? ... Why are MY views more in line with the working-class population you say you want to connect with, Dan? Hmmmmmm. ....
... Questions in general: Who benefits from this type of politically neutered reporting in the Globe? Who wants their ‘movement’ to come across as non-partisan and as ‘broad based’ as possible?
Mention of the words ‘liberal’ or ‘liberals’: 1. As in ‘one’ mention. That’s it.
Mention of the words ‘left’ or ‘leftist’ or ‘left-wing’ or ‘radical’ etc.: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of the words ‘politics’ or ‘political’: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of the words ‘ideology’ or ‘ideological’: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of any other politically related word commonly used in all other ‘political’ stories that might indicate where antiwar and prowar citizens might be coming from in terms of their ‘political’ identity: 0. As in ‘zero.’
So what does the Globe talk about? ‘Class’ and ‘geography’ and ‘demographics,’ etc. In other words, the articles are classic examples of -- drum roll please -- pseudo-sophisticated Sociological Journalism, devoid of any political analysis about what is, ultimately, a political debate and movement. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh! These stories should be every grizzled city editor’s worst nightmare: Reporters pulling political punches by covering up the politically obvious with pseudo-sophisticated sociological mumbo jumbo. ...
... The second sidebar story -- with the headline 'Peace activists work to cross boundaries of class, geography' -- is utteraly fascinating because it actually tries to explain the cultural/political divide between the antiwar and prowar sides. Without using political terminology to explain it. Can you imagine reading political coverage of the past gubernatorial election with this type of pseudo-sophisticated sociological language and analysis? No use of the words ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘moderate’ or ‘radical’ or ‘far right-wing’ or ‘far left wing’ or ‘muddled middle’ or ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’ or ‘Libertarian’ or ‘Green’ or ‘Independent’? Can you imagine everything in the past gubernatorial election being boiled down to just where voters lived (‘geography’) and what income/education level they’re at (‘class’) or what racial group they belonged to (‘ethnicity’)? Granted, there’s a time and place for such analysis. But it breaks down at some point in POLITICAL reporting -- and usually quite quickly, especially in America. ...
Back to the war and antiwar rally: Can you imagine reading any other story about the raging domestic debate over the war -- unless it’s about the antiwar movement -- in which reporters don’t employ commonly used political words and phrases to describe events and people and their ideas? ... Or is the Globe suggesting, based on these two antiwar stories, that there are no 'politics' involved in the debate over the war? ...
Hub Blog LOVED this part of the Globe story in the second of the above-linked stories:
“Some antiwar activists said this week that they still sense a divide between the city's intellectual elite and its working-class population. ... ‘We're more upper-class,’ said Dan Kantoff of Brighton, an activist with the group Food Not Bombs. ‘The more educated you are, the more you're going to see, the more you're going to be aware of what's going on.’”
Wow. They ‘still sense’ a cultural/political divide (without referring to 'politics') after everything we saw and learned in the 20th Century? What planet are they on? ... Hello, Dan Kantoff! Can I ask a few questions, Dan? ... You see, Hub Blog is in a complex socio-political and economic quandary. I’m upper-class/upper-middle-class. I’m among those ‘more educated’ from elite, private universities. I’m from the ‘professional’ class. I think I’m a little ‘intellectual,’ or at least as ‘intellectual’ as the average ‘antiwar activist,’ Dan. My questions, Dan: Why don’t I see the world the same way as you do, given all our socio-political and economic similarities, Dan? Why am I not more ‘aware’ like you, Dan? Why am I a ‘moderate conservative’ with deep reservations about the war and how it started and still disagree with you, Dan? ... Why are MY views more in line with the working-class population you say you want to connect with, Dan? Hmmmmmm. ....
... Questions in general: Who benefits from this type of politically neutered reporting in the Globe? Who wants their ‘movement’ to come across as non-partisan and as ‘broad based’ as possible?
Friday, March 28, 2003
‘Hub-Bloggian Babes and driving thru the new tunnel': A reader writes in with a question related to yet another local story that hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves in recent days, i.e. the new I-93 Tunnel:
“Query: Will Hub Blog be getting into a car with several of his Hub-Bloggian Babes and driving thru the South-North side of the Big Dig when it is opened for him this coming Sunday? Hope so, and I expect to read Hub Blog's initial assessment of how well his (and his children's, and their children's) tax dollars were spent on this project no later than Monday."
Hub Blog’s response: I’ll try, though I may be suffering from emotional exhaustion/compassion fatigue after attending the big rally tomorrow on the Common.
“Query: Will Hub Blog be getting into a car with several of his Hub-Bloggian Babes and driving thru the South-North side of the Big Dig when it is opened for him this coming Sunday? Hope so, and I expect to read Hub Blog's initial assessment of how well his (and his children's, and their children's) tax dollars were spent on this project no later than Monday."
Hub Blog’s response: I’ll try, though I may be suffering from emotional exhaustion/compassion fatigue after attending the big rally tomorrow on the Common.
Speaking of local construction projects: Did Mitt and Doug Foy really announce this Longfellow Bridge project without first running it by Beacon Hill’s official Sidewalk Superintendent? I just wish they could learn to follow standard political protocol.
Blogger strafes Phoenix’s 'War and Peace,' attack met by ground fire: One’s attacking it. One’s defending it. Take it away Cosmo. ... P.S. One of the criticisms centers on the blog’s lack of hyperlinks, though I wasn’t very fond of the favorable hyperlink to a Robert Fisk article, obviously. ... FYI: Hub Blog’s aircraft-carrier propeller is still being repaired.
Martin Nolan on Daniel Patrick Moynihan: With the war entering its second week, don’t forget the sad passing away of Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Marty Nolan hasn’t. A wonderful piece that reminded me how deep Moynihan’s roots were in Massachusetts, particularly at my old alma mater, Tufts. From Nolan: “In academe, Moynihan kept his head on the Harvard faculty because, he proudly said, he had five degrees from Tufts University (the odd one is Bachelor of Naval Science).” ...
... Mickey Kaus, who closely follows welfare reform issues, has a terrific tribute to Moynihan, as well as lots of Moynihan obituary/analysis links. FYI: Mickey makes an interesting point about Moynihan: He was one of the first people to identify the profound flaws in Great Society welfare programs, but Moynihan could never pinpoint and/or accept possible solutions to those flaws. ... Mickey also relates a fond story about Moynihan singing away at a Somerville bar.
... Mickey Kaus, who closely follows welfare reform issues, has a terrific tribute to Moynihan, as well as lots of Moynihan obituary/analysis links. FYI: Mickey makes an interesting point about Moynihan: He was one of the first people to identify the profound flaws in Great Society welfare programs, but Moynihan could never pinpoint and/or accept possible solutions to those flaws. ... Mickey also relates a fond story about Moynihan singing away at a Somerville bar.
One down, two to go: John Bulger plans to ‘plead guilty to charges that he lied to a federal grand jury and obstructed efforts by investigators to capture his notorious brother James.’ ... As they say, it’s a start. ...
Update -- The UMass chancellors (yes, plural) are urging Mitt to meet with Billy concerning higher-ed reforms. Understand Mitt's reluctance, but, sooner or later, he's going to meet with/bump into the guy, who undoubtably will try to embarrass Mitt when it inevitably happens. Might as well orchestrate/manage the confrontation. ... Pull a Jo Moore and just get it over with and get the carping critics to stop their shameless we-love-you-Billy yelping.
Now to the war. ...
Update -- The UMass chancellors (yes, plural) are urging Mitt to meet with Billy concerning higher-ed reforms. Understand Mitt's reluctance, but, sooner or later, he's going to meet with/bump into the guy, who undoubtably will try to embarrass Mitt when it inevitably happens. Might as well orchestrate/manage the confrontation. ... Pull a Jo Moore and just get it over with and get the carping critics to stop their shameless we-love-you-Billy yelping.
Now to the war. ...
CSM correspondent unfairly gets the boot: C’mon. Give me a break. The Christian Science Monitor correspondent who was booted out of Iraq yesterday was only stating the obvious, though he might have been a tad bit too specific in real time, at worst. Everyone closely following this war knows where the Marines are generally located. ... Look at this story from the Globe about the Marines making a ‘brief thrust north’ yesterday in an apparent feint to draw Iraqi forces away from the 3rd Army Division. It’s all there, practically down to the mile. Even Hub Blog knows this: The Marines are part of the right-wing flank of a two-headed spear headed for Baghdad, with the 3rd Army Division on its left flank. ...
Hats off to CSM editor Paul Van Slambrouck for calmly:1.) sticking by the correspondent, Philip Smucker, and 2.) not jumping on a journalistic soapbox while doing so. ... Also in the CSM, it looks like Daniel Schorr is tempted to jump on the journalistic soapbox, but he wisely doesn’t, concluding that there are many tough journalistic questions out there, i.e. ‘And there is no easy answer.”
Hats off to CSM editor Paul Van Slambrouck for calmly:1.) sticking by the correspondent, Philip Smucker, and 2.) not jumping on a journalistic soapbox while doing so. ... Also in the CSM, it looks like Daniel Schorr is tempted to jump on the journalistic soapbox, but he wisely doesn’t, concluding that there are many tough journalistic questions out there, i.e. ‘And there is no easy answer.”
Gratitude. That’s it: We interrupt this war to bring you this nice op-ed piece in the Globe on the subject of gratitude. That’s it. Gratitude. Why the Globe ran this now, I don’t know. And I don’t care. But I’m glad they did. Read it. It’s not about the war. ...
Now back to the war ...
Now back to the war ...
The war -- the Boston front: Clearly, the war isn’t going as planned. Iraqi resistance, for whatever reasons, was underestimated going into the conflict, a serious mistake/blunder to make in any war. ... But what’s great about this Herald story is that many members of Massachusetts’ Congressional delegation, which was overwhelmingly against the war, aren’t hitting the military/moral panic button. Nor are they trying to use the setbacks for political advantage. A sampling:
U.S. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Lowell) on Gen. Tommy Franks: “General Franks has an excellent plan, and it's a flexible plan. ... I think they're implementing it quite well. ... I think people should be patient.”
U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville) on the military and critics: ``(Troops are) doing a very excellent job. ... They (critics) want it all solved in a half-an-hour sitcom, but this is real life, unfortunately.”
U.S. Rep. James McGovern (D-Worcester): “My own preference would have been not to go to war. ... (But) I don't think anyone in this Congress, whether for or against the war, was under the impression that this would be quick and easy.”
I sort of disagree with McGovern’s last sentence, for there were indeed people (and I assume many in Congress) who thought it would be a ‘cake walk.’ But McGovern shows class for not hopping on the They-Hyped-An Easy-Victory bandwagon. More on the ‘critics’ and ‘resistance’ issue below.
But, first, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank says we should be concentrating on post-war issues. Which leads to ...
U.S. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Lowell) on Gen. Tommy Franks: “General Franks has an excellent plan, and it's a flexible plan. ... I think they're implementing it quite well. ... I think people should be patient.”
U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville) on the military and critics: ``(Troops are) doing a very excellent job. ... They (critics) want it all solved in a half-an-hour sitcom, but this is real life, unfortunately.”
U.S. Rep. James McGovern (D-Worcester): “My own preference would have been not to go to war. ... (But) I don't think anyone in this Congress, whether for or against the war, was under the impression that this would be quick and easy.”
I sort of disagree with McGovern’s last sentence, for there were indeed people (and I assume many in Congress) who thought it would be a ‘cake walk.’ But McGovern shows class for not hopping on the They-Hyped-An Easy-Victory bandwagon. More on the ‘critics’ and ‘resistance’ issue below.
But, first, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank says we should be concentrating on post-war issues. Which leads to ...
It’s the post-war UN/American foreign policy, stupid: A lot of attention is now heaped on the role of the UN in administering humanitarian aid, reintroducing UN weapons inspectors into Iraq, and overseeing Iraq after the war, whenever it ends, however it ends. ...
But the real issue is not so much the UN’s short-term involvement in those issues, but the US and UN’s long-term relationship with one another. As the Christian Science Monitor nails it in this story: “ ...This time, as before, the debate really transcends Iraq and comes down to questions about the US, and whether the US alone or an international collective system will be the leading arbiter of security and power in the world.”
Hub Blog’s view? As MK would say: Don’t rush me! Still sifting through all the arguments. I’m tempted to beat the administration over the head for the fun of it, for they’re once again arguing, behind the scenes, about the UN and American unilateralism -- even though neocons will scream in public if you frame the debate in that ‘unilateralist’ way. I.e. It’s the same type of schizophrenic debate we saw before the war. But the UN, via France and Germany and Russia, has also really discredited itself. Secretary of State Colin Powell on the UN’s involvement in postwar Iraq: ''We didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future.”
Bottom line: Don’t rush me! Which leads to ....
But the real issue is not so much the UN’s short-term involvement in those issues, but the US and UN’s long-term relationship with one another. As the Christian Science Monitor nails it in this story: “ ...This time, as before, the debate really transcends Iraq and comes down to questions about the US, and whether the US alone or an international collective system will be the leading arbiter of security and power in the world.”
Hub Blog’s view? As MK would say: Don’t rush me! Still sifting through all the arguments. I’m tempted to beat the administration over the head for the fun of it, for they’re once again arguing, behind the scenes, about the UN and American unilateralism -- even though neocons will scream in public if you frame the debate in that ‘unilateralist’ way. I.e. It’s the same type of schizophrenic debate we saw before the war. But the UN, via France and Germany and Russia, has also really discredited itself. Secretary of State Colin Powell on the UN’s involvement in postwar Iraq: ''We didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future.”
Bottom line: Don’t rush me! Which leads to ....
That ‘criticism’ of ‘resistance’ and ‘timetables’: There’s absolutely no doubt: The administration, on the whole, underestimated Iraqi resistance. Vice President Dick Cheney said as much, as the Globe notes. Of course, the administration -- and its critics -- will be singing a different tune, predictably, hypocritically, if the war were to suddenly stop in the next day or two. Then watch for the ‘I told you so’ arguments to be pulled off the shelves by the politicos. ...
... But don’t pay attention to the politicos, for now. Listen to what some military leaders, on the ground in Iraq, have to say. A reader sent in this great link to a web site run by Phil Carter, a former military officer, journalist and UCLA law student. In a link to a WaPo story, Carter provides this gem of a quote from a military commander in northern Iraq: ‘I personally underestimated the willingness of the Fedayeen to fight, or maybe overestimated the willingness of the Shiites to rise up.’ ... Case closed. If the troops are saying it, it’s true. But if the troops are also saying they’re not overly concerned about it and still have faith in themselves and in their leaders, that’s the key.
... But don’t pay attention to the politicos, for now. Listen to what some military leaders, on the ground in Iraq, have to say. A reader sent in this great link to a web site run by Phil Carter, a former military officer, journalist and UCLA law student. In a link to a WaPo story, Carter provides this gem of a quote from a military commander in northern Iraq: ‘I personally underestimated the willingness of the Fedayeen to fight, or maybe overestimated the willingness of the Shiites to rise up.’ ... Case closed. If the troops are saying it, it’s true. But if the troops are also saying they’re not overly concerned about it and still have faith in themselves and in their leaders, that’s the key.
Derrick Jackson, take a bow: We interrupt this war to let Derrick Jackson and Brian McGrory beat the shit out of the NCAA for its lousy record on ‘student athlete’ graduation rates. McGrory notes that Jackson deserves the credit for harping on this issue -- and he does deserve the credit. ...
Now, back to the war. ...
Now, back to the war. ...
Ah, some good news and other war tidbits: Good news: John Ellis is back blogging and has a great quote from Tiger on the war. ... Good news: The sleazy business deals of Richard Perle have forced him to step down as chairman of the influential Defense Policy Board. ...
... Jules Crittenden has another great battlefield story over at the Herald, answering the big question, among other things, about how GIs bathe in the middle of a war. He ends the story with this quote from a company commander about Iraqi fighters and about his troops who are little bummed they haven’t seen action yet:
``There is a war going on and there is an enemy out there, and he's feeling a little cocky because he has not yet felt the full might of our forces. But when he does, he won't know what hit him. ... Our day will come, and it will be intense. ... These guys will be shaken, and they will learn what it means to be a soldier.''
Yikes. Sounds like something out of ‘We Were Soldiers Once. ...’ And it’s happening today. History. Gotta love it.
... Jules Crittenden has another great battlefield story over at the Herald, answering the big question, among other things, about how GIs bathe in the middle of a war. He ends the story with this quote from a company commander about Iraqi fighters and about his troops who are little bummed they haven’t seen action yet:
``There is a war going on and there is an enemy out there, and he's feeling a little cocky because he has not yet felt the full might of our forces. But when he does, he won't know what hit him. ... Our day will come, and it will be intense. ... These guys will be shaken, and they will learn what it means to be a soldier.''
Yikes. Sounds like something out of ‘We Were Soldiers Once. ...’ And it’s happening today. History. Gotta love it.
Thursday, March 27, 2003
‘These cats are fighting hard’: A vivid, dramatic CSM battlefield report of the near constant fighting around Najaf in recent days. The Americans were, at one point, running out of fuel and ammo because of the intensity of the fighting. Said one GI of the Iraqi resistance, ‘These cats are fighting hard.’ But my favorite quote came from another GI: “‘I'm mad,’ said Sergeant Ositis, who lost his tank. ‘Blowing up my tank was like blowing up my home. I've lived there for three months. The photos of my wife were in there.’”
Andrew Sullivan has some thoughts on how and why we underestimated the resistance going into Iraq. Hint: It has something to do with totalitarianism. Good point. The first person, I’ve seen, to raise the issue. Of course there are other reasons: The thuggish threats by the Fedayeen against conscript soldiers and civilians; the fanaticism/desperation of the true Baath Party believers who know they have no future without Saddam; early indications that outsiders, like Saudis and Chechens, are getting involved in the fight; and, well, average soldiers patriotically defending their homeland. We can't/shouldn't underestimate that last reason. ... I’m definitely one of those who believes the muted reaction of many, if not most, Iraqis to being ‘liberated’ is caused by remaining fear of Saddam and doubts about the outcome of the war. But let's not fool ourselves completely: When Germany and Japan were 'liberated,' the reaction of civilians was often sullen resentment as GIs occupied their towns. We didn't win them over until we proved we knew how to win the peace.
Andrew Sullivan has some thoughts on how and why we underestimated the resistance going into Iraq. Hint: It has something to do with totalitarianism. Good point. The first person, I’ve seen, to raise the issue. Of course there are other reasons: The thuggish threats by the Fedayeen against conscript soldiers and civilians; the fanaticism/desperation of the true Baath Party believers who know they have no future without Saddam; early indications that outsiders, like Saudis and Chechens, are getting involved in the fight; and, well, average soldiers patriotically defending their homeland. We can't/shouldn't underestimate that last reason. ... I’m definitely one of those who believes the muted reaction of many, if not most, Iraqis to being ‘liberated’ is caused by remaining fear of Saddam and doubts about the outcome of the war. But let's not fool ourselves completely: When Germany and Japan were 'liberated,' the reaction of civilians was often sullen resentment as GIs occupied their towns. We didn't win them over until we proved we knew how to win the peace.
Daily Update from Armchair Gen. Savin Hill: Here it is --
“Day 7:
“* The Iraqis Blew It: They could have taken advantage of the weather to slam into our 3rd Infantry Div. over the last 36 hours, and the most they could muster was an attack near Najaf that killed an estimated 750 Iraqis and a scattering of armor. That ‘1,000’ vehicle column turned out to be a minor move of supporting units. I smell a paper tiger beginning to burn.
“* ‘Phantom Columns’ in the south: That ‘column’ heading out of Basra, the British tell us, were press-ganged units rounded up by Baathist militia (who held their families hostage). The columns (there were 2) of armored personnel carriers ambled out of Basra ...on main roads, in plain view -- and were promptly wiped out by British artillery and air striking Harriers and Tornadoes. Poor bastards.
“* I don't see any evidence of command and control here. Desultory attacks by press-ganged units, an unwillingness or inability to move in force in times of obvious advantage -- these guys are toast. The most they can do is a ‘fighting retreat’ to Baghdad.
“* This doesn't mean the war will be over soon. Next comes the phase where we fight through the RG divisions, then the encirclement, then the bringing up of reinforcements, then the taking of an urban ‘lodgement’ -- then taking Baghdad proper.”
Hub Blog’s response: Dan Kennedy, in an item appropriately entitled 'The face of evil,' has flagged a NYT article about Saddam’s henchmen forcing conscripts into the slaughter. It’s just outrageous. These are true Nazi/Stalinist-like tactics. Where is the world outrage? Next up: Chemical attacks? The Brits have evidence it may be coming. ...
Jules Crittenden has another great battlefield story over at the Herald.
Update - 5: 10 p.m. -- Here's a reference to the looming Karbala showdown that Armchair Gen. Savin Hill mentioned a few days ago.
“Day 7:
“* The Iraqis Blew It: They could have taken advantage of the weather to slam into our 3rd Infantry Div. over the last 36 hours, and the most they could muster was an attack near Najaf that killed an estimated 750 Iraqis and a scattering of armor. That ‘1,000’ vehicle column turned out to be a minor move of supporting units. I smell a paper tiger beginning to burn.
“* ‘Phantom Columns’ in the south: That ‘column’ heading out of Basra, the British tell us, were press-ganged units rounded up by Baathist militia (who held their families hostage). The columns (there were 2) of armored personnel carriers ambled out of Basra ...on main roads, in plain view -- and were promptly wiped out by British artillery and air striking Harriers and Tornadoes. Poor bastards.
“* I don't see any evidence of command and control here. Desultory attacks by press-ganged units, an unwillingness or inability to move in force in times of obvious advantage -- these guys are toast. The most they can do is a ‘fighting retreat’ to Baghdad.
“* This doesn't mean the war will be over soon. Next comes the phase where we fight through the RG divisions, then the encirclement, then the bringing up of reinforcements, then the taking of an urban ‘lodgement’ -- then taking Baghdad proper.”
Hub Blog’s response: Dan Kennedy, in an item appropriately entitled 'The face of evil,' has flagged a NYT article about Saddam’s henchmen forcing conscripts into the slaughter. It’s just outrageous. These are true Nazi/Stalinist-like tactics. Where is the world outrage? Next up: Chemical attacks? The Brits have evidence it may be coming. ...
Jules Crittenden has another great battlefield story over at the Herald.
Update - 5: 10 p.m. -- Here's a reference to the looming Karbala showdown that Armchair Gen. Savin Hill mentioned a few days ago.
House budget debate: This isn’t a classic case of what Steve Bailey was warning about yesterday (i.e. a 'Jo Moore' alert), but it’s close enough. From a reader:
“While no one was watching, the House Leadership pushed through a restriction on their own budget debate. The bill in the linked article will require all members suggesting budget increases to link them with specific cuts. This should serve to limit debate and/or encourage brutal infighting between different interest groups. This should be really fun.”
Hub Blog’s response: I can’t really say I hate the idea. Sounds, well, logical. The timing of it, though, is classic Finneran.
“While no one was watching, the House Leadership pushed through a restriction on their own budget debate. The bill in the linked article will require all members suggesting budget increases to link them with specific cuts. This should serve to limit debate and/or encourage brutal infighting between different interest groups. This should be really fun.”
Hub Blog’s response: I can’t really say I hate the idea. Sounds, well, logical. The timing of it, though, is classic Finneran.
The war: The Boston Front -- And Howard Dean: It’s corny, but Mitt is out there -- and there are a lot of National Guard troops and family members who will remember it. ...
... But Mitt’s rallying of the troops is a mere sideshow. The real political game in town yesterday was swirling around the 2004 presidential race (though Mitt may be looking ahead to 2008), specifically: Howard Dean, who was in town yesterday to greet supporters and to stick it to John Kerry. Dean may deny it, but he’s now the liberal antiwar candidate of choice, an early and mini Eugene McCarthy, if you will. Joan Vennochi lets Dean ramble a bit before she pins him against the wall: He is the antiwar candidate of the day. How the war will play out politically in 2004, no one knows. The election is still a long time from now. But, like the National Guard troops and family members, liberal antiwar activists will remember, too. ...
But what I found fascinating in Dean’s appearance yesterday was how some antiwar liberals, though not all, are trying to impose a new litmus test on Dean, to wit: Does he support bringing the troops home NOW? Dean is wisely saying ‘no,’ though you can tell he’s hedging his bets in case the war drags into a dreaded ‘quagmire.’ Dean’s playing his own version of Having It Both Ways. Kerry’s people should be blasting holes in his logic, but they aren’t and can’t because, well, Kerry is playing his own version of Having It Both Ways. ...
... All of which leads to this about Dean, to a degree, and the hard-core antiwar types, definitely: They’re still protesting the war -- and some of them are calling for the troops to come home. What’s wrong with this? What’s wrong is that IT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. They are arguing a moot point. We’re in there, we can’t and won’t pull the troops out, Bush ain’t going to budge. And again, it’s a moot point -- unless the war bogs down into a long quagmire, which I wouldn’t bet on. ...
What is the point? Glad you asked. While left-wing antiwar activists play out their romantic protests and self-glorifying dramas in the streets, the real ideological debate is playing out, quietly, on a separate domestic front. It has to do with post-Iraq and the future of American foreign policy.
Which leads to my next item ...
Reader No Nickname replies:
“I really liked Howard Dean early on -- I thought a fiscally conservative, universal healthcare, pro-gun Democrat could really be a breakout general election candidate in some of the states where Democrats have not won in awhile. Unfortunately, the anti-war schtick, while a great Iowa (and possibly other primaries) strategy, is a guaranteed general election fiasco. Voters do not trust the Democratic party on national security issues, and Dean just contributes to that. His only hope (strategically, not implying that he wants this) is a miserable, prolonged, bloody war (to prove him right), and I don't think most Americans will vote for that. I defy anyone to come up with an electoral college map that has Dean beating Bush.”
... But Mitt’s rallying of the troops is a mere sideshow. The real political game in town yesterday was swirling around the 2004 presidential race (though Mitt may be looking ahead to 2008), specifically: Howard Dean, who was in town yesterday to greet supporters and to stick it to John Kerry. Dean may deny it, but he’s now the liberal antiwar candidate of choice, an early and mini Eugene McCarthy, if you will. Joan Vennochi lets Dean ramble a bit before she pins him against the wall: He is the antiwar candidate of the day. How the war will play out politically in 2004, no one knows. The election is still a long time from now. But, like the National Guard troops and family members, liberal antiwar activists will remember, too. ...
But what I found fascinating in Dean’s appearance yesterday was how some antiwar liberals, though not all, are trying to impose a new litmus test on Dean, to wit: Does he support bringing the troops home NOW? Dean is wisely saying ‘no,’ though you can tell he’s hedging his bets in case the war drags into a dreaded ‘quagmire.’ Dean’s playing his own version of Having It Both Ways. Kerry’s people should be blasting holes in his logic, but they aren’t and can’t because, well, Kerry is playing his own version of Having It Both Ways. ...
... All of which leads to this about Dean, to a degree, and the hard-core antiwar types, definitely: They’re still protesting the war -- and some of them are calling for the troops to come home. What’s wrong with this? What’s wrong is that IT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. They are arguing a moot point. We’re in there, we can’t and won’t pull the troops out, Bush ain’t going to budge. And again, it’s a moot point -- unless the war bogs down into a long quagmire, which I wouldn’t bet on. ...
What is the point? Glad you asked. While left-wing antiwar activists play out their romantic protests and self-glorifying dramas in the streets, the real ideological debate is playing out, quietly, on a separate domestic front. It has to do with post-Iraq and the future of American foreign policy.
Which leads to my next item ...
Reader No Nickname replies:
“I really liked Howard Dean early on -- I thought a fiscally conservative, universal healthcare, pro-gun Democrat could really be a breakout general election candidate in some of the states where Democrats have not won in awhile. Unfortunately, the anti-war schtick, while a great Iowa (and possibly other primaries) strategy, is a guaranteed general election fiasco. Voters do not trust the Democratic party on national security issues, and Dean just contributes to that. His only hope (strategically, not implying that he wants this) is a miserable, prolonged, bloody war (to prove him right), and I don't think most Americans will vote for that. I defy anyone to come up with an electoral college map that has Dean beating Bush.”
The ideological debate over post-war Iraq: As I said on Monday (in an overly long item) and again yesterday (in a much shorter item), the real ideological/geopolitical debate unfolding is about postwar Iraq and American foreign policy. And as I said in the Monday post, this is going to be a huge debate between conservatives, moderate conservatives, centrists and moderate liberals -- with the far liberal left being out of the loop, again, because of its silly, bankrupt and antiquated antics. ...
The Christian Science Monitor gets it -- and today it’s all over the post-Iraq/foreign policy issue. ... In this CSM article, it makes clear that Tony Blair is now pushing the Bush administration to include the UN in overseeing a postwar Iraq. Needless to say, the hard-core Bushies, who tout unilateralism in private but defensively deny it in public, are resisting. ... Notice how, again, Blair needs Bush to bend in order to help Blair domestically. Hub Blog is very close to reviving my Anything-To-Keep-Tony-Blair-In-Office mantra, not to mention my He's-Botching-It stance. The UN debate is going to be big. And like the pre-war debate we saw in the UN, it may prove to be a moot point: France could stick it to us, veto any UN involvement in postwar Iraq and leave the ‘Anglos’ to clean up the mess. ...
... In another CSM piece (this one an editorial), we’re introduced to John Garner. Who’s John Garner? Get to know him. He may end up being the guy who tries to ‘oversee’ Iraq. Good luck, John! ... Meanwhile, in this CSM op-ed, the author takes a look at the good, the bad and the ugly of occupations.
I know this all sounds rather presumptuous (if that’s the right word) -- talk of post-war Iraq and the future of American foreign policy. The war is still raging. It may yet turn into a ‘quagmire,’ though I seriously doubt it. But there is another very dramatic debate unfolding about historic, long-term issues.
Update -- The NYT is also on the UN story.
Update II -- Jeff Jarvis has an interesting take on the New World Order, comparing it to an Internet router. His tentative nickname for it: 'Network Diplomacy.'
The Christian Science Monitor gets it -- and today it’s all over the post-Iraq/foreign policy issue. ... In this CSM article, it makes clear that Tony Blair is now pushing the Bush administration to include the UN in overseeing a postwar Iraq. Needless to say, the hard-core Bushies, who tout unilateralism in private but defensively deny it in public, are resisting. ... Notice how, again, Blair needs Bush to bend in order to help Blair domestically. Hub Blog is very close to reviving my Anything-To-Keep-Tony-Blair-In-Office mantra, not to mention my He's-Botching-It stance. The UN debate is going to be big. And like the pre-war debate we saw in the UN, it may prove to be a moot point: France could stick it to us, veto any UN involvement in postwar Iraq and leave the ‘Anglos’ to clean up the mess. ...
... In another CSM piece (this one an editorial), we’re introduced to John Garner. Who’s John Garner? Get to know him. He may end up being the guy who tries to ‘oversee’ Iraq. Good luck, John! ... Meanwhile, in this CSM op-ed, the author takes a look at the good, the bad and the ugly of occupations.
I know this all sounds rather presumptuous (if that’s the right word) -- talk of post-war Iraq and the future of American foreign policy. The war is still raging. It may yet turn into a ‘quagmire,’ though I seriously doubt it. But there is another very dramatic debate unfolding about historic, long-term issues.
Update -- The NYT is also on the UN story.
Update II -- Jeff Jarvis has an interesting take on the New World Order, comparing it to an Internet router. His tentative nickname for it: 'Network Diplomacy.'
The war: The real front: I know I’m being a little silly by posting so much material from Armchair Gen. Savin Hill. It’s a schtick. I admit it. And maybe I’m overdoing it. But he HAS been right about a lot of things. Yesterday, he sent in this post. Now look at the news from today’s newspapers:
The 173rd Airborne division, out of Italy, has landed in northern Iraq. ... The Republican Guard columns are stupidly leaving Baghdad and heading south and getting chewed up by allied air power ... This Herald story gives a pretty good overview of the war.
Obviously, not everything Armchair Gen. Savin Hill has sent in has been accurate, but he’s been more accurate than not. Hub Blog is impressed with his general knowledge! ...
... In other news, the US and UN are starting to pour in lots of humanitarian aid. America won’t get the credit it deserves in some quarters, of course, as Brendan O’Neill made clear yesterday in his Have It Both Ways arguments. ... Good story in the Globe on the extensive use of Special Forces in Iraq.
The 173rd Airborne division, out of Italy, has landed in northern Iraq. ... The Republican Guard columns are stupidly leaving Baghdad and heading south and getting chewed up by allied air power ... This Herald story gives a pretty good overview of the war.
Obviously, not everything Armchair Gen. Savin Hill has sent in has been accurate, but he’s been more accurate than not. Hub Blog is impressed with his general knowledge! ...
... In other news, the US and UN are starting to pour in lots of humanitarian aid. America won’t get the credit it deserves in some quarters, of course, as Brendan O’Neill made clear yesterday in his Have It Both Ways arguments. ... Good story in the Globe on the extensive use of Special Forces in Iraq.
Two clerks, two jerks: The company that allegedly bought the information should also have the book thrown at them, if you ask me.
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, RIP: This is the type of ‘Jo Moore’ story in reverse that you ache over. Daniel Patrick Moynihan deserves a State Funeral. He was a true American.
Post-war Iraq summit planning?: Recently saw Charles Krauthammer on Fox talking about the Bush-Blair summit today, and Krauthammer speculated that among the topics of discussion were post-war Iraq and whether the UN should help oversee the country. Then I thought of this Globe article from this morning. An excerpt:
'' ‘We don't have a single academic expert in America who understands how Iraqi politics work in 2003, not a clue,' said Augustus Richard Norton, a Boston University professor who specializes in the Middle East.”
Hub Blog’s not going Wobbly, but a lot of unknowns are out there. Literally.
Update -- While you're at it, check out Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo. Lot of good items over there about Turkey, the next phase of the war, and slightly squirming conservatives within the administration. As I said recently, the war-time ideological 'truce' is slowly breaking down and the debate over post-war actions/American foreign policy has quietly begun.
Update II -- Tom Friedman has a new scorecard to tell if we've really won the war -- and postwar peace.
'' ‘We don't have a single academic expert in America who understands how Iraqi politics work in 2003, not a clue,' said Augustus Richard Norton, a Boston University professor who specializes in the Middle East.”
Hub Blog’s not going Wobbly, but a lot of unknowns are out there. Literally.
Update -- While you're at it, check out Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo. Lot of good items over there about Turkey, the next phase of the war, and slightly squirming conservatives within the administration. As I said recently, the war-time ideological 'truce' is slowly breaking down and the debate over post-war actions/American foreign policy has quietly begun.
Update II -- Tom Friedman has a new scorecard to tell if we've really won the war -- and postwar peace.
Hub Blog puts together ‘coalition of the willing’: In response to unprovoked threats from certain blogoshere quarters, freedom fighters from around the blogosphere are rallying around Hub Blog and gaining collective strength and moral purpose by the day. From Armchair Gen. Savin Hill Reader:
“Hub Blog!
“I salute your effort to take on the ‘weapons of mass-media destruction’ from the Phoenix's ‘war blog.’
“Keep in mind that the rarely-seen Phoenix (leader) Stephen Mindich will probably wage a propaganda war against you. ... As your (new) military advisor, I suggest you put some sand bags in your windows -- you never know when the Phoenix will attack. Don't accept any packages from Dan Kennedy.”
“Hub Blog!
“I salute your effort to take on the ‘weapons of mass-media destruction’ from the Phoenix's ‘war blog.’
“Keep in mind that the rarely-seen Phoenix (leader) Stephen Mindich will probably wage a propaganda war against you. ... As your (new) military advisor, I suggest you put some sand bags in your windows -- you never know when the Phoenix will attack. Don't accept any packages from Dan Kennedy.”
Armchair Gen. Savin Hill’s Daily Update: Armchair Gen. Savin Hill writes in response to questions from moi and a couple other readers. Here’s his overview, followed by comments on the coming air campaign:
“1. I've refigured the numbers, and the 3rd Infantry started with about 250 tanks -- but what I didn't take into account earlier was that the Marines (the right flank) started with about 180. I didn't really count these at first because I didn't think the Marines would be an entire mainland-warfare spearhead. I thought for sure they wouldn't go past Basra -- sticking relatively near their amphib, offshore base ships.
“2. Given the dual spearhead, tipped with about 200 tanks each, and as many or more Bradley fighting vehicles, that seems like enough. I was worried about less than 200 taking on at least two entire Republican Guard divisions outside of Baghdad. ...
“3. Plenty of ground-pounders still in ‘reserve.’ The 101st still isn't deployed in strength (I heard a single battalion of the 101st headed north yesterday). I don't know where the hell that brigade of the 82nd is. We know the 173rd (a light ground unit) in Italy is earmarked for deployment, if not on the way. I know another large Army unit (I can't remember now) that's based in Germany is probably in transit. The 101st can be deployed immediately in theater. The 173rd and other light units (not heavy mech.) in probably less than five days.
“4. Rest assured, our Abrams will slaughter Iraqi divisions in the open.
“5. MY BIGGEST WORRY RIGHT NOW: Iraqi columns are heading south to take advantage of the bad weather. If these columns get caught in clear weather, it will be another ‘highway of death’ -- if our air is grounded for the next 48 hours and that force slams into the Marines, boy, will it get nasty. I just don't know how strung out that Marine force is and what's in the vanguard and how much is diverted to holding bridges in Naseriah. It seems like they've been fighting hard to secure those bridges -- which no doubt weakens the spearhead of the advance. I'm not sure (and no one is) how far up the Tigris approach the Marines are. With the 3rd Mech (Army) within 50-60 miles yesterday, I assumed the Marines were comparably close. I don't think that may be the case.
“6. You haven't asked me about what we do once we surround Baghdad.”
To a reader who asked about launching an air campaign while ground forces get into position, Savin Hill writes:
“Nobody in Centcom wanted to give the Iraqis an extra hour to prepare, I assure you. But also, pounding large numbers of ground units from the air is best done up-close and personal with A-10s and Apache Longbows. These are not long-distance hitters, especially the Apaches. You need support bases nearby, the closer the better. ... Dropping guided munitions from high-flying jets makes good video, but it’s inefficient. It just takes too long. In Gulf War I we bombed units geographically clustered in and around Kuwait and its border areas for, what, a month or more? ... We need to hit em up close and personal. Also, the weenies can hide their tanks and armor in urban areas unless we force them to ‘come out and play.’ ”
Hub Blog’s response: I haven’t the foggiest idea if he knows what he’s talking about, but he’s been right in the past. And, OK, Armchair Gen. Savin Hill: what we do once we surround Baghdad? ... I'm sure I'm going to get an answer. Keep it shorter, Armchair Gen. Savin Hill! ... And, as usual, thank you.
Update -- Armchair Gen. Savin Hill writes back with the answer to the question he prodded me to ask: what do we do once we surround Baghdad?
"I have no idea. I can't believe we're still hoping for 'regime collapse' from within while we break for tea and biscuits in our foxholes around Baghdad. Clearly we have the option of going in -- but I doubt we'd go in with the existing force. I'd want another armor division and the whole 101st -- and still I'd want more before going in to Baghdad."
Hub Blog's response: Oh, that's great. That's really encouraging. This 'Invasion Light,' I don't know.
“1. I've refigured the numbers, and the 3rd Infantry started with about 250 tanks -- but what I didn't take into account earlier was that the Marines (the right flank) started with about 180. I didn't really count these at first because I didn't think the Marines would be an entire mainland-warfare spearhead. I thought for sure they wouldn't go past Basra -- sticking relatively near their amphib, offshore base ships.
“2. Given the dual spearhead, tipped with about 200 tanks each, and as many or more Bradley fighting vehicles, that seems like enough. I was worried about less than 200 taking on at least two entire Republican Guard divisions outside of Baghdad. ...
“3. Plenty of ground-pounders still in ‘reserve.’ The 101st still isn't deployed in strength (I heard a single battalion of the 101st headed north yesterday). I don't know where the hell that brigade of the 82nd is. We know the 173rd (a light ground unit) in Italy is earmarked for deployment, if not on the way. I know another large Army unit (I can't remember now) that's based in Germany is probably in transit. The 101st can be deployed immediately in theater. The 173rd and other light units (not heavy mech.) in probably less than five days.
“4. Rest assured, our Abrams will slaughter Iraqi divisions in the open.
“5. MY BIGGEST WORRY RIGHT NOW: Iraqi columns are heading south to take advantage of the bad weather. If these columns get caught in clear weather, it will be another ‘highway of death’ -- if our air is grounded for the next 48 hours and that force slams into the Marines, boy, will it get nasty. I just don't know how strung out that Marine force is and what's in the vanguard and how much is diverted to holding bridges in Naseriah. It seems like they've been fighting hard to secure those bridges -- which no doubt weakens the spearhead of the advance. I'm not sure (and no one is) how far up the Tigris approach the Marines are. With the 3rd Mech (Army) within 50-60 miles yesterday, I assumed the Marines were comparably close. I don't think that may be the case.
“6. You haven't asked me about what we do once we surround Baghdad.”
To a reader who asked about launching an air campaign while ground forces get into position, Savin Hill writes:
“Nobody in Centcom wanted to give the Iraqis an extra hour to prepare, I assure you. But also, pounding large numbers of ground units from the air is best done up-close and personal with A-10s and Apache Longbows. These are not long-distance hitters, especially the Apaches. You need support bases nearby, the closer the better. ... Dropping guided munitions from high-flying jets makes good video, but it’s inefficient. It just takes too long. In Gulf War I we bombed units geographically clustered in and around Kuwait and its border areas for, what, a month or more? ... We need to hit em up close and personal. Also, the weenies can hide their tanks and armor in urban areas unless we force them to ‘come out and play.’ ”
Hub Blog’s response: I haven’t the foggiest idea if he knows what he’s talking about, but he’s been right in the past. And, OK, Armchair Gen. Savin Hill: what we do once we surround Baghdad? ... I'm sure I'm going to get an answer. Keep it shorter, Armchair Gen. Savin Hill! ... And, as usual, thank you.
Update -- Armchair Gen. Savin Hill writes back with the answer to the question he prodded me to ask: what do we do once we surround Baghdad?
"I have no idea. I can't believe we're still hoping for 'regime collapse' from within while we break for tea and biscuits in our foxholes around Baghdad. Clearly we have the option of going in -- but I doubt we'd go in with the existing force. I'd want another armor division and the whole 101st -- and still I'd want more before going in to Baghdad."
Hub Blog's response: Oh, that's great. That's really encouraging. This 'Invasion Light,' I don't know.
The hunt for Saddam's hidden treasure: Cosmo has excerpts of his Herald column this morning over at his blog site. The subject: Those missing billions Saddam was supposed to use for food and medicine.
‘Waging politically correct war?’: George Bush can’t win. If he waged a ‘shock and awe’ war, he would have been accused of waging a ‘shock and awe’ war. If he waged a pure ‘Invasion light’ war, he’d be accused of waging an ‘Invasion light’ war. ... Here’s a perfect case in point: Brendan O’Neill, who before the war wrote of his fears of a ‘shock and awe’ and ‘cowardly’ war, is now writing in the Boston-based Christian Science Monitor that the current strategy is actually a ‘politically correct’ war in reverse, i.e. we’re trying to fight a more humanitarian war in order to really cover up our doubts about why we’re fighting. Go figure. Brendan has just taken Hub Blog’s Have It Both Ways Award from John Kerry, who looks positively Churchillian in comparison. ...
... But what about legitimate criticism of the current combo Shock and Awe/Invasion Light strategy? There’s definitely criticism, as shown in this Herald story. ... Andrew Sullivan is admirably expressing his doubts, while also linking to this UPI piece about why the Pentagon is quite confident about its strategy, even though there’s still tough fighting as we approach Baghdad, as this vivid Globe story by Brian MacQuarrie shows.
Hub Blog’s view? I wish they had put a few more troops and Abram tank formations into the fight at the start. But I’m now less of a military Nervous Nelly Hawk; I’ve accepted that the war is going to be longer and more bloody than anticipated -- and that we’ll win in the end. Instead, I’ve become more of a political Nervous Nelly Hawk. The possibility of this war dragging on too long will lead to nothing but trouble. (Already getting a little tired of the TV reporters' Tet-like coverage of recent sharp battles, as if they're shocked there's actual fighting going on.)
... But what about legitimate criticism of the current combo Shock and Awe/Invasion Light strategy? There’s definitely criticism, as shown in this Herald story. ... Andrew Sullivan is admirably expressing his doubts, while also linking to this UPI piece about why the Pentagon is quite confident about its strategy, even though there’s still tough fighting as we approach Baghdad, as this vivid Globe story by Brian MacQuarrie shows.
Hub Blog’s view? I wish they had put a few more troops and Abram tank formations into the fight at the start. But I’m now less of a military Nervous Nelly Hawk; I’ve accepted that the war is going to be longer and more bloody than anticipated -- and that we’ll win in the end. Instead, I’ve become more of a political Nervous Nelly Hawk. The possibility of this war dragging on too long will lead to nothing but trouble. (Already getting a little tired of the TV reporters' Tet-like coverage of recent sharp battles, as if they're shocked there's actual fighting going on.)
'This is a PR guy's dream’: Steve Baily is starting his own local version of Mickey Kaus’ ‘Jo Moore’ Alert, named after the British Labor PR meister who famously noted on Sept. 11 that it was probably a good day to dump really bad information on the public. ... Steve quotes George Regan as saying, ''This is a PR guy's dream.'' Don’t hold it against George for being honest. He’s right. Previously big local stories will get buried in times like these, both good and bad stories. ... Hub Blog’s personal favorite local Jo Moore was the proposed electric rate increase announced last week. Other positive stories, meanwhile, haven’t gotten the attention they deserved, such as the NCAA tournament games held in Boston over the past weekend. ... Bailey joked that he’s on guard for state lawmakers passing a pay increase in coming days. I’m taking the long-shot bet that they go for expansion of the Quinn bill to firefighters.
The MBTA and the Big Dig: Hub Blog interrupts this warblog to bring you this special non-war item -- a good editorial in the Globe about the MBTA’s future in a post-Big Dig Boston. ... One major quibble: Ah, c’mon, don’t friggin’ abandon the Blue Line connection to the Red Line. It’s only a couple hundred yards from the Bowdoin stop to the Charles Street site, for heaven’s sake. ... I hate the Silver Line already. It’s an overestimated, overglamorized BUS service, not a rail service. ... Now back to the war. ...
The war: The Boston front: Oh, God. Paul Cellucci, our former Mass. gov and current ambassador to Canada, is criticizing Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien's lack of support for the US cause in Iraq. Not that Chretien doesn’t deserve criticism. But Paul Cellucci? They say opinion polls show a majority of Canadians support their government's stance against the war. What the opinion polls don’t show is that a majority of Massachusetts residents would rather forget Cellucci was our governor and that local residents would prefer he isn’t linked to us in any way on the world stage. ...
... John Hughes over at CSM also likes what he’s seen from the embedded journalists, a topic I covered (perhaps a bit too much) yesterday. ... John Kerry and Howard Dean are embedded in New Hampshire and fighting it out. ...
The Great House War Resolution Flap is over. The Herald says, fine, move on. But I can’t. It was a good yuck for 24 hours. I just loved the description of the “frenzied meetings, phone calls, and e-mails,” as if they were writing a new constitution or a Gettysburg Address.
... John Hughes over at CSM also likes what he’s seen from the embedded journalists, a topic I covered (perhaps a bit too much) yesterday. ... John Kerry and Howard Dean are embedded in New Hampshire and fighting it out. ...
The Great House War Resolution Flap is over. The Herald says, fine, move on. But I can’t. It was a good yuck for 24 hours. I just loved the description of the “frenzied meetings, phone calls, and e-mails,” as if they were writing a new constitution or a Gettysburg Address.
'America, the destroyer': Some readers have written in, asking why I didn't post this James Carroll column from yesterday. Answer: Because an entire local blog could be dedicated to fisking Carroll columns. I just don't have the time.
... But I shall let one reader comment on it: "I must confess that I've never liked Carroll, generally viewing him as a self-loathing, self-righteous fraud (maybe he's a great guy in person, but I've long despised his 'philosophy'). So I'm not at all surprised by this (latest column)."
... But I shall let one reader comment on it: "I must confess that I've never liked Carroll, generally viewing him as a self-loathing, self-righteous fraud (maybe he's a great guy in person, but I've long despised his 'philosophy'). So I'm not at all surprised by this (latest column)."
Blogosphere tensions mount ... Phoenix launches warblog!: First, Dan Kennedy unilaterally escalates the blogosphere arms race -- and so Hub Blog vowed a response, with an unspoken threat of ‘serious consequences.’ ... Now the Phoenix starts a warblog, actually using the word ‘war’ in its pronouncement by Information Minister Dan Kennedy. ... Hub Blog has yet to respond. Hub Blog realizes he’s, he’s, he’s coming across as ... a medium-power France with no counter measures and alternatives? Ugh. Hub Blog will not waver! ...
... Suggestion to Phoenix (take this as psyops if you want -- heh, heh): Tighten up the prose! The items are too long! Abolish that angst about being pro-American! Where is General Gitell? Where are the archives? Where are the permalinks? Are we to assume the future messages of Peter Kadzis were recorded before the warblog began? Why is the word 'peace' in the title of a 'warblog'?... Hah! And you call yourself a ‘warblog’? ... Hub Blog will retaliate -- after I fix the propeller on my aircraft carrier.
... Suggestion to Phoenix (take this as psyops if you want -- heh, heh): Tighten up the prose! The items are too long! Abolish that angst about being pro-American! Where is General Gitell? Where are the archives? Where are the permalinks? Are we to assume the future messages of Peter Kadzis were recorded before the warblog began? Why is the word 'peace' in the title of a 'warblog'?... Hah! And you call yourself a ‘warblog’? ... Hub Blog will retaliate -- after I fix the propeller on my aircraft carrier.
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
Mickey Kaus senses a pattern!: Lots of good stuff over at Mickey's site, as usual. And more beating the crap out of John Kerry, as usual. Today's beating is just, well ... See it for yourself. I burst out laughing when he started listing Kerry's non-position positions. ... (No permalinks for each item at Kaus Files, so scroll down to find today's Kerry blast.)
Get to know the term ‘Karbala Gap’: Hub Blog put out the call for Armchair Gen. Savin Hill to check in -- and he has. Here’s his update on the war (and, yes, he knows his stuff):
“A few observations:
“* The military campaign in the south, over all, is going extremely well and everyone would do well to remember that. Losses are still ‘light’ -- by any measure.
“* Get to know the term ‘Karbala Gap’ - that's where the next 1 of 2 key armor battles will be.
“* The current sandstorm coinciding with our approach to Republican Guard ‘outter rim’ defense of Baghdad looks to me like it was planned that way. Note Gen. Frank's references to the advance being ‘on our own timetable.’ When the dust clears, we'll be within ‘killing zone’ (Abrams tank main gun range) of dug-in Iraqi forces while air assets pound them and block rear.
“*The sandstorm (in which it was pitch dark by 4 p.m. in Iraq) is PERFECT weather for our deployment of special ops units behind Iraqi lines and into Baghdad.
“* Look for the 101st and other airborne assets to be used as blocking forces in an encirclement of Baghdad.
“*FYI: Found out why Iraqi TV is still on the air. Col. Hunt, a talking head on Fox News, said the Iraqis put a day-care center or kindergarten in the Iraqi TV building. Typical.”
Hub Blog’s response: Interesting, though I have a question: How do you plan a sandstorm? But I think I know what he means in terms of timing. Remember: Armchair Gen. Savin Hill knows his military and military history. This will be another test of his analysis. More later. And thanks to Savin Hill.
Armchair Gen. Savin Hill checks back in:
"Q: How do you plan a sandstorm?
"A: This time of year, they sweep across Iraq about every 10 days. Given good meteorological forecasting, time it right, and you can use em as cover while you maneuver -- which is what I think our forces may have done in front of the Karbala Gap and up the Tigris approaches to Baghdad."
“A few observations:
“* The military campaign in the south, over all, is going extremely well and everyone would do well to remember that. Losses are still ‘light’ -- by any measure.
“* Get to know the term ‘Karbala Gap’ - that's where the next 1 of 2 key armor battles will be.
“* The current sandstorm coinciding with our approach to Republican Guard ‘outter rim’ defense of Baghdad looks to me like it was planned that way. Note Gen. Frank's references to the advance being ‘on our own timetable.’ When the dust clears, we'll be within ‘killing zone’ (Abrams tank main gun range) of dug-in Iraqi forces while air assets pound them and block rear.
“*The sandstorm (in which it was pitch dark by 4 p.m. in Iraq) is PERFECT weather for our deployment of special ops units behind Iraqi lines and into Baghdad.
“* Look for the 101st and other airborne assets to be used as blocking forces in an encirclement of Baghdad.
“*FYI: Found out why Iraqi TV is still on the air. Col. Hunt, a talking head on Fox News, said the Iraqis put a day-care center or kindergarten in the Iraqi TV building. Typical.”
Hub Blog’s response: Interesting, though I have a question: How do you plan a sandstorm? But I think I know what he means in terms of timing. Remember: Armchair Gen. Savin Hill knows his military and military history. This will be another test of his analysis. More later. And thanks to Savin Hill.
Armchair Gen. Savin Hill checks back in:
"Q: How do you plan a sandstorm?
"A: This time of year, they sweep across Iraq about every 10 days. Given good meteorological forecasting, time it right, and you can use em as cover while you maneuver -- which is what I think our forces may have done in front of the Karbala Gap and up the Tigris approaches to Baghdad."
More on ‘embedded’ journalists -- and CSM is kicking ass: Now here’s a smart analysis of ‘embedded’ journalism and media coverage of the war, by Dante Chinni over at the Christian Science Monitor. He likes it, but cleverly compares embedded reports to watching a football game by focusing on only one player -- or watching a football game through a videocam attached to one linebacker’s helmet. What’s vital: Context and constant perspective. ... Compare Chinni’s commentary with the op-ed written by Jerry Lanson, also in this morning’s CSM. I wrote about Lanson’s whiny/push-a-cause analysis of war coverage earlier this morning. ... Note: Thanks to Quebec Reader for alerting me to the Chinni commentary.
.... Speaking of the Christian Science Monitor, its coverage of the war is just great today. Scan the site’s front page. Which story/item do you choose? It’s like a candy store for war junkies. Oh, here’s a funny war cartoon by Pulitzer Prize-winner Clay Bennett. ... And, oh, there’s a fascinating story about ‘Classroom Neutrality’ in times of war (a big issue in Maine, by the way -- with a very ugly incident of school personnel allegedy harrassing students of National Guard troops). Lots of great stuff over at CSM today.
.... Speaking of the Christian Science Monitor, its coverage of the war is just great today. Scan the site’s front page. Which story/item do you choose? It’s like a candy store for war junkies. Oh, here’s a funny war cartoon by Pulitzer Prize-winner Clay Bennett. ... And, oh, there’s a fascinating story about ‘Classroom Neutrality’ in times of war (a big issue in Maine, by the way -- with a very ugly incident of school personnel allegedy harrassing students of National Guard troops). Lots of great stuff over at CSM today.
A new blogger on the Boston front: A relatively new blogger is blogging away in Boston, 'Thoughts, rants and observations.' Check it out. He's got some real local zingers over there. ... He also has some comments about my post below on 'Bain and higher ed.'
Call it ‘Tip,’ Mitt: Governor, name the damn tunnel after Tip O’Neill. Besides rightly honoring one of the great men who made the Big Dig possible, naming it after O’Neill means we’ll get to nickname it ‘Tip’s Tunnel.’ ... I thought Brian McGrory was too hard on Mitt at the end, but he did make great points about the banality of the proposed new name: “And it's not just that the Liberty Tunnel connecting to the Freedom Bridge could be in Cincinnati or Charlotte, if there's anything in those cities worth driving under or over. ... The name Liberty Tunnel isn't dumb, but it fails to enchant or provoke. It's amorphous in a white-bread kind of way, has little local flavor, and with the bell and the statue the Liberty theme is pretty well covered.” ...
... This is another opportunity for the gov to ‘admit a wrong’ and move on. ... While we’re at it, Hub Blog thinks one of the new surface parks should be called ‘Salvucci Park,’ after another great man who made the Big Dig possible. Perhaps the park nearest to the North End? Just throwing out an idea. ... Hope the banality of the name ‘Liberty Tunnel’ doesn’t indicate the future quality of the parks we’re going to get.
... This is another opportunity for the gov to ‘admit a wrong’ and move on. ... While we’re at it, Hub Blog thinks one of the new surface parks should be called ‘Salvucci Park,’ after another great man who made the Big Dig possible. Perhaps the park nearest to the North End? Just throwing out an idea. ... Hope the banality of the name ‘Liberty Tunnel’ doesn’t indicate the future quality of the parks we’re going to get.
If it’s good enough for Ted ...: Idiocy over naming a tunnel, and now idiocy over in the Massachusetts House about a resolution proclaiming support for our troops and president in the middle of a war. Ted Kennedy voted for virtually the same resolution in the U.S. Senate, and Kennedy added these personal words the same day:
“Our thoughts and our heartfelt prayers are also with our president. ... We join our president in pledging our commitment to victory, to disarm Saddam and to bring freedom and opportunity to all the people of Iraq.”
That type of class is why Kennedy will be remembered as one of the great liberal titans of the U.S. Senate -- and why the liberal Statehouse peons blocking the House resolution will be remembered as liberal Statehouse peons. ... P.S. Note how the Globe story came right out and told us who these people are, i.e. ‘liberal’ lawmakers. Simple. Accurate. Fair. Gives perspective up high as to who they are. Now, can we have the same simple, accurate and fair approach in describing ‘antiwar protesters’ in future antiwar stories?
“Our thoughts and our heartfelt prayers are also with our president. ... We join our president in pledging our commitment to victory, to disarm Saddam and to bring freedom and opportunity to all the people of Iraq.”
That type of class is why Kennedy will be remembered as one of the great liberal titans of the U.S. Senate -- and why the liberal Statehouse peons blocking the House resolution will be remembered as liberal Statehouse peons. ... P.S. Note how the Globe story came right out and told us who these people are, i.e. ‘liberal’ lawmakers. Simple. Accurate. Fair. Gives perspective up high as to who they are. Now, can we have the same simple, accurate and fair approach in describing ‘antiwar protesters’ in future antiwar stories?
‘Michael Moore’s fictions’: Daniel Lyons, a student at Harvard Law School, goes after Michael Moore, a true lout, in this Globe op-ed. Excerpt: “One reporter asked whether Moore was afraid of being blacklisted in Hollywood as a result of his behavior. He responded: ‘I don't work in Hollywood. I'm funded by Canadians and others who don't live here.’” And keep in mind Moore was earlier asserting as a defense, “I am an American.” ...You know he's made a fool of himself when even Hollywood squirms in embarrassment.
Margery Eagan also goes after Moore. Alas, the Herald piece is for subscribers or pay-to-read.
Margery Eagan also goes after Moore. Alas, the Herald piece is for subscribers or pay-to-read.
The Turkey problem, guerrilla tactics and other war notes: Tom Oliphant smacks another one out of the park today, focusing on northern Iraq and concluding the Kurds aren't going away: “That is why the unfolding situation near Iraq's border with Turkey is so crucial -- less to the outcome of the war than to its aftermath.”
... Excellent overview story in the Christian Science Monitor on the changing nature of the war in Iraq, i.e. the Fedayeen’s brutal, guerrilla-like tactics; talk of Saddam flooding potential battlefields as allied troops approach Baghdad, etc. The article also deals once again with the wisdom of the ‘Invasion light’ strategy. ... Hub Blog is not worried about the outcome of the war, but I am becoming more than a little worried about the political ramifications of a possibly lengthy and bloody war. I’m not too impressed with this ‘Invasion light’ strategy, but what do I know? Armchair Gen. Savin Hill, check in. We need your assessment. ...
... A simple, succinct story from the Herald about the burdens families face at home while troops are overseas. In this case, both parents are serving in the military -- and grandma and grandpa are drafted into duty.
... Excellent overview story in the Christian Science Monitor on the changing nature of the war in Iraq, i.e. the Fedayeen’s brutal, guerrilla-like tactics; talk of Saddam flooding potential battlefields as allied troops approach Baghdad, etc. The article also deals once again with the wisdom of the ‘Invasion light’ strategy. ... Hub Blog is not worried about the outcome of the war, but I am becoming more than a little worried about the political ramifications of a possibly lengthy and bloody war. I’m not too impressed with this ‘Invasion light’ strategy, but what do I know? Armchair Gen. Savin Hill, check in. We need your assessment. ...
... A simple, succinct story from the Herald about the burdens families face at home while troops are overseas. In this case, both parents are serving in the military -- and grandma and grandpa are drafted into duty.
Using phony objectivity to promote a cause: Jerry Lanson, chair of the Department of Journalism at Emerson College in Boston, writes in CSM about journalism ethics and duties in times of war, blah, blah, blah. He says the media should show gruesome war scenes on TV. Not necessarily for truth and objectivity, as he makes clear in between the lines. Then why? “War is hell, and unless we see that with some regularity when it's being fought, we may well make the mistake of pursuing it over and over again.” ...Ah, now I see. So it will turn public opinion toward his opinion. He also notes:
“Who can forget the picture of a girl, screaming, as she ran naked down a Vietnam road, her body doused in napalm? What image better defined divisions at home during Vietnam than the picture of a young woman kneeling in despair over the body of a Kent State protester slain by America's own National Guard?”
Some generals, as the saying goes, are always fighting the last war. The same could be said about some journalists.
“Who can forget the picture of a girl, screaming, as she ran naked down a Vietnam road, her body doused in napalm? What image better defined divisions at home during Vietnam than the picture of a young woman kneeling in despair over the body of a Kent State protester slain by America's own National Guard?”
Some generals, as the saying goes, are always fighting the last war. The same could be said about some journalists.
The one-year anniversary of Alex Beam’s April Fool’s-column is near: Hub Blog can’t figure out the intent and purpose of this column by Alex. He’s clearly making fun of the Internet as a tool for covering the war, through his ‘do-it-yourself coverage’ schtick. Then he starts talking about how some of the mainstream journalists’ battlefield coverage has been simply great. No doubt about it. It’s been great. Awesome at times, in fact. ... But why doesn’t he come right out and say bloggers/Internet coverage is totally inadequate for the same task? Or maybe that wasn’t his point. I don’t know. He doesn’t quite say why he set up the contrast between ‘do-it-yourself coverage’ and mainstream coverage. Maybe he pulled a punch, remembering what a silly fool he made of himself a year ago when he fell for an April Fool's joke in a column he wrote about blogging. ...
Actually, a serious column about blogging during the war would have been quite interesting. Recent blogging, I think, has shown the medium definitely has its inherent shortcomings. Perhaps more on this later. The argument over/assessment of blogging during a war was first raised last week by Mickey Kaus.
Actually, a serious column about blogging during the war would have been quite interesting. Recent blogging, I think, has shown the medium definitely has its inherent shortcomings. Perhaps more on this later. The argument over/assessment of blogging during a war was first raised last week by Mickey Kaus.
Bain and higher ed: Don’t know much about academia and how public higher-ed is structured in Massachusetts. Sounds like Bain’s controversial review of the higher-ed system raises some intriguing points that need to be debated. But coursing through this report, I think, is a fundamental misunderstanding about the purpose of public higher education. For instance: The fact that UMass-Boston’s graduation rate is very low -- a point raised in the Bain study -- doesn’t surprise me at all. Nor does it bother me at all. ... UMass-Boston is largely a commuter and/or part-time school, meaning students take a few classes here, a few classes there, and students often have to juggle their school schedules with work in order to pay for courses here and there, etc. Bottom line: There’s a lot to like about some of the higher-ed reform proposals, but there’s also a lot that leaves you scratching your head about the administration's motives and plans for a higher-ed overhaul.
A reader responds: Reader Mark of Westborough (aka blogger Thoughts, rants and observations) writes in:
"Thanks for the link to the story about UMass-Boston. I'm a product of that school. I tell you, the thing that gets to me about Romney and his ilk is their utter contempt for public education.
"More UMass grads stay in the state (and pay more taxes) than the private schools -- a pretty good investment. At UMB, there may be a lot of people who take years, even decades, to graduate. But there are also many adults, like me, who get through there in 3 years.
"It is tough being a puny public university in the shadow of the private schools in this state."
A reader responds: Reader Mark of Westborough (aka blogger Thoughts, rants and observations) writes in:
"Thanks for the link to the story about UMass-Boston. I'm a product of that school. I tell you, the thing that gets to me about Romney and his ilk is their utter contempt for public education.
"More UMass grads stay in the state (and pay more taxes) than the private schools -- a pretty good investment. At UMB, there may be a lot of people who take years, even decades, to graduate. But there are also many adults, like me, who get through there in 3 years.
"It is tough being a puny public university in the shadow of the private schools in this state."
Monday, March 24, 2003
'More 'protester' idiocy': A reader sends in a link for this photo, with a message: 'Note the coin slot has been jammed with glue.' ... Minor, yes. Typical, definitely. Hopefully they won't grow more desperate as their cause runs out of steam.
Update - 9:30 p.m. -- Heh. Away for a few hours and what happens? Get emails on the above item. God, do people despise ‘antiwar protesters,’ i.e not the legitimate protesters, but the professional protesters who might be right One of These Wars. Again, as I said the other day, they remind me of the Hare Krishnas who Robert Stack smacked out of the way as he marched through the airport terminal in the movie “Airplane.” ... Anyway, one reader, Steve of Arlington, notes ‘a.) see how much time they took printing up the stickers - premeditated b.) they went after the (wrong) people.’ What he meant was: Parking meters pay for city services, not the “war machine.” ... Oh, well. Another couple hundred dollars down the drain, per glue-filled meter, in order for some college BRATS to win their PC Protest Merit Badge. ... And, yes, this apparently happened in Boston. Reminder: Minor, yes. Typical, definitely.
Update - 9:30 p.m. -- Heh. Away for a few hours and what happens? Get emails on the above item. God, do people despise ‘antiwar protesters,’ i.e not the legitimate protesters, but the professional protesters who might be right One of These Wars. Again, as I said the other day, they remind me of the Hare Krishnas who Robert Stack smacked out of the way as he marched through the airport terminal in the movie “Airplane.” ... Anyway, one reader, Steve of Arlington, notes ‘a.) see how much time they took printing up the stickers - premeditated b.) they went after the (wrong) people.’ What he meant was: Parking meters pay for city services, not the “war machine.” ... Oh, well. Another couple hundred dollars down the drain, per glue-filled meter, in order for some college BRATS to win their PC Protest Merit Badge. ... And, yes, this apparently happened in Boston. Reminder: Minor, yes. Typical, definitely.
Tom Friedman and Andrew Sullivan: Friedman and Sullivan are exchanging more emails over at andrewsullivan.com. It's a civil discussion about unilateralism. The ideological 'truce' I mentioned earlier today has definitely broken down, but it's encouraging they're not throwing mud at each other. ... Wonder how Howell Raines feels about Tom conversing with Andrew. Not that three-time Pulitizer Prize winning Tom gives a shit.
'Cheering along like a bloodthirsty Dallas cowboy': Leave it to a Brit journalist to write one of the funnier, more informative 'war diaries' I've seen yet. Or at least the ending is funny. The rest is just sharp and informative writing.
‘And let’s not go wobbly ...’: Armchair Gen. Savin Hill Reader writes in with some quickie observations. Keep in mind Armchair Gen. Savin Hill has been right about a lot of issues lately, based on his original post on Hub Blog and subsquent articles that confirmed his original observations. From Savin Hill:
“People seem confused by reports of US troops ‘securing’ southern urban areas, followed by reports of ambushes and skirmishes in those areas. This makes some think we went in, occupied a city, and then somehow Iraqis went on the offensive and attacked. Not so.
“The southern strategy is primarily a dash to Baghdad while securing key transport points (bridges and intersections) along the way. We are not clearing southern cities house-by-house. Where key transport routes intersect with urban areas we are encountering some resistance. However, we are ‘cleaning out’ thoroughly umm Qasr because we need to get that port going.
“And let's not go wobbly over not seeing crowds of cheering Iraqis. Long before the first US tank crossed into Iraq, Saddam sent large numbers of the Fedayeen (paramilitary death squads) into southern cities for the exact purpose of making sure there weren't cheering crowds -- and to set up ambushes. So where are the civilians? Doing what they always do in wars – staying low.”
“People seem confused by reports of US troops ‘securing’ southern urban areas, followed by reports of ambushes and skirmishes in those areas. This makes some think we went in, occupied a city, and then somehow Iraqis went on the offensive and attacked. Not so.
“The southern strategy is primarily a dash to Baghdad while securing key transport points (bridges and intersections) along the way. We are not clearing southern cities house-by-house. Where key transport routes intersect with urban areas we are encountering some resistance. However, we are ‘cleaning out’ thoroughly umm Qasr because we need to get that port going.
“And let's not go wobbly over not seeing crowds of cheering Iraqis. Long before the first US tank crossed into Iraq, Saddam sent large numbers of the Fedayeen (paramilitary death squads) into southern cities for the exact purpose of making sure there weren't cheering crowds -- and to set up ambushes. So where are the civilians? Doing what they always do in wars – staying low.”
The post-war ideological war has quietly begun: After the war in Iraq (and I hope it ends with a quick and decisive American victory), there’s going to be a HUGE debate about the future of the war on terrorism -- and the future of American foreign policy in the 21st Century. The debate has already begun, quietly, if you detect it, despite the professions of a ‘truce’ as American GIs slug it out in Iraq.
... This is going to be a debate between conservatives, moderate conservatives, centrists, and moderate liberals -- and the political/ideological battle lines are going to be very, very blurry indeed. Forget about the far political left in America -- they’re bankrupt, irrelevant, silly, a curious mix between pre-WWII appeasement and Vietnam nostalgia.
To me, the postwar political/ideological skirmishing became apparent over the weekend -- and the ideological sparring spilled into today’s newspapers and blogs as well. On Sunday, Tom Friedman wrote a column, daring to use the word ‘unilateral’ in his piece, which was immediately met with a counter-blast from Andrew Sullivan, who basically argued that there’s no ‘unilateralism’ under way in Iraq, citing the ‘coalition of the willing.’ Friedman countered back today, sending an email to Sullivan explaining what he meant. Friedman then threw in this zinger at unilateralist conservatives, who are almost schizophrenic about touting unilateralism while angrily attacking people who accuse them of unilateralism. From Tom to Andrew:
“Quite seriously, I don't understand the sensitivity of conservatives on this issue. It seems to me that conservatives want it both ways. They want to praise Bush for deciding not to be shackled by the U.N. and France in the end, and, at the same time, want to insist that this is still a multilateral war.”
In Boston, the post-war debate over long-term American foreign policy was evident in the Globe’s Sunday ‘Ideas’ section, which ran two articles on the subject -- ‘Operation Anglosphere’ and ‘The World Pushes Back’ ... Now, Hub Blog, a self-described ‘moderate conservative,’ doesn’t agree with everything in both articles, which appear to have been written by what I would call ‘moderate liberals,’ if I’m reading between the ideological lines correctly. But the two articles DO raise important points that I agree with. A quick overview of the two Globe stories:
‘Operation Anglosphere’:
‘Anglosphere’ is not a phrase made up and pushed by non-unilateralist left-wingers. It is a phrase used, regularly, continually, by some conservative pundits and bloggers, such as Andrew Sullivan, who believe the United States, Britain, Australia etc. can and should form some sort of, well, a new geopolitical bloc, i.e. a loose Churchillian-like alliance of English speaking people. ... The article’s credibility is hurt, badly, by its initial focus on how many backers of an American-dominated ‘Anglosphere’ are ironically non-native Americans. It’s a curious fact, for sure, but not vital since there are many other American-born pundits proudly using the same phrase and pushing roughly the same concept. ...
... But ‘Anglosphere’ is really not the point: The point is there ARE people within conservative circles pushing for an imperial-like American foreign policy, motivated by a desire to advance American-style democracy, ideas and interests across the world. They don’t like the UN, don’t really like/trust alliances, and, yes, they regularly use the dreaded ‘unilateralist’ word amongst themselves, even though they wince and whine when their critics accuse them of being unilateralists. It should be stressed: Not all conservatives believe in an ‘American Empire.’ There is a big debate under way between classic conservatives and neo-conservatives and a lot of other conservatives in between. ... Also notice how there’s even a debate within imperial/unilateralist conservative circles about whether they should openly use the word ‘Empire.’ ... Now think of Tom Friedman’s zinger to Sullivan this morning. Makes more sense now, right? ... By the way, Max Boot, who’s a proponent of a vague American-style form of imperialism and who is mentioned in the Globe story, is performing somersaults in this Washington Post column, defending and denying unilateralism at the same time etc. He ends the column with a quote from Rudyard Kipling. Fascinating.
‘The World Pushes Back’:
Again, Hub Blog doesn’t agree with everything in this article. I’m a long-time proponent of using unilateralism and multilateralism together, in conjunction with one another. This article tilts a little too much in the ‘mulilateralist’ direction for my taste. But the article, also again, does raise great points. I really don’t think the gung-ho unilateralists/Paul Wolfowitz types have really thought through the ramifications of their ideas. ... The article makes clear that the world, generally, has tolerated the existence of a lone American Superpower, largely because America has been -- and
rightly so -- seen as a benign, non-aggressive power. But the pre-emptive strategy/pronouncements of the Bush administration is changing things. The rest of the world is becoming alarmed -- and not just France and Russia and China. Future competition between the United States and others probably/likely won’t result in a ‘hard’ confrontation in the near future. But there are ‘soft’ ways the rest of the non-American world can truly make life miserable for us, including switching the trading of oil (now conducted in dollars) to euros and how the EU economically could draw much closer to Russia. The issue of oil really concerns non-Americans -- and it doesn’t help that some Americans are now openly talking about punishing the French and Russians for not helping us in Iraq. Their punishment weapon of choice? Oil. Think the French and Russians -- who certainly don’t have clean hands when it comes to propping up Saddam and cutting oil deals with him -- are going to just sit back and let America use oil as a weapon against them? I don’t think so.
Ah, there’s other evidence of the post-Iraq debate starting up, such as this Joseph Nye op-ed in the Globe this morning. ... Mickey Kaus is jumping into the neoconservative debate today over at Kaus Files. ... One could argue that Tom Oliphant was jumping into the issue, quietly and indirectly, in his excellent column over the weekend about the debate over ‘shock and awe’ vs. ‘Invasion light.’ (The military strategy is not exactly tied into the debate over ‘unilateralism vs. multilateralism,’ but Richard Perle, a huge backer/mentor of Wolfowitz’s now famous policy paper on a more pre-emptive/unilateralist America, has pushed hard for the ‘Invasion light’ option, a ‘nimble’ military strategy backed by people who think America will be throwing its weight around a lot in future years.)
Conclusion: Shhhhhhhhh. Don’t say it too loud. We’re all supposed to be honoring a ‘truce’ while the boys are fighting in Iraq. But, clearly, undeniably, the ideological war is heating up again. The ‘truce’ is falling apart.
... This is going to be a debate between conservatives, moderate conservatives, centrists, and moderate liberals -- and the political/ideological battle lines are going to be very, very blurry indeed. Forget about the far political left in America -- they’re bankrupt, irrelevant, silly, a curious mix between pre-WWII appeasement and Vietnam nostalgia.
To me, the postwar political/ideological skirmishing became apparent over the weekend -- and the ideological sparring spilled into today’s newspapers and blogs as well. On Sunday, Tom Friedman wrote a column, daring to use the word ‘unilateral’ in his piece, which was immediately met with a counter-blast from Andrew Sullivan, who basically argued that there’s no ‘unilateralism’ under way in Iraq, citing the ‘coalition of the willing.’ Friedman countered back today, sending an email to Sullivan explaining what he meant. Friedman then threw in this zinger at unilateralist conservatives, who are almost schizophrenic about touting unilateralism while angrily attacking people who accuse them of unilateralism. From Tom to Andrew:
“Quite seriously, I don't understand the sensitivity of conservatives on this issue. It seems to me that conservatives want it both ways. They want to praise Bush for deciding not to be shackled by the U.N. and France in the end, and, at the same time, want to insist that this is still a multilateral war.”
In Boston, the post-war debate over long-term American foreign policy was evident in the Globe’s Sunday ‘Ideas’ section, which ran two articles on the subject -- ‘Operation Anglosphere’ and ‘The World Pushes Back’ ... Now, Hub Blog, a self-described ‘moderate conservative,’ doesn’t agree with everything in both articles, which appear to have been written by what I would call ‘moderate liberals,’ if I’m reading between the ideological lines correctly. But the two articles DO raise important points that I agree with. A quick overview of the two Globe stories:
‘Operation Anglosphere’:
‘Anglosphere’ is not a phrase made up and pushed by non-unilateralist left-wingers. It is a phrase used, regularly, continually, by some conservative pundits and bloggers, such as Andrew Sullivan, who believe the United States, Britain, Australia etc. can and should form some sort of, well, a new geopolitical bloc, i.e. a loose Churchillian-like alliance of English speaking people. ... The article’s credibility is hurt, badly, by its initial focus on how many backers of an American-dominated ‘Anglosphere’ are ironically non-native Americans. It’s a curious fact, for sure, but not vital since there are many other American-born pundits proudly using the same phrase and pushing roughly the same concept. ...
... But ‘Anglosphere’ is really not the point: The point is there ARE people within conservative circles pushing for an imperial-like American foreign policy, motivated by a desire to advance American-style democracy, ideas and interests across the world. They don’t like the UN, don’t really like/trust alliances, and, yes, they regularly use the dreaded ‘unilateralist’ word amongst themselves, even though they wince and whine when their critics accuse them of being unilateralists. It should be stressed: Not all conservatives believe in an ‘American Empire.’ There is a big debate under way between classic conservatives and neo-conservatives and a lot of other conservatives in between. ... Also notice how there’s even a debate within imperial/unilateralist conservative circles about whether they should openly use the word ‘Empire.’ ... Now think of Tom Friedman’s zinger to Sullivan this morning. Makes more sense now, right? ... By the way, Max Boot, who’s a proponent of a vague American-style form of imperialism and who is mentioned in the Globe story, is performing somersaults in this Washington Post column, defending and denying unilateralism at the same time etc. He ends the column with a quote from Rudyard Kipling. Fascinating.
‘The World Pushes Back’:
Again, Hub Blog doesn’t agree with everything in this article. I’m a long-time proponent of using unilateralism and multilateralism together, in conjunction with one another. This article tilts a little too much in the ‘mulilateralist’ direction for my taste. But the article, also again, does raise great points. I really don’t think the gung-ho unilateralists/Paul Wolfowitz types have really thought through the ramifications of their ideas. ... The article makes clear that the world, generally, has tolerated the existence of a lone American Superpower, largely because America has been -- and
rightly so -- seen as a benign, non-aggressive power. But the pre-emptive strategy/pronouncements of the Bush administration is changing things. The rest of the world is becoming alarmed -- and not just France and Russia and China. Future competition between the United States and others probably/likely won’t result in a ‘hard’ confrontation in the near future. But there are ‘soft’ ways the rest of the non-American world can truly make life miserable for us, including switching the trading of oil (now conducted in dollars) to euros and how the EU economically could draw much closer to Russia. The issue of oil really concerns non-Americans -- and it doesn’t help that some Americans are now openly talking about punishing the French and Russians for not helping us in Iraq. Their punishment weapon of choice? Oil. Think the French and Russians -- who certainly don’t have clean hands when it comes to propping up Saddam and cutting oil deals with him -- are going to just sit back and let America use oil as a weapon against them? I don’t think so.
Ah, there’s other evidence of the post-Iraq debate starting up, such as this Joseph Nye op-ed in the Globe this morning. ... Mickey Kaus is jumping into the neoconservative debate today over at Kaus Files. ... One could argue that Tom Oliphant was jumping into the issue, quietly and indirectly, in his excellent column over the weekend about the debate over ‘shock and awe’ vs. ‘Invasion light.’ (The military strategy is not exactly tied into the debate over ‘unilateralism vs. multilateralism,’ but Richard Perle, a huge backer/mentor of Wolfowitz’s now famous policy paper on a more pre-emptive/unilateralist America, has pushed hard for the ‘Invasion light’ option, a ‘nimble’ military strategy backed by people who think America will be throwing its weight around a lot in future years.)
Conclusion: Shhhhhhhhh. Don’t say it too loud. We’re all supposed to be honoring a ‘truce’ while the boys are fighting in Iraq. But, clearly, undeniably, the ideological war is heating up again. The ‘truce’ is falling apart.
Blogging the war: Hiawatha Bray has a piece about professional and non-professional journalists blogging from Iraq, including Time’s Joshua Kucera and Kevin Site’s now abandoned blogging at CNN and Salim Pax’s blogging from Baghdad (assuming he is who he says he is). See the story for all the links. ... Hub Blog's opinion? I haven't been impressed with most war blogging -- whether it's coming from here or overseas. Events are moving too fast. It's hard to get your hands and thoughts around what's happening. ... A nice quote from Kucera in Hiawatha's story: ''I'd never heard of a blog until a few weeks ago, when a friend of a friend contacted me and offered to set it all up. ... I liked the idea of having freedom to write what I wanted in my style, not that of any particular publication.'' ... Know the freedom feeling, Josh.
... It’s not about blogging, but it is about the web: Joe Dwinnell at MetroWest Daily News has seen the video of the captured American troops on a French TV web site (he provides the link; I won’t). Dwinnell, understandably, seemed shocked at what he saw and shocked French TV is running it. Hub Blog doesn’t plan to watch it. Not out of Geneva Convention concerns/principles etc. I just can’t stand the thought of being in their position.
... It’s not about blogging, but it is about the web: Joe Dwinnell at MetroWest Daily News has seen the video of the captured American troops on a French TV web site (he provides the link; I won’t). Dwinnell, understandably, seemed shocked at what he saw and shocked French TV is running it. Hub Blog doesn’t plan to watch it. Not out of Geneva Convention concerns/principles etc. I just can’t stand the thought of being in their position.
No time to panic -- and it’s not a ‘quagmire’: It was clearly a bad day yesterday -- the capture of American GIs, battles in cities we thought we had secured, the lack of Iraqis cheering our troops on etc. This Globe overview story doesn’t hit the panic button. Nor does it use the dreaded ‘quagmire’ word. But it does, well, sound a pessimistic note based on yesterday's events. Yet I suspect -- repeat: suspect -- the war is unfolding in a slightly different (and slightly more positive) way than yesterday’s dramatic video footage/stories suggest. In an editorial, the Christian Science Monitor seems to agree. ...
... Meanwhile, the Herald’s Jules Crittenden is with troops as they push north toward Baghdad. There’s plenty of tension, but not much action. I suspect this is what most GIs are experiencing. ... P.S. Crittenden has a real ear for GIs’ dialogue.
... Meanwhile, the Herald’s Jules Crittenden is with troops as they push north toward Baghdad. There’s plenty of tension, but not much action. I suspect this is what most GIs are experiencing. ... P.S. Crittenden has a real ear for GIs’ dialogue.
‘Invasion light’ from a Bostonian’s armchair perspective: Below are some good stories from local papers that I found helpful in explaining the key issues/battlefield sectors/questions surrounding the war. Hope they clear things up for you, too:
The ‘Invasion light’ southern strategy:
The Christian Science Monitor examines the ‘island hopping’ southern strategy -- or ‘urban hopping,’ as Savin Hill Reader has called it -- and whether it’s working as well as expected. Conclusion: Not quite, since there’s still surprising (and duplicitous) Iraqi resistance in pockets in the south. ...
The Globe tackles the same issue regarding the ‘bypassed’ southern cities and, specifically, the surprise battle yesterday in the port city of Umm Qasr. ...
... Why aren’t Iraqis welcoming us as liberators in the southern sector? The lack of enthusiasm is a little disturbing, for one of the moral arguments for going to war was to liberate Iraq. The Iraqis are not acting like happy liberated citizens, alas. There’s a number of explanations for this, among them, well, people generally root for their own country and don’t like being invaded, even when they hate their own leader. Another explanation comes from the same Globe story above:
“ ‘They (Iraqi citizens) do not want to put their eggs in one basket; they already tried the American basket and had a bad experience,’ said Abdul-Reda Assiri, professor of political science at Kuwait University, referring to the US failure to support local rebellions after the 1991 Gulf War. ‘I think they are holding their breath.’ ”
The Northern strategy:
The Globe, once again, provides excellent coverage of what’s happening to the Kurds in northern Iraq, American involvement there, and the tensions with Turkey. Turkey’s refusal to let us use their territory to launch a northern front has really hurt our efforts there. It’s not a disaster in northern Iraq. But it’s definitely in flux and not a ‘secure situation,’ as they say. ...
Speaking of Turkey, the Christian Science Monitor has a really GOOD story about Turkey’s seemingly odd behavior. The lede of the CSM article says it all: “To understand Turkey's vote supporting its right to send troops to northern Iraq, look no further than Kirkuk and Mosul, two oil-rich cities that tell the story of Turkey's own manifest destiny.”
A Hub Blog correction/clarification etc.: I’ve been openly praising the Globe’s war coverage. And it definitely deserves the praise. But I’ve also been noting how Anthony Shadid has been making great contributions to its coverage from Baghdad. One problem: Shadid recently left the Globe and is now writing for the Washington Post. I just didn’t notice Shadid's switch until I read about it over at Dan Kennedy's site. Well, all I can say is: The Globe has the common sense to keep running his stories.
Update -- William Safire has a column on Turkey's foot dragging.
The ‘Invasion light’ southern strategy:
The Christian Science Monitor examines the ‘island hopping’ southern strategy -- or ‘urban hopping,’ as Savin Hill Reader has called it -- and whether it’s working as well as expected. Conclusion: Not quite, since there’s still surprising (and duplicitous) Iraqi resistance in pockets in the south. ...
The Globe tackles the same issue regarding the ‘bypassed’ southern cities and, specifically, the surprise battle yesterday in the port city of Umm Qasr. ...
... Why aren’t Iraqis welcoming us as liberators in the southern sector? The lack of enthusiasm is a little disturbing, for one of the moral arguments for going to war was to liberate Iraq. The Iraqis are not acting like happy liberated citizens, alas. There’s a number of explanations for this, among them, well, people generally root for their own country and don’t like being invaded, even when they hate their own leader. Another explanation comes from the same Globe story above:
“ ‘They (Iraqi citizens) do not want to put their eggs in one basket; they already tried the American basket and had a bad experience,’ said Abdul-Reda Assiri, professor of political science at Kuwait University, referring to the US failure to support local rebellions after the 1991 Gulf War. ‘I think they are holding their breath.’ ”
The Northern strategy:
The Globe, once again, provides excellent coverage of what’s happening to the Kurds in northern Iraq, American involvement there, and the tensions with Turkey. Turkey’s refusal to let us use their territory to launch a northern front has really hurt our efforts there. It’s not a disaster in northern Iraq. But it’s definitely in flux and not a ‘secure situation,’ as they say. ...
Speaking of Turkey, the Christian Science Monitor has a really GOOD story about Turkey’s seemingly odd behavior. The lede of the CSM article says it all: “To understand Turkey's vote supporting its right to send troops to northern Iraq, look no further than Kirkuk and Mosul, two oil-rich cities that tell the story of Turkey's own manifest destiny.”
A Hub Blog correction/clarification etc.: I’ve been openly praising the Globe’s war coverage. And it definitely deserves the praise. But I’ve also been noting how Anthony Shadid has been making great contributions to its coverage from Baghdad. One problem: Shadid recently left the Globe and is now writing for the Washington Post. I just didn’t notice Shadid's switch until I read about it over at Dan Kennedy's site. Well, all I can say is: The Globe has the common sense to keep running his stories.
Update -- William Safire has a column on Turkey's foot dragging.
Sunday, March 23, 2003
The Globe’s shock-and-awe war coverage: For the third morning in a row (and as I noted yesterday), newspapers are kicking television’s butt in the following areas: A.) Providing new facts about the war B.) Sorting out the facts about the war. C.) Providing context, summary and perspective to the facts about the war. In particular, the Boston Globe has unleashed its own shock-and-awe campaign with great precision and success. Excellent battlefield reports and outstanding home-based analysis. I also have to say that Armchair General Savin Hill Reader, who wrote an item yesterday for Hub Blog, was right on target on many of his observations about the military strategies and tactics now unfolding in Iraq. Here are some highlights of the coverage:
Northern Iraq, the Kurds, Turkey:
The Globe’s Charles M. Sennott and David Filipov give a terrific account about the significance of northern Iraq in the war; the tensions between Turkey and the Kurds there; the importance allied commanders attribute to northern Iraq and what we can and can’t do there right now; and the connections between Ansar al Islam, a militant group apparently responsible for the killing of a Western journalist there yesterday, and Iraq and the Al Qaeda terror network.
The same article notes that the U.S. Fourth Infantry Division is now being rushed south to Kuwait, via cargo ships, something Armchair Gen. Savin Hill noted yesterday. ... Pay attention to northern Iraq. It’s a very tense situation there that could lead to both military and humanitarian disasters if not handled well.
‘Invasion light’ vs. the ‘Powell Doctrine’:
The lede on John Aloysius Farrell and Anne E. Kornblut’s Globe story is a little off, but the story is great. It’s about the revolutionary (and controversial) war strategies and tactics being used in this war, including ''shock and awe'' air campaigns, ''effects-based'' attacks, ''desert light'' warfare and ''psyops'' psychological warfare. Some think the new strategies are brilliant, others are not so sure. From the story:
'' ‘I am not comfortable with it [‘invasion light’]. There doesn't seem to be much margin of error, and there is not much operational flexibility,’ says former Marine General Bernard Trainor, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'It's enough probably to do the job - if you put your trust in an assumption that the Iraqis are not going to fight hard, that all the high-tech is going to work nicely, and you trust in airpower doing the work.’'' ... Armchair Gen. Savin Hill raised some of the same points and concerns yesterday.
On the same subject, Tom Oliphant gives a really brilliant behind-the-scenes account of the pre-war debate within the administration over ‘shock and awe’ vs. ‘invasion light.’ Richard Perle, a civilian, comes across as a scary/brilliant figure within the administration, depending on your point of view in the argument. Oliphant shows how President Bush split the difference between the warring factions within the administration. From Tom:
“The result of all this will put US forces on the outskirts of Baghdad in no time, at which point we can all hope their numbers are sufficient. For President Bush, the lesson is that either/or choices are not always mutually exclusive. Both the invasion light and the shock and awe advocates had something to contribute; Bush has so far benefited from the best points on each side.”
Basara and the march to Baghdad:
The Globe’s Scott Bernard Nelson gives a vivid account about events unfolding in southern Iraq, particularly near Basara. He also notes how some troops are remaining behind in southern Iraq, mopping up and negotiating with remaining Iraqi units, while the rest of the allied forces dash north to Baghdad. ... Armchair Gen. Savin Hill mentioned this split-the-forces scenario, with some concern.
All in all, really insightful battlefield/analysis coverage from the Globe this morning. ... And Hub Blog, a Nervous Nelly Hawk, agrees with Oliphant: I’m impressed with Bush selecting the best of both strategies. The outcome of the war is not in doubt; the nature and timing of its end, as well as the political ramifications, remain a big unknown.
Northern Iraq, the Kurds, Turkey:
The Globe’s Charles M. Sennott and David Filipov give a terrific account about the significance of northern Iraq in the war; the tensions between Turkey and the Kurds there; the importance allied commanders attribute to northern Iraq and what we can and can’t do there right now; and the connections between Ansar al Islam, a militant group apparently responsible for the killing of a Western journalist there yesterday, and Iraq and the Al Qaeda terror network.
The same article notes that the U.S. Fourth Infantry Division is now being rushed south to Kuwait, via cargo ships, something Armchair Gen. Savin Hill noted yesterday. ... Pay attention to northern Iraq. It’s a very tense situation there that could lead to both military and humanitarian disasters if not handled well.
‘Invasion light’ vs. the ‘Powell Doctrine’:
The lede on John Aloysius Farrell and Anne E. Kornblut’s Globe story is a little off, but the story is great. It’s about the revolutionary (and controversial) war strategies and tactics being used in this war, including ''shock and awe'' air campaigns, ''effects-based'' attacks, ''desert light'' warfare and ''psyops'' psychological warfare. Some think the new strategies are brilliant, others are not so sure. From the story:
'' ‘I am not comfortable with it [‘invasion light’]. There doesn't seem to be much margin of error, and there is not much operational flexibility,’ says former Marine General Bernard Trainor, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'It's enough probably to do the job - if you put your trust in an assumption that the Iraqis are not going to fight hard, that all the high-tech is going to work nicely, and you trust in airpower doing the work.’'' ... Armchair Gen. Savin Hill raised some of the same points and concerns yesterday.
On the same subject, Tom Oliphant gives a really brilliant behind-the-scenes account of the pre-war debate within the administration over ‘shock and awe’ vs. ‘invasion light.’ Richard Perle, a civilian, comes across as a scary/brilliant figure within the administration, depending on your point of view in the argument. Oliphant shows how President Bush split the difference between the warring factions within the administration. From Tom:
“The result of all this will put US forces on the outskirts of Baghdad in no time, at which point we can all hope their numbers are sufficient. For President Bush, the lesson is that either/or choices are not always mutually exclusive. Both the invasion light and the shock and awe advocates had something to contribute; Bush has so far benefited from the best points on each side.”
Basara and the march to Baghdad:
The Globe’s Scott Bernard Nelson gives a vivid account about events unfolding in southern Iraq, particularly near Basara. He also notes how some troops are remaining behind in southern Iraq, mopping up and negotiating with remaining Iraqi units, while the rest of the allied forces dash north to Baghdad. ... Armchair Gen. Savin Hill mentioned this split-the-forces scenario, with some concern.
All in all, really insightful battlefield/analysis coverage from the Globe this morning. ... And Hub Blog, a Nervous Nelly Hawk, agrees with Oliphant: I’m impressed with Bush selecting the best of both strategies. The outcome of the war is not in doubt; the nature and timing of its end, as well as the political ramifications, remain a big unknown.
‘You sure you want to do this?’: Fifty antiwar protesters arrested outside Westover Air Force Base in Chicopee, the last fueling stop for military cargo planes flying to the Gulf. Hub Blog repeats: These are NOT legitimate protests. Not now. Not today. Where is the condemnation of these non-First Amendment acts? ... Love the quote in this story from Police Chief John Ferraro Jr. to a protester: ‘You sure you want to do this?’ Answer: Of course he does! He needs his PC Merit Badge.
... The headline on this op-ed by Peter Gomes asks: ‘For those who oppose war, what now?’ Answer: Reverend, check out Seth Gitell’s suggestion over at Dan Kennedy’s site. There’s a lot of good you can do. ... Rev. Gomes’ column doesn’t bother me in the least, otherwise. He’s expressing his doubts and criticisms in a civil, constitutionally protected manner, though I obviously disagree with his overall stance on the war. ... Ellen Goodman, an Extremely-Reluctant-Hawk Dove, is also expressing doubts. Fine. Disagree with most of her points, but fine. Let her criticize and doubt.
... But, ah, this story about hard-core antiwar protesters is incomplete, pull-the-punches, terrified-to-be-called-a-McCarthyite mush. The radical Stalinist A.N.S.W.E.R is at the center of squabbling, as usual, but it’s not identified in the story as a radical Stalinist organization until well into the piece, leaving the impression it’s just another antiwar organization if a reader doesn’t get too far into the piece. ANSWER isn’t a normal group. They’re radical left-wing fanatics, frankly. Meanwhile, some of the other groups aren’t exactly church groups, either, but you’d never know that from the story. This is a political story ultimately, and so it’s usually normal in political stories to use words like ‘right’ and ‘left’ and ‘moderate’ and ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ to give readers a chance to tell where people are coming from. But in this story? Nope. Can you imagine a political story about Mitt vs. Shannon without mentioning ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ etc. in it? So why the political kids-glove treatment in this story? The descriptions ‘radical left,’ ‘less radical,’ ‘moderate liberals’ and ‘mainstream’ and ‘moderates’ were called for and appropriate to distinguish between all the players. If the protesters objected and insisted they were really ‘non-partisan,’ they should have been challenged and called to the mat on it. But, again, nope.
... The headline on this op-ed by Peter Gomes asks: ‘For those who oppose war, what now?’ Answer: Reverend, check out Seth Gitell’s suggestion over at Dan Kennedy’s site. There’s a lot of good you can do. ... Rev. Gomes’ column doesn’t bother me in the least, otherwise. He’s expressing his doubts and criticisms in a civil, constitutionally protected manner, though I obviously disagree with his overall stance on the war. ... Ellen Goodman, an Extremely-Reluctant-Hawk Dove, is also expressing doubts. Fine. Disagree with most of her points, but fine. Let her criticize and doubt.
... But, ah, this story about hard-core antiwar protesters is incomplete, pull-the-punches, terrified-to-be-called-a-McCarthyite mush. The radical Stalinist A.N.S.W.E.R is at the center of squabbling, as usual, but it’s not identified in the story as a radical Stalinist organization until well into the piece, leaving the impression it’s just another antiwar organization if a reader doesn’t get too far into the piece. ANSWER isn’t a normal group. They’re radical left-wing fanatics, frankly. Meanwhile, some of the other groups aren’t exactly church groups, either, but you’d never know that from the story. This is a political story ultimately, and so it’s usually normal in political stories to use words like ‘right’ and ‘left’ and ‘moderate’ and ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ to give readers a chance to tell where people are coming from. But in this story? Nope. Can you imagine a political story about Mitt vs. Shannon without mentioning ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ etc. in it? So why the political kids-glove treatment in this story? The descriptions ‘radical left,’ ‘less radical,’ ‘moderate liberals’ and ‘mainstream’ and ‘moderates’ were called for and appropriate to distinguish between all the players. If the protesters objected and insisted they were really ‘non-partisan,’ they should have been challenged and called to the mat on it. But, again, nope.
Saturday, March 22, 2003
CSM is looking ahead already: At least one newspaper, the Boston-based Christian Science Monitor, is looking ahead to post-war Iraq. But between now and when things calm down, well, it could get ugly.
'Let's hear it for the hex': Another reader just sent in this link to a Herald editorial about Uday. I have a feeling we'll hear a lot more stories aboud Uday's antics in coming weeks and months.
'Nervous Nelly Hawk': A reader just wrote in to say that I've "wavered -- from He's-Botching-It hawk to Nervous Nelly Hawk." To which I say: Is there a fundamental difference?
An arm-chair general steps forward: I wash my hands of the following item. I haven’t the foggiest idea if what he says is accurate because I’m suffering from a bad case of the Fog of War Blues. Still, Savin Hill Reader knows his military and military history, so Hub Blog lets him loose on the blogosphere battlefield:
“Count me in the ‘nervous’ bunch. This war will test the ‘transformation’ doctrine of using more-nimble forces and special ops -- and far fewer numbers -- than the so-called ‘Powell Doctrine’ of going in with overhwelming force, as in Gulf War I.
“If (and it's a big ‘if’) we get involved in a slug-fest for Baghdad, this light ‘transformation’ ground force looks like a welter weight when it needs to be a heavy weight to win the day. The main points:
“-- Of 250,000 boots on the ground, only about 150,000 (high estimate) are reported to be in the attack. A good number will be diverted to ‘mopping up’ and securing before it gets to Baghdad. Will we need to split that force more to cut off northern Baghdad? Or go further north to Tikrit? The numbers get thinner and thinner the further north we go...
“-- Only about 250 MIA1 Abrams tanks (our main battle tank) are reported in the attack. After a week in combat use, I put the in-country number well below 200 (due to wear and tear). Enough maybe, but thin.
“-- 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), which was supposed to go through Turkey ... is still at sea. 1st Cav and its armor ... is still at sea. 1st Armored ... is still at sea. Only one BRIGADE of the 82nd Airborne is in use. The 101st is there in full force (I bet they jumped on the bases in Western Iraq).
“Counterbalancing this is that Special Ops are being used intensively -- Afghanistan was a Special Ops victory, so I bet every Special Op unit in the US and British military is in Iraq now.
“Regime collapse is still a possibility. But you shouldn't plan on it.
“The hit-and-wait-and-see pace of the air campaign makes me nervous. You DO NOT plan for a wholesale capitulation at the top. Why did we wait so long after the Wednesday night attack for the big 300-400 missile attack on Friday? Were we waiting for the state funeral for Saddam? Sheeesh. Gen. Patton is spinning in his grave. Hit 'em hard, hit 'em early -- and hit 'em again.”
Hub Blog’s response: I hope he's wrong on all counts. ... P.S. I’m still a Nervous Nelly. See past items to understand why that’s good for America.
“Count me in the ‘nervous’ bunch. This war will test the ‘transformation’ doctrine of using more-nimble forces and special ops -- and far fewer numbers -- than the so-called ‘Powell Doctrine’ of going in with overhwelming force, as in Gulf War I.
“If (and it's a big ‘if’) we get involved in a slug-fest for Baghdad, this light ‘transformation’ ground force looks like a welter weight when it needs to be a heavy weight to win the day. The main points:
“-- Of 250,000 boots on the ground, only about 150,000 (high estimate) are reported to be in the attack. A good number will be diverted to ‘mopping up’ and securing before it gets to Baghdad. Will we need to split that force more to cut off northern Baghdad? Or go further north to Tikrit? The numbers get thinner and thinner the further north we go...
“-- Only about 250 MIA1 Abrams tanks (our main battle tank) are reported in the attack. After a week in combat use, I put the in-country number well below 200 (due to wear and tear). Enough maybe, but thin.
“-- 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), which was supposed to go through Turkey ... is still at sea. 1st Cav and its armor ... is still at sea. 1st Armored ... is still at sea. Only one BRIGADE of the 82nd Airborne is in use. The 101st is there in full force (I bet they jumped on the bases in Western Iraq).
“Counterbalancing this is that Special Ops are being used intensively -- Afghanistan was a Special Ops victory, so I bet every Special Op unit in the US and British military is in Iraq now.
“Regime collapse is still a possibility. But you shouldn't plan on it.
“The hit-and-wait-and-see pace of the air campaign makes me nervous. You DO NOT plan for a wholesale capitulation at the top. Why did we wait so long after the Wednesday night attack for the big 300-400 missile attack on Friday? Were we waiting for the state funeral for Saddam? Sheeesh. Gen. Patton is spinning in his grave. Hit 'em hard, hit 'em early -- and hit 'em again.”
Hub Blog’s response: I hope he's wrong on all counts. ... P.S. I’m still a Nervous Nelly. See past items to understand why that’s good for America.
TV vs. newspaper coverage of the war: As usual, interesting observations from Reader No. 1. Read it, with my two cents thrown in at the end. Reader No. 1:
“TV reporters have FINALLY started covering what's happening in the war and not what some Pentagon insider told them on deep cover might happen within 24 hours. Much better. At some point you might address from your journalistic perspective the disparate roles today between TV and print and the counter-intuitive divergence now arisen. You'd think TV would be better at telling what is happening in real-time but increasingly it is dominated by talking heads; you'd think print journalism would be better on reflection and looking forward but increasingly we look to print reports of field reporters to tell us what actually happened.”
Hub Blog’s response: I think you’re right about TV vs. print coverage. For the second day in a row, it took the Globe and Herald and other print sources to gather and sort out the facts from the previous day’s jumble of madness. In my 'Fog of war ..' post earlier today, I relied once again on a day-old Globe story that still held up and that should have been read yesterday by the TV types. Meanwhile, Anthony Shadid et gang really made clear what exactly happened yesterday. ... What’s going on? There’s just been too much ‘real time’confusion, too much information, too many different strands to pull together. TV allowed itself to be overwhelmed by the flood of information -- and they looked like the proverbial chickens with their heads cut off. They had the legs (the facts) to run with, but no head (the perspective) to tell them where they were going. The surprising initial events/timing of the war really confused them, so they spent an inordinate amount of time seeking experts to tell them which way they were headed. ...
Last night’s ‘Greater Boston’ show on Channel 2, in its weekly Beat the Press segment, touched upon roughly the same issue as it concerned ‘embedded’ journalism. The consensus: The embedded idea is good. But there was disagreement about whether it was being ‘tied together’ properly. That definitely applied to the broadcast outlets. That didn’t/hasn’t applied to print outlets, because they’ve clearly had time to sort and tie the facts together for the morning papers. They've done a great job. ...
... Ah, let me give you a first-hand example of what I'm talking about. The first night of the ground war, Hub Blog wrote probably the most embarrassing, spastic things I’ve ever posted on this blog. It was a miserable and failed attempt at ‘real time’ blogging. I was overwhelmed, asking stupid questions, making stupid remarks. Things only became more clear when I read the print accounts the next morning.
Update - 3:50 p.m. -- Yikes, Reader No. 1, who I've been exchanging emails with on this, just sent this response about blogging. Definitely agree about the overripe items on blogs. They're embarrassing. Reader No. 1:
"The Blog Community in the last few days seems to be suffering to some extent from the same malady as the TV news organizations: everybody wants to say SOMETHING and, unless you're out on the frontlines with the troops and the citizens (like our intrepid Globe reporters), there is not a lot to say from the comfort of the armchair and computer desk.
"A second problem, which TV news can avoid but bloggers can't, is currency. Items written in the heat of changing circumstances don't keep well. And blogging archives insure that everyone notices overripe items."
“TV reporters have FINALLY started covering what's happening in the war and not what some Pentagon insider told them on deep cover might happen within 24 hours. Much better. At some point you might address from your journalistic perspective the disparate roles today between TV and print and the counter-intuitive divergence now arisen. You'd think TV would be better at telling what is happening in real-time but increasingly it is dominated by talking heads; you'd think print journalism would be better on reflection and looking forward but increasingly we look to print reports of field reporters to tell us what actually happened.”
Hub Blog’s response: I think you’re right about TV vs. print coverage. For the second day in a row, it took the Globe and Herald and other print sources to gather and sort out the facts from the previous day’s jumble of madness. In my 'Fog of war ..' post earlier today, I relied once again on a day-old Globe story that still held up and that should have been read yesterday by the TV types. Meanwhile, Anthony Shadid et gang really made clear what exactly happened yesterday. ... What’s going on? There’s just been too much ‘real time’confusion, too much information, too many different strands to pull together. TV allowed itself to be overwhelmed by the flood of information -- and they looked like the proverbial chickens with their heads cut off. They had the legs (the facts) to run with, but no head (the perspective) to tell them where they were going. The surprising initial events/timing of the war really confused them, so they spent an inordinate amount of time seeking experts to tell them which way they were headed. ...
Last night’s ‘Greater Boston’ show on Channel 2, in its weekly Beat the Press segment, touched upon roughly the same issue as it concerned ‘embedded’ journalism. The consensus: The embedded idea is good. But there was disagreement about whether it was being ‘tied together’ properly. That definitely applied to the broadcast outlets. That didn’t/hasn’t applied to print outlets, because they’ve clearly had time to sort and tie the facts together for the morning papers. They've done a great job. ...
... Ah, let me give you a first-hand example of what I'm talking about. The first night of the ground war, Hub Blog wrote probably the most embarrassing, spastic things I’ve ever posted on this blog. It was a miserable and failed attempt at ‘real time’ blogging. I was overwhelmed, asking stupid questions, making stupid remarks. Things only became more clear when I read the print accounts the next morning.
Update - 3:50 p.m. -- Yikes, Reader No. 1, who I've been exchanging emails with on this, just sent this response about blogging. Definitely agree about the overripe items on blogs. They're embarrassing. Reader No. 1:
"The Blog Community in the last few days seems to be suffering to some extent from the same malady as the TV news organizations: everybody wants to say SOMETHING and, unless you're out on the frontlines with the troops and the citizens (like our intrepid Globe reporters), there is not a lot to say from the comfort of the armchair and computer desk.
"A second problem, which TV news can avoid but bloggers can't, is currency. Items written in the heat of changing circumstances don't keep well. And blogging archives insure that everyone notices overripe items."
Mickey and Kerry: Mickey Kaus is beating the crap out of John Kerry again.
Those pesky electric rates: We interrupt this war for a local subject trying to be slipped under the radar: A request for a 44 percent rate increase for electricity. And more evidence streams in of our They-May-Have-Botched-It electric deregulation. .... Now back to the war. ...
The fog of war, the fog of journalism, the fog of blogging: Last night, it finally hit me, ‘Hmmmmmmm. So this is the fog of war that everyone talks about.’ And, boy, the fog is pretty thick: Evidence things are going very well, evidence that it may not be going as well as anticipated here and there. A few random thoughts from one blogger, concentrating on three main areas: strategies and tactics, predictions about how the war is going, and media coverage of the anti-war movement. The impressions are based mostly on local reporting by the Globe and, to a lesser extent, the Herald and other sources. Hope this helps you sort out your fog too:
Strategies and tactics:
I still think this Globe story, as I posted yesterday, is an excellent overview analysis of the (seeming) confusion and stands up relatively well a day later. Most of the battlefield confusion is deliberate. Some of it reflects changing tactics and strategies as events unfold. The administration/Pentagon seem to be sticking to their original war plans and they remain confident. ...
... The Globe’s Anthony Shadid has an outstanding story this morning on the air attacks on Baghdad yesterday -- and he makes it quite clear that the attack was against the ‘icons of power’ and appears to have left civilian areas untouched. Amazingly, Anthony managed to get out on the streets of Baghdad after the bombing to interview residents. Here’s one passage from the story: “Some still feared the worst was yet to come, and scenarios of cataclysm were still turned out regularly. But others noted - in private, for fear of uttering anything with a hint of subversion in Baghdad's tense atmosphere - that US forces had so far proved far more careful in choosing targets than in 1991, when bridges, power stations, and ministries joined the list of military objectives.”
... Still, the Globe’s Bryan Bender, based in Washington, notes that the bombing ‘jolt’ -- I’m tempted to ban ‘shock and awe’ references in Hub Blog -- appears to have not shaken Saddam’s regime as much as anticipated and so allies seemed to have turned up the bombing intensity a notch or two. More on this ‘incremental escalation’ (my words) below. ...
... There are reports of mass Iraqi defections and possibly even a negotiated surrender with top Saddam aides. Which is, obviously, outstanding news. But there is some opposition on the ground. Not much. But enough, as this story shows. And it’s a little surprising to US military officials. The battle is far from over. ... Baghdad lies ahead.
Pay attention to events like this: Turkey is moving troops into northern Iraq. These are the type of curve balls that really cause problems down the road.
Predictions about how the war is going:
Remember one thing, all you fellow pontificators: R.W. Apple’s now infamous ‘analysis’ about a growing ‘quagmire’ in Afghanistan, only hours before Northern Alliance troops swept to victory there in late 2001. ... Some pundits/bloggers are absolutely elated with how events are proceeding, such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday how his 'entire' view about the war is being vindicated. ...
But then I watched some news shows last night and was disturbed to see conservatives Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks were, well, disturbed. Krauthammer was openly worried about the war dragging on too long -- and he seemed particularly concerned about Turkey’s military actions. Brooks said he was surprised by how “political” the military strategy and tactics seem to be, which he found “scary.” He didn’t say it, but Hub Blog will: He was talking about Robert McNamara-like ‘incremental escalations’ in an attempt to send ‘messages’ to Saddam’s regime. The psychological aspects of this war are utterly fascinating and still unfolding.
Hub Blog’s view: Count me among the ‘Nervous Nellies,’ as Reader No. 1 tartly put it to me yesterday. Which is good. In past conflicts, whenever I got really nervous about the outcome, things tended to turn out spectacularly well. ...
Coverage of the anti-war movement:
Now I know why support for a war goes up in polls whenever radical protesters hit the streets. They remind me of those annoying Hare Krishnas at the airport, the type Robert Stack whacked out of the way as he marched through a terminal in "Airport." As one blogger noted over at Instapundit, "It's almost as if they (are) protesting us.”
... And as I said yesterday (scroll to the bottom for my comments), I think it’s time the media starts differentiating between mainstream antiwar protesters and radical protesters, who could/should also be called ‘professional protesters.’ This differentiation should be made if only because the latter are giving the former a bad name, if that's how the media has to justify the differentiation to itself.
... This Globe article about ‘die-in’ protests is both hilarious and infuriating at the same time. It’s hilarious because the protesters are such parodies of themselves. The protesters are treating this, dead seriously (no pun intended), like it’s a Toga Party -- and they don’t know it. The story is infuriating, though, because it’s treating them too seriously at one level and with kid gloves at another level, sort of like past media coverage of ‘A.N.S.W.E.R’ protests without mentioning that A.N.S.W.E.R is basically a Stalinist-front organization.
...Here’s a great example of these radical/professional protesters and the reaction of average citizens to their actions. As a Tufts University alum, I am very, very proud of the Tufts alumni association -- no bastion of conservatism, believe me -- for yanking away its award to Miss Elizabeth Monnin for her obnoxious behavior toward former President Bush when he was on campus the other week. Here’s a description of Monnin:
“(For) Monnin, the loss of the Senior Award was perhaps predictable, since much of her campus leadership centered on organizing confrontational protests. A women's studies and peace and justice double-major with an A-minus average, Monnin was an architect of a two-day takeover of the Tufts admissions office in 2000 to protest discrimination on campus, and has led other demonstrations over the last four years.”
‘Confrontational protests’ over the ‘past four years.’ All before Bush and Sept. 11, right? But Monnin does manage to mutter one intelligent thing: ''Now that we're at war, this is a great time for dialogue among alumni and students about the prowar and antiwar messages, and about protest strategy.”
Good point: Why aren’t we engaging in a ‘dialogue’ about ‘protest strategy’ and its consequences in an age of terrorism, a tense homefront and public-safety officials running around like mad trying to determine if parcels left on the T are bombs?
I’m not horribly disappointed with the media’s coverage of the antiwar movement, but I’m not the least bit impressed either. A little more honesty about the history and ideological motives of these protesters would be appreciated.
Update -- A reader responds to the above antiwar discussion and this prior post on yesterday’s City Hall Plaza protest:
“Having grown up with the kind of folks you describe at the rally yesterday I feel comfortable in saying their views are sincere and irrelevant at this time, but they MIGHT do some good in the reconstruction efforts.”
Strategies and tactics:
I still think this Globe story, as I posted yesterday, is an excellent overview analysis of the (seeming) confusion and stands up relatively well a day later. Most of the battlefield confusion is deliberate. Some of it reflects changing tactics and strategies as events unfold. The administration/Pentagon seem to be sticking to their original war plans and they remain confident. ...
... The Globe’s Anthony Shadid has an outstanding story this morning on the air attacks on Baghdad yesterday -- and he makes it quite clear that the attack was against the ‘icons of power’ and appears to have left civilian areas untouched. Amazingly, Anthony managed to get out on the streets of Baghdad after the bombing to interview residents. Here’s one passage from the story: “Some still feared the worst was yet to come, and scenarios of cataclysm were still turned out regularly. But others noted - in private, for fear of uttering anything with a hint of subversion in Baghdad's tense atmosphere - that US forces had so far proved far more careful in choosing targets than in 1991, when bridges, power stations, and ministries joined the list of military objectives.”
... Still, the Globe’s Bryan Bender, based in Washington, notes that the bombing ‘jolt’ -- I’m tempted to ban ‘shock and awe’ references in Hub Blog -- appears to have not shaken Saddam’s regime as much as anticipated and so allies seemed to have turned up the bombing intensity a notch or two. More on this ‘incremental escalation’ (my words) below. ...
... There are reports of mass Iraqi defections and possibly even a negotiated surrender with top Saddam aides. Which is, obviously, outstanding news. But there is some opposition on the ground. Not much. But enough, as this story shows. And it’s a little surprising to US military officials. The battle is far from over. ... Baghdad lies ahead.
Pay attention to events like this: Turkey is moving troops into northern Iraq. These are the type of curve balls that really cause problems down the road.
Predictions about how the war is going:
Remember one thing, all you fellow pontificators: R.W. Apple’s now infamous ‘analysis’ about a growing ‘quagmire’ in Afghanistan, only hours before Northern Alliance troops swept to victory there in late 2001. ... Some pundits/bloggers are absolutely elated with how events are proceeding, such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday how his 'entire' view about the war is being vindicated. ...
But then I watched some news shows last night and was disturbed to see conservatives Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks were, well, disturbed. Krauthammer was openly worried about the war dragging on too long -- and he seemed particularly concerned about Turkey’s military actions. Brooks said he was surprised by how “political” the military strategy and tactics seem to be, which he found “scary.” He didn’t say it, but Hub Blog will: He was talking about Robert McNamara-like ‘incremental escalations’ in an attempt to send ‘messages’ to Saddam’s regime. The psychological aspects of this war are utterly fascinating and still unfolding.
Hub Blog’s view: Count me among the ‘Nervous Nellies,’ as Reader No. 1 tartly put it to me yesterday. Which is good. In past conflicts, whenever I got really nervous about the outcome, things tended to turn out spectacularly well. ...
Coverage of the anti-war movement:
Now I know why support for a war goes up in polls whenever radical protesters hit the streets. They remind me of those annoying Hare Krishnas at the airport, the type Robert Stack whacked out of the way as he marched through a terminal in "Airport." As one blogger noted over at Instapundit, "It's almost as if they (are) protesting us.”
... And as I said yesterday (scroll to the bottom for my comments), I think it’s time the media starts differentiating between mainstream antiwar protesters and radical protesters, who could/should also be called ‘professional protesters.’ This differentiation should be made if only because the latter are giving the former a bad name, if that's how the media has to justify the differentiation to itself.
... This Globe article about ‘die-in’ protests is both hilarious and infuriating at the same time. It’s hilarious because the protesters are such parodies of themselves. The protesters are treating this, dead seriously (no pun intended), like it’s a Toga Party -- and they don’t know it. The story is infuriating, though, because it’s treating them too seriously at one level and with kid gloves at another level, sort of like past media coverage of ‘A.N.S.W.E.R’ protests without mentioning that A.N.S.W.E.R is basically a Stalinist-front organization.
...Here’s a great example of these radical/professional protesters and the reaction of average citizens to their actions. As a Tufts University alum, I am very, very proud of the Tufts alumni association -- no bastion of conservatism, believe me -- for yanking away its award to Miss Elizabeth Monnin for her obnoxious behavior toward former President Bush when he was on campus the other week. Here’s a description of Monnin:
“(For) Monnin, the loss of the Senior Award was perhaps predictable, since much of her campus leadership centered on organizing confrontational protests. A women's studies and peace and justice double-major with an A-minus average, Monnin was an architect of a two-day takeover of the Tufts admissions office in 2000 to protest discrimination on campus, and has led other demonstrations over the last four years.”
‘Confrontational protests’ over the ‘past four years.’ All before Bush and Sept. 11, right? But Monnin does manage to mutter one intelligent thing: ''Now that we're at war, this is a great time for dialogue among alumni and students about the prowar and antiwar messages, and about protest strategy.”
Good point: Why aren’t we engaging in a ‘dialogue’ about ‘protest strategy’ and its consequences in an age of terrorism, a tense homefront and public-safety officials running around like mad trying to determine if parcels left on the T are bombs?
I’m not horribly disappointed with the media’s coverage of the antiwar movement, but I’m not the least bit impressed either. A little more honesty about the history and ideological motives of these protesters would be appreciated.
Update -- A reader responds to the above antiwar discussion and this prior post on yesterday’s City Hall Plaza protest:
“Having grown up with the kind of folks you describe at the rally yesterday I feel comfortable in saying their views are sincere and irrelevant at this time, but they MIGHT do some good in the reconstruction efforts.”
Friday, March 21, 2003
John Ellis -- he's back: John Ellis is back with a post. And he's letting somone else do most of the talking. Read it.
Radical vs. mainstream protesters etc.: Some thoughts on the TV media, ‘shock and awe’ and radical protesters -- all from Savin Hill Reader, who is quite knowledgeable about military matters (Hub Blog happens to know Savin Hill):
“Thought I'd share these thoughts:
“1. The TV coverage has been confused by the ‘preparing the battlefield’ phase so far, thinking it was the actual ‘Shock and Awe.’ How many times in the last 36 hours have we heard ‘this might be the beginning of Shock and Awe’? ... Our forces up to now are still only doing the ‘prep’ phase -- all seizing oil fields, seizing air bases and running up to the real fight ... Baghdad. I really feel like the TV press especially is being way to complacent -- happily chirping about 30 Iraqis surrendering to British marines. As if that mattered. No, the battle is yet to come.
“2. As this article shows, radical protesters may be planning to target US military bases -- and base officials at Vandenberg have said they will ‘shoot to kill’ (this is wartime, afterall, and US military bases are both understaffed and on high alert for terrorism, so I think the ‘shoot to kill’ policy is for real). ...
“3. Given the fact that it's being reported in the press, we can deduce that Homeland Security and FBI resources are probably watching the more-radical protest organizers for US base break-ins. This makes these protesters de facto assistants to any potential terrorist attack. The important point is, in this weird age of counter-terrorism, merely PLANNING to target a ‘civil disobedience’ attack on a US military is a clear act of sedition. But what to do? By legitimately detaining these people you only create new ‘civil rights’ martyrs and before you know it Martin Sheen will be weeping outside some Federal prison with 80 TV lenses in his face.”
Hub Blog’s view: Not sure about the ‘shoot to kill’ order nor the ‘sedition’ part, but I do think we should start differentiating between mainstream protesters and radical protesters. Obviously, the Interfaith rally item directly below shows mainstream Americans exercising their constitutional right to gather, protest and criticize. God bless ‘em. But the moderate public -- and media -- should really start paying closer attention to the role and appropriateness of the radical protesters and how they’re stretching law-enforcement resources during very dangerous times. ...
The problem with cracking down on civil disobedience is that, well, it has a long and cherished history in the United States. The Civil Rights movement comes to mind as a classic case of justified civil disobedience in the face of a clear wrong. Unfortunately, though, civil disobedience has become a game to modern protesters, part of an almost religious-like ritual of getting ‘arrested’ and having a pair of plastic handcuffs slapped on their wrists, etc. They revel in it. They glorify it. They teach it to young students, as if getting arrested at a protest is a rite of passage, a PC merit badge that needs to be earned. They’ve taken civil disobedience to a new level -- and a much lower and shabbier level compared with the Civil Rights movement. In a way, they're abusing the tolerance and respect we have for civil disobedience. ... Pathetically, some haven’t thought through the possible consequences of their actions, as I noted the other day.
“Thought I'd share these thoughts:
“1. The TV coverage has been confused by the ‘preparing the battlefield’ phase so far, thinking it was the actual ‘Shock and Awe.’ How many times in the last 36 hours have we heard ‘this might be the beginning of Shock and Awe’? ... Our forces up to now are still only doing the ‘prep’ phase -- all seizing oil fields, seizing air bases and running up to the real fight ... Baghdad. I really feel like the TV press especially is being way to complacent -- happily chirping about 30 Iraqis surrendering to British marines. As if that mattered. No, the battle is yet to come.
“2. As this article shows, radical protesters may be planning to target US military bases -- and base officials at Vandenberg have said they will ‘shoot to kill’ (this is wartime, afterall, and US military bases are both understaffed and on high alert for terrorism, so I think the ‘shoot to kill’ policy is for real). ...
“3. Given the fact that it's being reported in the press, we can deduce that Homeland Security and FBI resources are probably watching the more-radical protest organizers for US base break-ins. This makes these protesters de facto assistants to any potential terrorist attack. The important point is, in this weird age of counter-terrorism, merely PLANNING to target a ‘civil disobedience’ attack on a US military is a clear act of sedition. But what to do? By legitimately detaining these people you only create new ‘civil rights’ martyrs and before you know it Martin Sheen will be weeping outside some Federal prison with 80 TV lenses in his face.”
Hub Blog’s view: Not sure about the ‘shoot to kill’ order nor the ‘sedition’ part, but I do think we should start differentiating between mainstream protesters and radical protesters. Obviously, the Interfaith rally item directly below shows mainstream Americans exercising their constitutional right to gather, protest and criticize. God bless ‘em. But the moderate public -- and media -- should really start paying closer attention to the role and appropriateness of the radical protesters and how they’re stretching law-enforcement resources during very dangerous times. ...
The problem with cracking down on civil disobedience is that, well, it has a long and cherished history in the United States. The Civil Rights movement comes to mind as a classic case of justified civil disobedience in the face of a clear wrong. Unfortunately, though, civil disobedience has become a game to modern protesters, part of an almost religious-like ritual of getting ‘arrested’ and having a pair of plastic handcuffs slapped on their wrists, etc. They revel in it. They glorify it. They teach it to young students, as if getting arrested at a protest is a rite of passage, a PC merit badge that needs to be earned. They’ve taken civil disobedience to a new level -- and a much lower and shabbier level compared with the Civil Rights movement. In a way, they're abusing the tolerance and respect we have for civil disobedience. ... Pathetically, some haven’t thought through the possible consequences of their actions, as I noted the other day.
Blogging in the time of war: Mickey Kaus has some interesting things to say about blogging in the time of war (scroll down a bit).
Interfaith Walk restores a little faith in antiwar movement: Strolled up to City Hall Plaza to see the Interfaith Walk rally against the war. About 200 people there. About half as many more were spectators like me, just looking on and listening. No ‘A.N.S.W.E.R.’ flags. No ‘No war for oil’ signs that I could see. No rants against Israel or racism or Bush or globablization or oppression of this-or-that victims group. Surprisingly few ‘60s imitators. Instead, it was dignified and solemn. ... Lots of talk about love, forgiveness and a genuine desire for peace. ... One pastor who spoke requested a round of applause for the police for showing ‘restraint,’ an odd use of the word, considering there was no reason for anything but restraint. Still, the backhanded compliment was meant as a compliment -- and people clapped for the cops. (The cops didn’t notice; they were hanging out at the plaza’s edges, casually chatting with each other and drinking coffee by their squad cars.) ... What can I say? Disagreed with the protesters’ pacifist views, but they weren’t the angry pacifist types. They were quiet and earnest. I got bored, frankly, and left after 15 minutes, heading off to Haymarket for a produce run. Perhaps a few idiotic things were said and done while I wasn’t there. But I doubt it. ... They were peaceful and harmless.
Big thumbs up for Saltonstall project -- so far: While walking to City Hall along Cambridge Street, Hub Blog, an incurable sidewalk superintendent, came to an abrupt stop at the Saltonstall building. The exterior tarp covering the Bowdoin Street portion of the new apartment complex has been taken down -- and, no, it isn’t another Hotel Commonwealth horror show. Instead, it looked terrific. They made the exterior of the apartment complex -- sitting at the base of the Saltonstall -- look like separate townhouses (even though they aren’t), with four distinct exterior styles (some repeated a few times), different shades of red brick (and a granite-like exterior on a few others), different ‘building’ heights etc. MassDevelopment appears to be doing an excellent job. ... The Cambridge Street side is still covered.
‘Sowing ambiguity and confusion’: Excellent story in the Globe this morning about all the confusion surrounding the war. Bottom line: The war did start earlier than intended because of the ‘decapitation’ attempt against Saddam and Iraqi missile strikes against Kuwait. Otherwise, all other things are going, tactically, as planned and it “appears aimed at sowing ambiguity and confusion among Iraqi leaders and soldiers.” The Globe story adds:
“Asked if the planned 'shock and awe’ campaign had been delayed, a senior defense official said, ‘Nothing has been delayed. ...’” I.e. the administration appears to be holding back on ‘shock and awe’ to see if Saddam falls first, then it will use it if he sticks around.
Interesting strategy if true. Read the story. Answers a lot of military/diplomatic questions. Good job by the Globe.
‘The ultimate moral righteousness’: Nice piece by Scot Lehigh. My sentiments exactly:
“But criticizing the diplomatic process that has led us to war is quite different from questioning the ultimate moral righteousness of this war. ... Regardless of how one feels about this administration, there can be little dispute on this point: The end of Saddam's dictatorship will be an immense blessing to the average Iraqi.”
Ted Kennedy, an American: Ted Kennedy fought the good fight when it came to politically opposing the administration before the fighting began. But now that the country is at war, Kennedy knows what to do and shows what’s he made of at heart:
“Our thoughts and our heartfelt prayers are also with our president. ... We join our president in pledging our commitment to victory, to disarm Saddam and to bring freedom and opportunity to all the people of Iraq.”
His words about Massachusetts’ troops are moving.
‘Work within the rules’: The vast majority of local antiwar protesters yesterday were peaceful. Good. Whether you agree with them or not, they have the right to march, yell, hold signs etc. As a Korean war vet said about the protesters’ right to criticize: "That's what the flag stands for.” ...
... But not all protesters were peaceful. Some closed down local bridges. Some tried to block military facilities. Some simply wanted to get arrested, as some sort of nostalgic ritual that transforms them back to the ‘60s and makes them feel better about themselves. ... As I said yesterday, if it’s important to condemn Tom DeLay’s harsh criticism of war critics, it’s also important to condemn the non-First Amendment actions of people intent on breaking the laws and disrupting/draining our public-safety resources. This is not the ‘60s. This is today. There are legitimate fears of terrorism. So bravo for Mayor Menino for asserting the following:
“Early in the day, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino sent a stern message to protesters, saying: ‘We urge everyone to work within the rules. We're not going to allow people to take over this city.’”
The problem is some hard-core protesters will hold us to the rules, but reserve the right for themselves to behave in whatever way they deem romantically acceptable in their own minds.
A compromise on Bulger?: Mixed signals being sent from the Romney administration about Bulger’s fate. Hey, I think the guy is unfit to serve in public office. He should go -- but if you have to compromise, then you have to compromise. ... But is Stephen Tocco really the type of ‘fresh face’ we want cutting deals with Billy and speaking on behalf of the administration? Read Tocco’s remarks about Billy in both stories.
‘I absolutely started losing it’: A rare behind-the-scenes glimpse at a total PR disaster. ... Personally, I think Donna Morrissey, the church’s spokeswoman during the recent sex-abuse scandals, has performed remarkably well under horrible circumstances. She's probably had the worst PR job in America over the past year -- and perhaps the worst PR job in Boston’s history.
“Asked if the planned 'shock and awe’ campaign had been delayed, a senior defense official said, ‘Nothing has been delayed. ...’” I.e. the administration appears to be holding back on ‘shock and awe’ to see if Saddam falls first, then it will use it if he sticks around.
Interesting strategy if true. Read the story. Answers a lot of military/diplomatic questions. Good job by the Globe.
‘The ultimate moral righteousness’: Nice piece by Scot Lehigh. My sentiments exactly:
“But criticizing the diplomatic process that has led us to war is quite different from questioning the ultimate moral righteousness of this war. ... Regardless of how one feels about this administration, there can be little dispute on this point: The end of Saddam's dictatorship will be an immense blessing to the average Iraqi.”
Ted Kennedy, an American: Ted Kennedy fought the good fight when it came to politically opposing the administration before the fighting began. But now that the country is at war, Kennedy knows what to do and shows what’s he made of at heart:
“Our thoughts and our heartfelt prayers are also with our president. ... We join our president in pledging our commitment to victory, to disarm Saddam and to bring freedom and opportunity to all the people of Iraq.”
His words about Massachusetts’ troops are moving.
‘Work within the rules’: The vast majority of local antiwar protesters yesterday were peaceful. Good. Whether you agree with them or not, they have the right to march, yell, hold signs etc. As a Korean war vet said about the protesters’ right to criticize: "That's what the flag stands for.” ...
... But not all protesters were peaceful. Some closed down local bridges. Some tried to block military facilities. Some simply wanted to get arrested, as some sort of nostalgic ritual that transforms them back to the ‘60s and makes them feel better about themselves. ... As I said yesterday, if it’s important to condemn Tom DeLay’s harsh criticism of war critics, it’s also important to condemn the non-First Amendment actions of people intent on breaking the laws and disrupting/draining our public-safety resources. This is not the ‘60s. This is today. There are legitimate fears of terrorism. So bravo for Mayor Menino for asserting the following:
“Early in the day, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino sent a stern message to protesters, saying: ‘We urge everyone to work within the rules. We're not going to allow people to take over this city.’”
The problem is some hard-core protesters will hold us to the rules, but reserve the right for themselves to behave in whatever way they deem romantically acceptable in their own minds.
A compromise on Bulger?: Mixed signals being sent from the Romney administration about Bulger’s fate. Hey, I think the guy is unfit to serve in public office. He should go -- but if you have to compromise, then you have to compromise. ... But is Stephen Tocco really the type of ‘fresh face’ we want cutting deals with Billy and speaking on behalf of the administration? Read Tocco’s remarks about Billy in both stories.
‘I absolutely started losing it’: A rare behind-the-scenes glimpse at a total PR disaster. ... Personally, I think Donna Morrissey, the church’s spokeswoman during the recent sex-abuse scandals, has performed remarkably well under horrible circumstances. She's probably had the worst PR job in America over the past year -- and perhaps the worst PR job in Boston’s history.
Thursday, March 20, 2003
Strange war... Part II: Sure looks like, from this arm-chair general, that last night's attack on Saddam seriously disrupted/changed war plans. The Washington Post is reporting, under a three-reporter byline that includes Bob Woodward's name, that Saddam may very well have been injured/killed/shaken last night, disrupting the Iraqi military command at the very least. ... Meanwhile, the Post is also reporting that the war started 'a day earlier than planned,' also indicating that plans were pushed ahead to take advantage of unfolding events. ... Still no 'shock and awe,' which looks like it was delayed/cancelled/never planned/will come later than anticipated. ... Reports of negotiations between the Republican Guard and the administration. ... Wrote in the item below that Rummy earlier tonight 'practically sighed with disgust with the way things are going,' i.e. he was possibly upset that we had pulled a punch. Instead, his sigh may have been an indication that Rummy couldn't say what he really wanted to say. So maybe my remark below that 'maybe I'm wrong' was right. ... What a night. ... Still, Baghdad is ahead.
Postscript: Noticed how the Green Party was advertising against the war on the top of Hub Blog a few minutes ago. Assume other blogs got the same advertisements. Yet another interesting development on the weblog war/antiwar advertising tonight, with ads coming from across the political spectrum.
Postscript: Noticed how the Green Party was advertising against the war on the top of Hub Blog a few minutes ago. Assume other blogs got the same advertisements. Yet another interesting development on the weblog war/antiwar advertising tonight, with ads coming from across the political spectrum.
Strange war. ...: So the 'shock and awe' strategy, as of this hour and minute, hasn't been employed. ... What are they doing? As in the Bush Administration. Does this make me a What-the-Hell-Type-of-Botched-Hawk-Type-of-Hawk war is this? Am I being an arm-chair general? ... I think this shows the Bush administration is indeed holding back. Not sure if that's good. Not sure if that's bad. Strikes me as brilliant. Strikes me also as Robert McNamarish in terms of its ‘slow escalation.’ Don't know which one it is. ... What are they up to? Fascinating. ... Just heard Rummy on TV. He practically sighed with disgust with the way things are going. Maybe I'm wrong. ... Rummy did say, without an ounce of hesitation, that we'll prevail. Saddam and his regime are goners, Rummy suggested. He said it without any hint of doubt. ... Very, very strange events unfolding. ... Now they're reporting that US troops are moving fast into Iraq's interior. ... Boots on the ground! ... General Hub Blog will keep you informed!
... Reports of mass arrests of anti-war types, who reserve to themselves the exclusive self-righteous right to civil disobedience (but whining when Tom DeLay says naughty French things about them), are apparently doing ugly, non-First Amendment things out in San Francisco. But, of course, this is Vietnam. Is there a 'Pleasantville' of the left? ... And they complain about Talk Radio? Give me a break.
... Just heard Newt talking about Vietnam, George McGovern, etc. It's 'Pleasantville' from all ideological directions!
Update -- 9:55 p.m. - Gotta get Blogger Pro. They just ran an ad on Hub Blog for Denise Kucinich. How embarrassing.
Update -- 9:56 p.m. - War profiteers! They're going crazy with the war ads on blogger. Big night. Just noticed an ad on Hub Blog for William Kristol and Lawrence's Kaplan's new book. Repeat: It's 'Pleasantville' from all ideological directions! ... Oh, goodness. What a night.
Update -- 9: 59 p.m. - Reports of casualties. Seriously. Time to sign off. No time to joke. Sorry.
Update -- 10:01 p.m. - Can't help myself. Now there's talk of massive Iraqi defections. Who knows?
Update -- 10:10 p.m. -- Troops are definitely on the move, Iraqi time. An expert on Fox News seems pretty darn confident of a very quick collapse of the Iraqi regime. Hope it's true. ... Fox showing armored vehicles moving at full speed ahead, dust churning up. Yep, it's begun.
Update -- 10:20 p.m. - Greg Kelly of Fox News (think that's how he spells it) describing the sound of the advance, as he broadcasts embedded live, as a 'ferocious roar.' Sounds like it. I can literally hear it on TV. ... Fox just reported that the attack is 'right on time.' ... Where's the 'shock and awe'? Interesting.
Update -- 10:25 - This is really historic. Baghdad is still far, far away. Don't assume anything. Nastiness is still ahead. Or assume so. But, still, the rumble sound of armor on TV is surreal. ... Fox's reporter has admitted he knows where they're going but he can't say. ... 'Can't tell you anything more than that.' ... Was 'shock and awe' a ruse or still in the offing? Just wondering.
Update -- 10:30 p.m - Fox is showing American GIs jumping out of trucks/whatever grabbing Iraqi flags as trophies. Folks, turn on the TV. Amazing. History.
... Signing off. Enough. Never seen anything like this in my life. Incredible. Historic. Wonder if they'll show actual combat. Not sure if I want to see it, but still wonder what will happen if/when the public sees real carnage on TV.
... Reports of mass arrests of anti-war types, who reserve to themselves the exclusive self-righteous right to civil disobedience (but whining when Tom DeLay says naughty French things about them), are apparently doing ugly, non-First Amendment things out in San Francisco. But, of course, this is Vietnam. Is there a 'Pleasantville' of the left? ... And they complain about Talk Radio? Give me a break.
... Just heard Newt talking about Vietnam, George McGovern, etc. It's 'Pleasantville' from all ideological directions!
Update -- 9:55 p.m. - Gotta get Blogger Pro. They just ran an ad on Hub Blog for Denise Kucinich. How embarrassing.
Update -- 9:56 p.m. - War profiteers! They're going crazy with the war ads on blogger. Big night. Just noticed an ad on Hub Blog for William Kristol and Lawrence's Kaplan's new book. Repeat: It's 'Pleasantville' from all ideological directions! ... Oh, goodness. What a night.
Update -- 9: 59 p.m. - Reports of casualties. Seriously. Time to sign off. No time to joke. Sorry.
Update -- 10:01 p.m. - Can't help myself. Now there's talk of massive Iraqi defections. Who knows?
Update -- 10:10 p.m. -- Troops are definitely on the move, Iraqi time. An expert on Fox News seems pretty darn confident of a very quick collapse of the Iraqi regime. Hope it's true. ... Fox showing armored vehicles moving at full speed ahead, dust churning up. Yep, it's begun.
Update -- 10:20 p.m. - Greg Kelly of Fox News (think that's how he spells it) describing the sound of the advance, as he broadcasts embedded live, as a 'ferocious roar.' Sounds like it. I can literally hear it on TV. ... Fox just reported that the attack is 'right on time.' ... Where's the 'shock and awe'? Interesting.
Update -- 10:25 - This is really historic. Baghdad is still far, far away. Don't assume anything. Nastiness is still ahead. Or assume so. But, still, the rumble sound of armor on TV is surreal. ... Fox's reporter has admitted he knows where they're going but he can't say. ... 'Can't tell you anything more than that.' ... Was 'shock and awe' a ruse or still in the offing? Just wondering.
Update -- 10:30 p.m - Fox is showing American GIs jumping out of trucks/whatever grabbing Iraqi flags as trophies. Folks, turn on the TV. Amazing. History.
... Signing off. Enough. Never seen anything like this in my life. Incredible. Historic. Wonder if they'll show actual combat. Not sure if I want to see it, but still wonder what will happen if/when the public sees real carnage on TV.
'A multi-part symphony of positioning': Mickey Kaus is calling John Kerry's war statement a "multi-part symphony of positioning." Which is usually the case with everything the senator says. (Scroll down to Wednesday's posts at Kaus Files to read Mickey's comments.)
Um, er, well, ah, well ...: Look up. Are the doomsday ads still at the top of the site? Don't tell me. I don't want to know. ... I don't handle the ads! ... Strange days indeed.
Update - 3:35 p.m. -- Hmmmm. Still see the old end-of-the-world ads at the top of this site. They really come out of the woodwork in times like these. Actually, I kind of find them humorous; my favorite is '666 Revealed.'. ... Is this how blogger gets you to upgrade?
Update - 3:35 p.m. -- Hmmmm. Still see the old end-of-the-world ads at the top of this site. They really come out of the woodwork in times like these. Actually, I kind of find them humorous; my favorite is '666 Revealed.'. ... Is this how blogger gets you to upgrade?
'The Baghdad Express': We're going to learn many things in the next few days, including whether Saddam has an unfinished Big Dig of his own underneath the streets of Baghdad. You'd think the CIA or someone could confirm this story from MIT's Technology Review. ...
... And while you're at it, check out the Boston-based Atlantic Monthly, which has finally put up its articles from the March issue. Robert Kaplan tackles America's involvement in Yemen and Eritrea, while Christopher Hitchens urges writers to be more stringent in their criticism of radical Islam. Hitchens just nails liberals and conservatives who refused to come to the aid of Salman Rushdie when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his fatwa against Rushdie for writing 'The Satanic Verses.' God, it seems so long ago, but Hitchens makes clear why the Rushdie case is still so relevant today.
... And while you're at it, check out the Boston-based Atlantic Monthly, which has finally put up its articles from the March issue. Robert Kaplan tackles America's involvement in Yemen and Eritrea, while Christopher Hitchens urges writers to be more stringent in their criticism of radical Islam. Hitchens just nails liberals and conservatives who refused to come to the aid of Salman Rushdie when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his fatwa against Rushdie for writing 'The Satanic Verses.' God, it seems so long ago, but Hitchens makes clear why the Rushdie case is still so relevant today.
‘I haven't come to terms with that yet’: I pontificated yesterday about the right to protest and criticize during a time of war. Still feel that way. But reading about the civil disobedience protests/arrests yesterday in Boston -- here’s the Globe story and the Herald story -- made me feel queasy and more than a little upset. Why? Because they crossed a line, literally. This isn’t Vietnam. This is today. And we’re facing terrorists threats -- and don’t those protesters know that? In the Globe story, I found this passage intriguing:
“A few hours after leaving the protest, Greg Banks, 33, of Jamaica Plain, sat in the lobby of the South Boston police station, waiting for his friends to post bail. He was glad the protests had finally taken this turn, he said, but added that he is worried about terrorism -- and doesn't want to drain the resources of the police at such a crucial time.
“ ‘To be honest, I haven't come to terms with that yet,’ he said.”
If we condemn Tom DeLay for saying outrageous things about critics of the war, we should also be condemning people who -- in the arrogant name of civil disobedience -- do outrageous things by draining public safety resources during a tense time of war and terrorism. Let protesters march. Let them hold signs. Let them write op-ed and letters to the editors. Let them relive the ‘60s through their tired ‘teach ins’ and ‘hey ho’ chants. But this is NOT the ‘60s. This is today. There are legitimate fears of terrorism. And if one soldier or civilian is killed or harmed because of these over-the-line protests, then these smug ‘idealists’ ... oh, never mind. ... ‘To be honest, I haven't come to terms with that yet.’ Amazing. What a moron.
... The Globe gets it just right in this editorial, defending the right to protest and criticize, while gently chastising those using overblown rhetoric, both left and right. ... Here’s an example of critics of the administration acting responsibly. (Kennedy’s words are great, despite my disagreement with his stance on the war.) ... Here’s an example of pro-war and anti-war people holding an intelligent non-over-the-line discussion about events overseas. ... And here’s an example of irresponsible rhetoric, though they have a right to say this in the CSM op-ed pages. (I mean, please. I like Desmond Tutu. He’s a great historic figure. But comparing today’s events to slavery, the holocaust and, yes, Vietnam? Jeez.) ...
... For those of you worried about Tony Blair’s future, take heart. ...
For those of you who love bashing the French but still secretly love French culture (C’est Hub Blog!), read this story and lick your chops: ‘Roasted squab with walnut salad, wild mushroom casserole with black truffle, and braised monkfish, each matched with a French wine.’ Mmmmmmm. Mushroom casserole. The first casualty of war! We can’t let this go to waste!
Update -- They're now reporting that maybe, just maybe, we DID get Saddam in last night's attack. Let's hope so, but I wonder who ordered the SCUD attacks on Kuwait if Saddam is indeed dead. It's a nasty regime running that country, Saddam or no Saddam.
Update II 10:15 a.m. -- Instapundit has a great post about a great post by Eric Alterman on the anti-war movement/sentiment, as the bombs fall and our troops move out.
“A few hours after leaving the protest, Greg Banks, 33, of Jamaica Plain, sat in the lobby of the South Boston police station, waiting for his friends to post bail. He was glad the protests had finally taken this turn, he said, but added that he is worried about terrorism -- and doesn't want to drain the resources of the police at such a crucial time.
“ ‘To be honest, I haven't come to terms with that yet,’ he said.”
If we condemn Tom DeLay for saying outrageous things about critics of the war, we should also be condemning people who -- in the arrogant name of civil disobedience -- do outrageous things by draining public safety resources during a tense time of war and terrorism. Let protesters march. Let them hold signs. Let them write op-ed and letters to the editors. Let them relive the ‘60s through their tired ‘teach ins’ and ‘hey ho’ chants. But this is NOT the ‘60s. This is today. There are legitimate fears of terrorism. And if one soldier or civilian is killed or harmed because of these over-the-line protests, then these smug ‘idealists’ ... oh, never mind. ... ‘To be honest, I haven't come to terms with that yet.’ Amazing. What a moron.
... The Globe gets it just right in this editorial, defending the right to protest and criticize, while gently chastising those using overblown rhetoric, both left and right. ... Here’s an example of critics of the administration acting responsibly. (Kennedy’s words are great, despite my disagreement with his stance on the war.) ... Here’s an example of pro-war and anti-war people holding an intelligent non-over-the-line discussion about events overseas. ... And here’s an example of irresponsible rhetoric, though they have a right to say this in the CSM op-ed pages. (I mean, please. I like Desmond Tutu. He’s a great historic figure. But comparing today’s events to slavery, the holocaust and, yes, Vietnam? Jeez.) ...
... For those of you worried about Tony Blair’s future, take heart. ...
For those of you who love bashing the French but still secretly love French culture (C’est Hub Blog!), read this story and lick your chops: ‘Roasted squab with walnut salad, wild mushroom casserole with black truffle, and braised monkfish, each matched with a French wine.’ Mmmmmmm. Mushroom casserole. The first casualty of war! We can’t let this go to waste!
Update -- They're now reporting that maybe, just maybe, we DID get Saddam in last night's attack. Let's hope so, but I wonder who ordered the SCUD attacks on Kuwait if Saddam is indeed dead. It's a nasty regime running that country, Saddam or no Saddam.
Update II 10:15 a.m. -- Instapundit has a great post about a great post by Eric Alterman on the anti-war movement/sentiment, as the bombs fall and our troops move out.
There’s a war, but there’s still Billy: Retired state police officer Richard Schneiderhan was convicted yesterday for illegally passing along a tip that the FBI was monitoring Jackie and Billy’s phone lines in an attempt to apprehend an accused mass murderer. ... Meanwhile, Billy is dipping into a non-profit endowment fund to hire a PR firm for 'strategic advice.' Now, if this was a legitimate case of hiring a inter-governmental lobbyist to promote the 'strategic' interests of UMass on Beacon Hill, then they can and should use public university funds. But, of course, it's not a legitimate 'strategic' cause, so Billy sinks to new lows by tapping into a technically private, non-profit endowment fund to rehire the same PR firm he employed when he refused to testify about the whereabouts of his accused mass-murdering brother. This guy has no shame. None.
Soak the rich!: They grudgingly admit state revenues were way up in the ‘90s. They fudge around the fact that state spending was double the rate of inflation in the ‘90s. But, damn it, it STILL wasn’t enough. So what do the tax-tax-tax advocates concentrate on? The fact that state spending didn’t keep pace with the rise in people’s income, as if the state has some sort of right to take away what gains people eke out while facing skyrocketing housing, health care and utility costs, as if the state could have and should have spent even more money during one of the country’s greatest economic expansions. ... Hub Blog has railed before against the ‘income’ comparison, so let me do it one more time: If by some miracle Massachusetts were to find some sort of Norwegian-like off-shore oil field and the state’s average ‘income’ went up by 100 percent, does that mean that state spending has to increase by the same percentage? ... Notice how the author of the op-ed downplays a certain aspect of the current budget debate. Shhhhhhhh. Don’t say it too loud. It has something to do with a ‘recession.’ But, no, he takes all the numbers and magically concludes that we could have been running a surplus right now if we had just taxed a little more. Boy, makes me want to slap my forehead and exclaim, ‘Wow! Why didn’t I think of that? He’s found the magic formula of painless government -- recession or no recession!’ ... Notice the soak-the-rich/easy-way-out rhetoric at the very end. ... Hub Blog’s mantra: No reforms, no new taxes.
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Adieu, Les Nations Unies?: Damn. More French-phrase dropping. Anyway, a very, very curious thing may be developing, methinks, to wit: Is George Bush adopting a more multilateralist approach/attitude toward foreign policy in preparation of the next post-Iraq phase of the war? Might sound strange to ask this considering we're about to go to war without UN approval. But Tom Oliphant was the first to catch the UN-embracing vibes in Bush's speech the other night. And you couldn’t help but catch the vibes from this Globe story this morning about Bush’s careful use of UN-style language to justify his actions. ...
... Hub Blog, a non-wavering He’s-Botching-It Hawk, hopes this is true. My basic complaint against the president is that he didn’t deftly use unilateralism and multilateralism in conjunction with one another throughout the past year -- that he initially bought too much into the unilateralist argument about US foreign policy. The 7 1/2 months after his ‘Axis of Evil’ speech were disastrous times for American diplomacy and PR. But in August, the president was all but pushed/convinced, over the objections of people like Dick Cheney, into a more moderate multilateralist approach advocated by Colin Powell and Tony Blair. Conventional Wisdom has it that the president got burned in the UN process. But maybe he sees it differently: That he came damn close to achieving his aims by going to the UN and he lost nothing by doing so. The unilateralist card will always be there to use -- as it should be -- but maybe, just maybe, the president has learned he can use both unilateralism and multilateralism at the same time to achieve the same goal. Keep any eye on this. As I said yesterday, maybe the real George Bush is the one we saw in the past 4 1/2 months, not the 7 1/2 months leading up to our involvement in the UN. One last note: If you haven’t already, read the item I posted on Monday ('Back our country and troops...'), written by another blogger, about the UN and how we can and should be dominating it to our advantage, not dismissing it in a cry-baby huff.
P.S. Of course, the president's UN hints may be cynically calculated because he wants others to pay for/oversee Iraq after the war. But I wonder if there isn't something more to his rhetoric. We'll see. Very interesting.
Update - 4 p.m. -- Someone wrote in saying he didn't think Bush deserved the 'shellacking' he's been getting on the diplomatic front, and the reader sent in this piece by Michael Barone. Obviously A.) I disagree with the Barone piece, particularly the attempt to compare Bush to Blair and the way Michael glosses over why the German election swung on the anti-American/pacifist hinge. I.e. it was tied to the events of the previous 7 1/2 months and how the German people were frightened about war. B.) This Botching-It subject is now closed. Fighting is about to break out, and there are indications troops are already moving into the DMZ between Kuwait and Iraq.
... Hub Blog, a non-wavering He’s-Botching-It Hawk, hopes this is true. My basic complaint against the president is that he didn’t deftly use unilateralism and multilateralism in conjunction with one another throughout the past year -- that he initially bought too much into the unilateralist argument about US foreign policy. The 7 1/2 months after his ‘Axis of Evil’ speech were disastrous times for American diplomacy and PR. But in August, the president was all but pushed/convinced, over the objections of people like Dick Cheney, into a more moderate multilateralist approach advocated by Colin Powell and Tony Blair. Conventional Wisdom has it that the president got burned in the UN process. But maybe he sees it differently: That he came damn close to achieving his aims by going to the UN and he lost nothing by doing so. The unilateralist card will always be there to use -- as it should be -- but maybe, just maybe, the president has learned he can use both unilateralism and multilateralism at the same time to achieve the same goal. Keep any eye on this. As I said yesterday, maybe the real George Bush is the one we saw in the past 4 1/2 months, not the 7 1/2 months leading up to our involvement in the UN. One last note: If you haven’t already, read the item I posted on Monday ('Back our country and troops...'), written by another blogger, about the UN and how we can and should be dominating it to our advantage, not dismissing it in a cry-baby huff.
P.S. Of course, the president's UN hints may be cynically calculated because he wants others to pay for/oversee Iraq after the war. But I wonder if there isn't something more to his rhetoric. We'll see. Very interesting.
Update - 4 p.m. -- Someone wrote in saying he didn't think Bush deserved the 'shellacking' he's been getting on the diplomatic front, and the reader sent in this piece by Michael Barone. Obviously A.) I disagree with the Barone piece, particularly the attempt to compare Bush to Blair and the way Michael glosses over why the German election swung on the anti-American/pacifist hinge. I.e. it was tied to the events of the previous 7 1/2 months and how the German people were frightened about war. B.) This Botching-It subject is now closed. Fighting is about to break out, and there are indications troops are already moving into the DMZ between Kuwait and Iraq.
‘I don't want you beside me in my tank’: Must be tough for reporters over in the Gulf to come up with original story angles. Getting tired of all the same They’re Bored And Tense pieces about GIs. But this Herald story, well, it’s fantastic. Really. One of the best ‘slice of life’ stories I’ve read so far about GIs and their lives over there. What’s it about? It’s a vivid, off-the-beaten-path story about a sergeant cracking down on GIs getting drunk. You might be saying: Huh? But read it. It’s refreshingly daring and simple. ... The last quote is superb.
... Want to feel guilty about referring to our lawmakers as a bunch of hacks? Then read this article about state Rep. Brian Golden.
Update - 4 p.m. -- A reader took me to task for not giving credit to the Herald reporter who wrote the drunk-GIs piece. He's right: The Herald reporter is Jules Crittenden. Wonderful reporting.
Update II - 4:25 p.m. -- Hey, just confirmed, via the same reader, that Dan Kennedy has found that Crittenden is writing a warblog for Poynter.org. Cool. Good for Crittenden and the Herald.
... Want to feel guilty about referring to our lawmakers as a bunch of hacks? Then read this article about state Rep. Brian Golden.
Update - 4 p.m. -- A reader took me to task for not giving credit to the Herald reporter who wrote the drunk-GIs piece. He's right: The Herald reporter is Jules Crittenden. Wonderful reporting.
Update II - 4:25 p.m. -- Hey, just confirmed, via the same reader, that Dan Kennedy has found that Crittenden is writing a warblog for Poynter.org. Cool. Good for Crittenden and the Herald.
Fermez la bouche yourself, Tom: Even Tom DeLay is throwing around French phrases these days, such as this one aimed at Tom Daschle for daring to criticize the Bush administration’s diplomacy: ''Fermez la bouche, Monsieur Daschle.'' ... Ugh. Do you know what this means? It means we’ve entered the dreaded Debate Over Debate in Times of War stage. Again: Ugh. I hate debates over debates. Hub Blog’s humble view: Let people yap away, even in times of war. In an absurdly long blog item the other day, I made this point: Even during the ‘Good War’ (WWII), there was healthy, vibrant debate about the course of the war -- though the ideological roles were curiously reversed at the time, with a Democratic president (and his admirals and generals) under attack by right-wing former isolationist obstructionists like William Randolph Hearst. If irresponsible/responsible debate was good enough for the Good War, then it’s perfectly OK today for Dems like Daschle and John Kerry to mouth off, though I’m not sure if it’s a politically smart thing for them to be doing right now. If they want to put their feet in their non-fermez mouths, let ‘em. ...
... The Christian Science Monitor makes roughly the same point in an editorial this morning, though Hub Blog almost barfed at the puffery CSM used to describe the anti-war movement. (The editorial’s flowery prose is almost as bad as the flowery prose used by the Globe to describe poets.)
... The Christian Science Monitor makes roughly the same point in an editorial this morning, though Hub Blog almost barfed at the puffery CSM used to describe the anti-war movement. (The editorial’s flowery prose is almost as bad as the flowery prose used by the Globe to describe poets.)
Oh, only a 20 percent hike in retail electricity rates: More evidence is flowing in about Massachusetts’ flawed deregulation of the electric industry. This one centers on natural-gas supply problems. And this editorial in the BBJ takes note of the possibly flawed environmental provisions within deregulation. Personally, I support closure of the Salem power plant, but the BBJ makes some good points. ... Ultimately, I think the real problem here is that monopolies have taken over the deregulated industry.
No reforms, no T fare hikes: The Globe gets it right. As I’ve said before, the T just has to understand that there’s a great groundswell of support for public transit, but it can’t squander that goodwill by not taking logical steps to improve and reform. ... An aside: The T’s debt-burden is a huge, huge obstacle for future growth of mass transit. Something needs to be done soon about it. The debt is coming perilously close to choking off both services and expansion.
Courtly antics: Eileen McNamara almost gets it. She blasts the proposed closure of Orange District Court while blasting the legislative-protected district courts in Ware and Boston, where patronage is rife. For a second there, I thought she was going to offer a compromise: Protect the Orange court, close the Ware and Boston courts. But she didn’t. She just uses the Orange case as a pretext to blast away at the evil Mitt. Eileen: Mitt is on YOUR side on two of the three courts you cite. It’s ultimately the patronage-loving legislature that abuses and pulls the strings of the court system -- something Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall is now battling to reform and change.
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
Ah ha!: Hub Blog has sworn off He’s-Botching-It rhetoric (see item below), so the He’s-Botching-It prose in this op-ed piece by a Tory Brit, sent courtesy of Brighton Reader, is mere coincidence and not what this item is about. And it’s not about Anything-to-Keep-Tony-Blair-in-Office, since that’s a moot point now. So what is the item about? French bashing! ... Here are Brighton Reader’s favorite lines:
"In this brief, shining moment, therefore, let us end one needless linguistic difference between us. Isn't it about time you guys stopped this ludicrous and demeaning habit of calling fried, chipped potatoes French fries? How can any patriotic American use such a term, after the way Mr. Chirac has behaved? They tell me some Americans want to call them ‘freedom fries.’ Donnez-moi un break. The word is chips. Let's agree on chips, folks, because when the chips are down, Britain is going to stick with America."
"In this brief, shining moment, therefore, let us end one needless linguistic difference between us. Isn't it about time you guys stopped this ludicrous and demeaning habit of calling fried, chipped potatoes French fries? How can any patriotic American use such a term, after the way Mr. Chirac has behaved? They tell me some Americans want to call them ‘freedom fries.’ Donnez-moi un break. The word is chips. Let's agree on chips, folks, because when the chips are down, Britain is going to stick with America."
‘The only proper course now is support for President Bush ...’: Another good speech by Bush, but ... But I’m not going to rant/rerant about my frustrations over the administration’s woeful diplomacy over the past 14 months, not just the past ‘4 1/2 months’ he mentioned last night. So many blown diplomatic/PR opportunities in those other 7 1/2 months, etc. But Tom Oliphant’s column this morning is a sobering read, and Tom suggests a possible change of heart by Bush about the use of diplomacy in the future, based on the president’s prior suggestion he will not abandon the UN. Could it be the past 4 1/2 months were the real Bush and not the prior 7 1/2 months? One can only hope. ...Then Oliphant cracks the whip on all of us whining He’s-Botching-It Hawks and others:
“This is the moment when ambivalence and reluctance usually became support. In this case, they should. There is nothing illegitimate about what is about to happen to Saddam Hussein, and there isn't a shred of legitimacy to anything his (Saddam’s) regime has done since he invaded Kuwait in 1990.
“This is the moment when the work so many have done on alternatives to avoid war or to start a war with the broadest possible coalition comes to an end.
“We should all respect the view that any use of force is wrong, but for those whose ambivalence led them to support every realistic hope of a different outcome, the only proper course now is support for President Bush and prayers that it will be as quick a victory as he is expecting.”
Oliphant is right: The only proper course now is support for President Bush. Save the criticism for later. We have a war about to break out in the next day or two. No reason for people like Hub Blog to cry over diplomatic spilt milk. So I’ll try to refrain from the He’s-Botching-It mode until after the conflict is over. ...
.... Writing in the Boston-based Christian Science Monitor, William Ury, who directs the Global Negotiation Project at Harvard University, says he doesn’t discount the possibility of Saddam bolting Iraq before the tanks roll. Why? Ury: “Saddam Hussein is homicidal, but he is not suicidal. A man who surrounds himself with 3,600 guards, changes sleeping places almost every night, has 20 dinners prepared so as to confuse possible assassins places a premium on his own survival.” ... I don’t know. Wish it was true. But Saddam always plays his cards right to the end. If he leaves, it would probably be AFTER we invade.
... If you have doubts but trust Tony Blair, then Bill Clinton, writing in the left-wing Guardian in the UK, has soothing words: “Now in another difficult spot, Blair will have to do what he believes to be right. I trust him to do that and hope the British people will too.” ... Via Andrew Sullivan, who didn’t like Clinton’s veiled swats at the administration. I can’t believe it, but I actually (and obviously) side with Clinton on this one. Tony Blair has been battling the same White House hyper-hawk dolts over the past year. But Hub Blog promised not to rant/rerant, so I won’t. ...‘The only proper course now is support for President Bush ...’
“This is the moment when ambivalence and reluctance usually became support. In this case, they should. There is nothing illegitimate about what is about to happen to Saddam Hussein, and there isn't a shred of legitimacy to anything his (Saddam’s) regime has done since he invaded Kuwait in 1990.
“This is the moment when the work so many have done on alternatives to avoid war or to start a war with the broadest possible coalition comes to an end.
“We should all respect the view that any use of force is wrong, but for those whose ambivalence led them to support every realistic hope of a different outcome, the only proper course now is support for President Bush and prayers that it will be as quick a victory as he is expecting.”
Oliphant is right: The only proper course now is support for President Bush. Save the criticism for later. We have a war about to break out in the next day or two. No reason for people like Hub Blog to cry over diplomatic spilt milk. So I’ll try to refrain from the He’s-Botching-It mode until after the conflict is over. ...
.... Writing in the Boston-based Christian Science Monitor, William Ury, who directs the Global Negotiation Project at Harvard University, says he doesn’t discount the possibility of Saddam bolting Iraq before the tanks roll. Why? Ury: “Saddam Hussein is homicidal, but he is not suicidal. A man who surrounds himself with 3,600 guards, changes sleeping places almost every night, has 20 dinners prepared so as to confuse possible assassins places a premium on his own survival.” ... I don’t know. Wish it was true. But Saddam always plays his cards right to the end. If he leaves, it would probably be AFTER we invade.
... If you have doubts but trust Tony Blair, then Bill Clinton, writing in the left-wing Guardian in the UK, has soothing words: “Now in another difficult spot, Blair will have to do what he believes to be right. I trust him to do that and hope the British people will too.” ... Via Andrew Sullivan, who didn’t like Clinton’s veiled swats at the administration. I can’t believe it, but I actually (and obviously) side with Clinton on this one. Tony Blair has been battling the same White House hyper-hawk dolts over the past year. But Hub Blog promised not to rant/rerant, so I won’t. ...‘The only proper course now is support for President Bush ...’
Herald starts its new pay-to-read experiment: On of all days, the Herald starts its pay-to-read policy for its columnists. Would have liked to see what Margery and Wayne say about the looming war, but can’t access them. ... Would have also liked to read Peter Gelzinis, but he’s now pay-to-read, too. ... Again, hope it works out for the Herald. Hope they've found a magic bullet. But if it doesn't work out, they can always put the material back online, where bloggers like me can give Herald columnists lots of free exposure across the blogosphere. They deserve the exposure.
Why did John Hancock sell?: If his numbers are accurate and add up the way he thinks, Alan Levanthal’s near giddiness over buying the Hancock Tower for $900 million is well founded. But that begs the question: Why did John Hancock Financial throw in so many goodies? ... Keep an eye on John Hancock. It’s probably not going to be around for much longer as an independent company. Could be wrong. Hope I’m wrong. But this deal looks more and more like John Hancock pumping up its bottom line for an eventual sale.
Hiring Indian high-tech workers: And keep an eye on this issue. The lawsuit filed against Sun Microsystems -- with long-time employees charging that Indian workers were protected during recent layoffs -- will probably be dismissed. But it does raise the question: Why the H-1B visas when there’s no longer a labor shortage? I helped start up the Indus Business Journal here in the Boston area (and it’s a very good paper, if I may say so) -- and my admiration for Indian workers, and their incredible work ethic, knows no bounds. Glad they're here and contributing. But the H-1B issue is a touchy one in the middle of a recession.
‘The slasher flashes his blade’: That’s the headline on a Mitt Romney story (subscription and/or pay-to-view required) in the March 15 issue of the UK’s Economist. Some quickie excerpts from the print edition I purchased at the newsstand:
“...(By) intertwining his budget with his restructuring plan, Mr Romney has put Democrats in an uncomfortable position. If they oppose him outright, they may look unreceptive to reform. And, though many of them would privately prefer to raise taxes than make painful budget cuts, Mr Romney knows there is precious little political will for that preference. ... Whether or not Mr Bulger loses his university job, the governor has shown that he knows how to crack the whip.”
And, oh, the magazine all but assumes Romney has his eye on national politics. Always interesting to read an outsider’s perspective on our parochial infighting.
“...(By) intertwining his budget with his restructuring plan, Mr Romney has put Democrats in an uncomfortable position. If they oppose him outright, they may look unreceptive to reform. And, though many of them would privately prefer to raise taxes than make painful budget cuts, Mr Romney knows there is precious little political will for that preference. ... Whether or not Mr Bulger loses his university job, the governor has shown that he knows how to crack the whip.”
And, oh, the magazine all but assumes Romney has his eye on national politics. Always interesting to read an outsider’s perspective on our parochial infighting.
Monday, March 17, 2003
Backing our country and troops, despite our Atlas Shrugged diplomacy: As war looms and as President Bush prepares to address the nation tonight, I was thinking of something profound and appropriate to say about Iraq. I was tempted to pin my thoughts to a lot of things -- famous quotes, great articles, historic parallels, blah, blah, blah. But then I stumbled upon this blog by John Scalzi, who perfectly expresses my moderate-conservative opinions and frustrations about what we’ve witnessed in the past year from the Bush administration. From John (who may or may not be a moderate conservative, whatever):
“Here's the thing about being at the top of the heap, however: One gets to the top of the heap by crawling up the heap, but one stays at the top by keeping the heap from collapsing underneath you. The United States has almost always done what it wants to do, but has done so by arranging it so that everyone else in the world (except the truly insane states, like North Korea) got the impression they'd been consulted. Being shocked, shocked that the UN Security Council differs from a Model UN meeting only in that Cameroon is represented by a Cameroon native instead of a 16-year student body treasurer who desperately wants to go to Cornell is breathtakingly thickheaded. I thought it was clear that the whole point of the UN was that it's a sandbox to keep the kids occupied while the adults got things done. ...
“That's because we set up the [UN] rules to run in our favor with only a minimum of effort on our part. It's a fixed game, people. If it's not working for us, it's not that the rules have suddenly started working against us, it's that those in charge aren't smart enough to read the rulebook. They're not illiterate, they're just smug dweebs whose egos would be bruised if they were seen to consult something besides their own brain about something. I look at Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Pearle, I think of a guy who read that scene in Atlas Shrugged in which one of Ayn Rand's rich supermen confidently piloted a speed boat after fifteen minutes of watching someone else fiddle with it and thought, that's how I'm going to live my life. No one bothered to tell them that in real life, someone trying to pilot a speed boat after fifteen minutes of cursory observation would end up with the boat curled around a jetty post and themselves in ICU, with a jaw reconstructed out of bits of their own femur. Not that they would have listened. They're not the sort to let the real world get in the way of a really good theory. ...
“Instead, we [now] have a war which we will win, but at the cost of wrecking much of the apparatus which allowed the United States to wield absolute power under conditions that even our enemies could tolerate. This is why Bush and his people are incompetent. They think they've done us all a favor by showing us that the international game was rigged by the house, but all they managed to accomplish is to make the rest of the world vaguely embarrassed that they don't seem to understand they own the casino. That's a good way to drive away the business. Who knows where that business will land from here.”
Hub Blog’s response: Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged. Wish I had thought of that. Alas, we’re now probably not going to be able to keep the “heap from collapsing underneath” us because of the administration's antics, and so we’ll get ‘UN, RIP’ columns like these from people who always hated the UN and, now that they’ve completely botched the sandbox-diplomacy game, are blaming the sandbox and storming away. ... John’s post was via Instapundit, who still insists we shouldn’t have gone to the UN Security Council Sandbox in the first place. To which I'd say: I'll give Bush enormous credit, as Glenn suggests, for not flinching from taking on Saddam, but I give Bush and his administration extremely, extremely low grades for the way they've handled the diplomatic front ever since his 2002 State of the Union address.
Update -- Yes, I've switched back to being a He's-Botching-It Hawk, but it was a forced switch, not a waver. Why? Because Tony Blair made moot the Anything-to-Keep-Tony-Blair-in-Office-Hawk argument by advocating going to war. What's good for Tony is good for Hub Blog. And so I say defiantlely: Hub Blog will not waver!
“Here's the thing about being at the top of the heap, however: One gets to the top of the heap by crawling up the heap, but one stays at the top by keeping the heap from collapsing underneath you. The United States has almost always done what it wants to do, but has done so by arranging it so that everyone else in the world (except the truly insane states, like North Korea) got the impression they'd been consulted. Being shocked, shocked that the UN Security Council differs from a Model UN meeting only in that Cameroon is represented by a Cameroon native instead of a 16-year student body treasurer who desperately wants to go to Cornell is breathtakingly thickheaded. I thought it was clear that the whole point of the UN was that it's a sandbox to keep the kids occupied while the adults got things done. ...
“That's because we set up the [UN] rules to run in our favor with only a minimum of effort on our part. It's a fixed game, people. If it's not working for us, it's not that the rules have suddenly started working against us, it's that those in charge aren't smart enough to read the rulebook. They're not illiterate, they're just smug dweebs whose egos would be bruised if they were seen to consult something besides their own brain about something. I look at Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Pearle, I think of a guy who read that scene in Atlas Shrugged in which one of Ayn Rand's rich supermen confidently piloted a speed boat after fifteen minutes of watching someone else fiddle with it and thought, that's how I'm going to live my life. No one bothered to tell them that in real life, someone trying to pilot a speed boat after fifteen minutes of cursory observation would end up with the boat curled around a jetty post and themselves in ICU, with a jaw reconstructed out of bits of their own femur. Not that they would have listened. They're not the sort to let the real world get in the way of a really good theory. ...
“Instead, we [now] have a war which we will win, but at the cost of wrecking much of the apparatus which allowed the United States to wield absolute power under conditions that even our enemies could tolerate. This is why Bush and his people are incompetent. They think they've done us all a favor by showing us that the international game was rigged by the house, but all they managed to accomplish is to make the rest of the world vaguely embarrassed that they don't seem to understand they own the casino. That's a good way to drive away the business. Who knows where that business will land from here.”
Hub Blog’s response: Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged. Wish I had thought of that. Alas, we’re now probably not going to be able to keep the “heap from collapsing underneath” us because of the administration's antics, and so we’ll get ‘UN, RIP’ columns like these from people who always hated the UN and, now that they’ve completely botched the sandbox-diplomacy game, are blaming the sandbox and storming away. ... John’s post was via Instapundit, who still insists we shouldn’t have gone to the UN Security Council Sandbox in the first place. To which I'd say: I'll give Bush enormous credit, as Glenn suggests, for not flinching from taking on Saddam, but I give Bush and his administration extremely, extremely low grades for the way they've handled the diplomatic front ever since his 2002 State of the Union address.
Update -- Yes, I've switched back to being a He's-Botching-It Hawk, but it was a forced switch, not a waver. Why? Because Tony Blair made moot the Anything-to-Keep-Tony-Blair-in-Office-Hawk argument by advocating going to war. What's good for Tony is good for Hub Blog. And so I say defiantlely: Hub Blog will not waver!
Dan Kennedy escalates blogosphere arms race: Dan Kennedy has struck a blow against blogosphere multilateralism, attempting to put distance between himself and other bloggers by employing unilateralist tactics. Hub Blog will make a major announcement later on this dire development.
He ‘stole the show’: And he certainly did. Kerry was simply great at the St. Pat’s breakfast in Southie, reminding me of the confident and formidable Kerry who battled Weld in ‘96. Mitt was another who acquitted himself quite well merely by showing up. Both were good sports who didn’t have to be there. (Still think DeNucci had the best line: “Bingo! ... I’m part American Indian.” ... And, needless to say, I adored all the French bashing. It was inevitable and irresistible.)
... Going to keep the blogging light today. Have a great and meaningful Evacuation Day.
Update -- Here's an interesting story in the Times of London about the mixed reaction of Cajun French in Louisiana to all the French bashing/French antics of late. Kind of sad. A great culture is slowly dying in America. ... OK, I'll try to tone down the anti-French sentiments. I'm feeling a little guilty. I'm a closet Francophile at heart, as I've noted before. But if I hear one more stupid word out of Chirac's mouth ....
... Going to keep the blogging light today. Have a great and meaningful Evacuation Day.
Update -- Here's an interesting story in the Times of London about the mixed reaction of Cajun French in Louisiana to all the French bashing/French antics of late. Kind of sad. A great culture is slowly dying in America. ... OK, I'll try to tone down the anti-French sentiments. I'm feeling a little guilty. I'm a closet Francophile at heart, as I've noted before. But if I hear one more stupid word out of Chirac's mouth ....
Saturday, March 15, 2003
The Whole Wide World with Christopher Lydon: Must have missed this one. But in case you missed the news too, Chris Lydon is back with Public Broadcasting -- this time with WGBH-FM, not WBUR-FM. Lydon is hosting a seven-part series -- starting this Sunday night at 6 p.m. -- on, well, the whole wide world, part of some Whole Wide World project. No one can say the program/series lacks ambition, for its aim is to decode “the riddles of the new race, the new map, the post-cold war, 21st-century system known as globalization, through the voices of artists, economists, refugees, historians, and plain folk.” ...And nothing on blogging? ... .
... Stumbled across the Lydon info while hunting for a recipe I saw last night on Ron Della Chesa’s ‘Cooking Around Town’ show, which featured Rialto chef Jody Adams. Here’s the recipe, which, upon reflection, is absurdly beyond my talents and patience.
... Stumbled across the Lydon info while hunting for a recipe I saw last night on Ron Della Chesa’s ‘Cooking Around Town’ show, which featured Rialto chef Jody Adams. Here’s the recipe, which, upon reflection, is absurdly beyond my talents and patience.
West Warwick, you’re screwed: So the Station owners did inform West Warwick about the installation of the foam. West Warwick better hope that state lawmakers pass some sort of Sept. 11-like bailout/compensation package. ... Can a town go bankrupt? Not sure about R.I. laws as they pertain to such legal/financial matters. But I’ve read that West Warwick (i.e., taxpayers, many of whom wanted to shut down the Station, ironically) can be held liable in R.I.’s lawyer-friendly environment, so you have to assume bankruptcy is now a strong possibility for WW. . ... There’s a difference between legitimate and absurd attempts to improve nightclub safety, as the Herald makes clear here and here. But, again, the West Warwick case must be making a lot of municipalities -- and fire marshals -- plenty nervous about the mere existence of nightclubs in a community, for liability reasons. I think that nervousness is what’s partly/largely driving the ‘regulation or harassment’ Dan Kennedy was talking about.
The implications of the Hancock Tower sale: Does the recent sale of the Hancock tower indicate that commercial real estate -- and the local economy as a whole -- is turning around soon? Not necessarily. But it DOES indicate that one of the shrewdest real estate operators in Boston, Alan Leventhal, is thinking in the long term. The question is: How ‘long’ is long term? ... FYI: Keep an eye on the probable/eventual sale of John Hancock Financial. Which makes me think: Should we have ever allowed the de-mutualization of the insurance industry here? Just wondering.
‘Streamlined Sales Tax Project’: Some might say Mitt would be breaking his no-new-taxes pledge on the budget deficit if he embraces a sales tax on Internet sales. I disagree. I think it’s important we start now coming up with a standard, national method for one day (probably in a year or two) collecting Internet sales taxes. It’s going to happen sooner or later. And that’s what the ‘Streamlined Sales Tax Project’ is all about. ... Even the Massachusetts Software and Internet Council is toning down its opposition to Internet sales taxes -- if it’s done properly.
Balking Hawk or Anything-to-Keep-Tony-Blair-in-Office Hawk?: Count Mary McGrory, who only a few weeks ago became a Revved-up-Reluctant-Hawk after Colin Powell’s presentation at the UN, has now climbed down and has officially joined the ranks of the He’s-Botching-it-Balking-Former-Short-term Hawk. ... Hub Blog? I’ve been standing firm! (For 48 hours and counting.) I proudly remain an Anything-to-Keep-Tony-Blair-in-Office Hawk. I will not waver! ...
... Actually, Mary makes a very good point about Rummy, who created all sorts of controversy this past week (not covered very well in the US press) when he told British journalists that America would still go it alone if Britain backed out, leaving Tony Blair (once again) out on a limb. Rummy’s comments were not just a case of the Crusty Old Secretary making a dumb remark, as if this poor diplomacy is a case of one man’s cranky personality. Instead, it ultimately reflects a fundamental belief system among, yes, the unilateralists in the administration that we really don’t need nor want cumbersome alliances. Rummy, sent on a diplomatic mission, was merely reflecting what he truly thought -- and he ‘botched it,’ again. And it’s been that record/attitude/rhetoric/body language/policy announcements/logic that have come across loud and clear to many Europeans, not to mention Americans who have reservations about the war and/or the Pax America strategy being advocated by some conservatives, such as Bill Kristol. ... Does this make me now a He’s-Botching-it Hawk? In a way, yes. Or so it can be argued. But Rummy is now undercutting Blair, which fits into my Anything-to-Keep-Tony-Blair-in-Office Hawk. I will not waver!...
... I know Reader No. 1 has warned me not to write too much about Iraq. But I’m going to uncork now: This administration has probably run one of the WORST diplomatic campaigns I’ve seen in my lifetime. They’ve flip-flopped from unilateralism to multilateralism to an intelligent mix of the two (but too late to sway public opinion in Europe, and definitely too late to alter the election outcome in Germany). Then they send the Crusty Old Secretary unilateralist to Europe to smooth the feathers of multilateralists in Europe, and what does Crusty (the Clown?) do? He opens his mouth and spoke what he really thought, undermining why he was sent there in the first place. Jeezus! Horrible, horrible, horrible diplomacy. ...
... Good. Got that out of my system. Where was I going? Oh, yes, the Globe’s David Filipov explains why he was kicked out of Iraq. The shocking news: He used his satellite phone without permission. How can journalists function under such restrictions? But they have to be there, I know. Read Filipov’s story until its ending, which is great.
‘WWII vet shows his mettle vs. traitor French’: That’s the headline of this Herald story. OK, I’m back to bashing the French, as well. But it’s kind of sad that Edward Parks, who fought at Normandy and helped liberate France, says he might return the Croix de Guerre because of the current flap with France. ... Sympathize with the sentiment. But don’t do it, Ed! You earned it. And your family will always cherish it -- whether they love or hate the French. The interesting part? He’s not sure if he’s for or against the war in Iraq. A truly honest (and obviously brave) man who has nice observations about why he’s so angry at France.
... Actually, Mary makes a very good point about Rummy, who created all sorts of controversy this past week (not covered very well in the US press) when he told British journalists that America would still go it alone if Britain backed out, leaving Tony Blair (once again) out on a limb. Rummy’s comments were not just a case of the Crusty Old Secretary making a dumb remark, as if this poor diplomacy is a case of one man’s cranky personality. Instead, it ultimately reflects a fundamental belief system among, yes, the unilateralists in the administration that we really don’t need nor want cumbersome alliances. Rummy, sent on a diplomatic mission, was merely reflecting what he truly thought -- and he ‘botched it,’ again. And it’s been that record/attitude/rhetoric/body language/policy announcements/logic that have come across loud and clear to many Europeans, not to mention Americans who have reservations about the war and/or the Pax America strategy being advocated by some conservatives, such as Bill Kristol. ... Does this make me now a He’s-Botching-it Hawk? In a way, yes. Or so it can be argued. But Rummy is now undercutting Blair, which fits into my Anything-to-Keep-Tony-Blair-in-Office Hawk. I will not waver!...
... I know Reader No. 1 has warned me not to write too much about Iraq. But I’m going to uncork now: This administration has probably run one of the WORST diplomatic campaigns I’ve seen in my lifetime. They’ve flip-flopped from unilateralism to multilateralism to an intelligent mix of the two (but too late to sway public opinion in Europe, and definitely too late to alter the election outcome in Germany). Then they send the Crusty Old Secretary unilateralist to Europe to smooth the feathers of multilateralists in Europe, and what does Crusty (the Clown?) do? He opens his mouth and spoke what he really thought, undermining why he was sent there in the first place. Jeezus! Horrible, horrible, horrible diplomacy. ...
... Good. Got that out of my system. Where was I going? Oh, yes, the Globe’s David Filipov explains why he was kicked out of Iraq. The shocking news: He used his satellite phone without permission. How can journalists function under such restrictions? But they have to be there, I know. Read Filipov’s story until its ending, which is great.
‘WWII vet shows his mettle vs. traitor French’: That’s the headline of this Herald story. OK, I’m back to bashing the French, as well. But it’s kind of sad that Edward Parks, who fought at Normandy and helped liberate France, says he might return the Croix de Guerre because of the current flap with France. ... Sympathize with the sentiment. But don’t do it, Ed! You earned it. And your family will always cherish it -- whether they love or hate the French. The interesting part? He’s not sure if he’s for or against the war in Iraq. A truly honest (and obviously brave) man who has nice observations about why he’s so angry at France.
Friday, March 14, 2003
The spread of weblogs, Part II: This isn't exactly a weblog (I think) over at the Washington Post, but it's another example of the mainstream media using weblog/linking tactics on their sites, as I noted yesterday.
Where are the Democrats? And what are you doing Mitt?: Four voices, four views and some overlap on the current budget debate, all of which is expertly analyzed by Hub Blog --
From Scot Lehigh:
“But here's the point the Democrats still haven't grasped. For another tax hike to be acceptable, voters first need to see real and meaningful reform. Which means that to be a plausible agent of change, the Democratic Party has to develop some real and meaningful reformers. Where are they?”
HB’s comment: No reforms, no new taxes.
From Robert Haynes, president of the Mass AFL-CIO:
“No one disagrees that Romney was elected last fall with a mandate for reform and that voters clearly want him to work toward greater efficiency in state government. But that fact doesn't mean that all of the people who were around before Romney have nothing to contribute to meaningful discussions about future reforms or, more important, about previous attempts to streamline agencies and departments.”
HB’s comment: Glad too see Robert is jumping on the reform bandwagon, but I question his sincerity. Why? 1.) His op-ed sounds suspiciously like he’s engaging in Tom Finneran’s strategy of blaming Mitt if reforms don’t pass. 2.) Because of union stories like this. Bottom line: If Robert is sincere, he should be shouting for reforms from the rooftops, lobbying Dem leaders, twisting arms etc. We’ll see.
From Brian McGrory:
“So what, it's fair to ask, is going wrong? And the answer, much as it pains me to provide it, is Mitt. He's been wrong on too many fronts. Oh, not with the vast bulk of his reforms. No, the state needs exactly the kind of fresh approach that he's proposing -- in the courts, in the delivery of human services, in the scrutiny given to every tax dollar spent. ... Days matter, even hours. The public will accept a lot, but not more gridlock. For that, Romney will get all the blame.”
HB’s comment: Mitt would deserve “some” of the blame, but not “all” of the blame. The Democratic-controlled Legislature has an equal opportunity to take up the "fresh approach" cause. But they’re too busy maneuvering to dump “all” the blame on Mitt for something they clearly don’t want to do in the first place.
From a Lexington Reader of Hub Blog:
“I could not help but notice that the big break in the Smart case came when, first, Elizabeth's sister was finally able to recall the face of the man who had abducted her sister; and second, when the sister of Brian David Mitchell provided a photograph of her own brother to ‘America's Most Wanted’ and it was broadcast all over the country. Hmmmm. ... Doesn't the sister's cooperation with police in capturing her brother provide a damning contrast with the infuriating lack of cooperation by the President of our University of Massachusetts as authorities hunt for the former Robin Hood of South Boston, a/k/a Whitey Bulger? Nineteen murders? Nineteen? And he feels no compulsion to assist public law enforcement agencies while he's pulling down over $300,000 from...the public?
“(Also) I am very surprised -- and disappointed -- with the ‘fuzzy math’ skills being demonstrated by Mitt's budget team. This is the bright bushy-tailed private sector talent we've been waiting for? Or, am I merely anticipating Speaker Finneran's rejoinder to the Romney demands for reform? ... I like Mitt and am tickled by his audacity but he HAS to get the numbers right! He would have expected no less at Bain and he should expect no less now. Heads should roll.”
HB’s comment: Three points: 1.) Tom Finneran supports Bulger. 2.) Mitt is killing himself with these numbers. 3.) Finneran and the Trav will use those shaky numbers to protect Bulger and kill off reform.
Update -- Boy, Reader No. 1 was fast off the mark on this one. Here are some of his comments:
"The letters page of the Globe takes up the Bulger as Great University President debate! Note the money line in this letter: "William Bulger is doing a wonderful job in making people feel proud of our state university." ... Great quote but begs the question whether the taxpayers are getting Professor Harold Hill for its $309K/yr.
"Brian McGrory pushes the panic button on Mitt. His suggestions in the 3rd paragraph rank with the worst political advice in Massachusetts history: Mitt 'needs to play the game, joke with the rank and file, delve into the system that he so justifiably wants to change.' This is what destroyed the last 3 (Republican) gubernatorial administrations in the Commonwealth!"
From Scot Lehigh:
“But here's the point the Democrats still haven't grasped. For another tax hike to be acceptable, voters first need to see real and meaningful reform. Which means that to be a plausible agent of change, the Democratic Party has to develop some real and meaningful reformers. Where are they?”
HB’s comment: No reforms, no new taxes.
From Robert Haynes, president of the Mass AFL-CIO:
“No one disagrees that Romney was elected last fall with a mandate for reform and that voters clearly want him to work toward greater efficiency in state government. But that fact doesn't mean that all of the people who were around before Romney have nothing to contribute to meaningful discussions about future reforms or, more important, about previous attempts to streamline agencies and departments.”
HB’s comment: Glad too see Robert is jumping on the reform bandwagon, but I question his sincerity. Why? 1.) His op-ed sounds suspiciously like he’s engaging in Tom Finneran’s strategy of blaming Mitt if reforms don’t pass. 2.) Because of union stories like this. Bottom line: If Robert is sincere, he should be shouting for reforms from the rooftops, lobbying Dem leaders, twisting arms etc. We’ll see.
From Brian McGrory:
“So what, it's fair to ask, is going wrong? And the answer, much as it pains me to provide it, is Mitt. He's been wrong on too many fronts. Oh, not with the vast bulk of his reforms. No, the state needs exactly the kind of fresh approach that he's proposing -- in the courts, in the delivery of human services, in the scrutiny given to every tax dollar spent. ... Days matter, even hours. The public will accept a lot, but not more gridlock. For that, Romney will get all the blame.”
HB’s comment: Mitt would deserve “some” of the blame, but not “all” of the blame. The Democratic-controlled Legislature has an equal opportunity to take up the "fresh approach" cause. But they’re too busy maneuvering to dump “all” the blame on Mitt for something they clearly don’t want to do in the first place.
From a Lexington Reader of Hub Blog:
“I could not help but notice that the big break in the Smart case came when, first, Elizabeth's sister was finally able to recall the face of the man who had abducted her sister; and second, when the sister of Brian David Mitchell provided a photograph of her own brother to ‘America's Most Wanted’ and it was broadcast all over the country. Hmmmm. ... Doesn't the sister's cooperation with police in capturing her brother provide a damning contrast with the infuriating lack of cooperation by the President of our University of Massachusetts as authorities hunt for the former Robin Hood of South Boston, a/k/a Whitey Bulger? Nineteen murders? Nineteen? And he feels no compulsion to assist public law enforcement agencies while he's pulling down over $300,000 from...the public?
“(Also) I am very surprised -- and disappointed -- with the ‘fuzzy math’ skills being demonstrated by Mitt's budget team. This is the bright bushy-tailed private sector talent we've been waiting for? Or, am I merely anticipating Speaker Finneran's rejoinder to the Romney demands for reform? ... I like Mitt and am tickled by his audacity but he HAS to get the numbers right! He would have expected no less at Bain and he should expect no less now. Heads should roll.”
HB’s comment: Three points: 1.) Tom Finneran supports Bulger. 2.) Mitt is killing himself with these numbers. 3.) Finneran and the Trav will use those shaky numbers to protect Bulger and kill off reform.
Update -- Boy, Reader No. 1 was fast off the mark on this one. Here are some of his comments:
"The letters page of the Globe takes up the Bulger as Great University President debate! Note the money line in this letter: "William Bulger is doing a wonderful job in making people feel proud of our state university." ... Great quote but begs the question whether the taxpayers are getting Professor Harold Hill for its $309K/yr.
"Brian McGrory pushes the panic button on Mitt. His suggestions in the 3rd paragraph rank with the worst political advice in Massachusetts history: Mitt 'needs to play the game, joke with the rank and file, delve into the system that he so justifiably wants to change.' This is what destroyed the last 3 (Republican) gubernatorial administrations in the Commonwealth!"
MBTA fare increases: Hub Blog loves mass transit. Love choo-choos. Willing to spend more and raise taxes to achieve the goal of making our local transit system the best in the country, aggressively expanding rail service and ramming the Greenbush line straight down the throats of those obnoxious Greenbush opponents in Hingham. But: No reforms, no fare hikes at the MBTA. As the Blue Ribbon panel modestly advised. ...
Economic trends in a lousy economy: Cosmo has noticed a new banking trend: “Low-riding Red Sox caps and Blue Blockers are in. Richard Nixon masks are out.” ... And that trend is connected to the increasing number of the unemployed.
Hub Blog’s Evacuation Day festivities!: For the first time in my adult life, I’ll be taking Evacuation Day off. I’m so excited! Of course, I’ve been taking a lot of days off lately, like other private-sector consultants/freelancers who don’t want to be private-sector consultants/freelancers, if you catch my drift. ... Already filling up my busy schedule for the big Evacuation Day: From noon to about 2 p.m., lunch with a friend. That’s it so far. Leaves open the following time slots if anyone’s interested: 10 a.m. to noon (I’m willing to start early!) and 2 p.m. to whenever.
‘Embedded journalists,’ Part II - Or We Weren’t Always United (even in WWII): Don’t know whether to explain my reasons for writing this item before or after the following lengthy account. I’m going to take a gamble and explain my reasons at the end. If you’re interested in the homefront unity/disunity in a time of war and the media's role in it, please read on. If you want to skip over this lengthy item, click here. Otherwise ...
To set the stage: Hub Blog has been reading Bill D. Ross’ classic ‘Iwo Jima: Legacy of Valor,’ and I stumbled across a terrific chapter on how the press covered the World War II battle and how the homefront reacted to the horrible news coming out of the Pacific. FYI: Ross was a Marine sergeant combat correspondent on Iwo and later had a distinguished career covering the White House and the Korean War for the AP.
To set the historic stage: Unlike the unified Allied command in Europe under Eisenhower, command of the Pacific theater during WWII was shared by Adm. Chester Nimitz and Gen. Douglas MacArthur. They didn’t get along too well. There were also two media moguls, William Randolph Hearst and Robert McCormick, who were both rabid isolationists before the war but who became bombastic experts on all matters pertaining to the military once the war started. Hearst and McCormick, who separately were the most powerful newspaper, newsreel and wire service media barons of their day, both hated Nimitz. They both liked MacArthur -- and openly pushed for him to be sole commander of the Pacific campaign. Then came the battle of Iwo Jima, overseen by the Navy and Marines under Nimitz -- and all hell broke loose. On the island as well as the homefront.
Now here’s where Ross’ account takes over, part paraphrased, part quoted:
Iwo Jima was a savage battle from Minute 1, as military and civilian reporters accurately and graphically conveyed to the American public, even though they weren’t allowed to cite specific casualty figures (and other facts) so as not to alert the enemy of what was being accomplished or not accomplished on Iwo.
After 52 hours of carnage, Nimitiz, to his credit and knowing he would catch you-know-what even as the battle raged, issued the following statement:
“At 1800, as of February 21 (1945), our casualties on Iwo Jima were estimated at 644 killed, 4,108 wounded and 560 missing.”
The stunned American public -- putting together 644 killed and 560 missing and knowing many of the wounded would die -- understood we were losing troops at the rate of about 500 per day. They were aghast, particularly when reporters (who couldn’t cite casualty figures) told them how the battle was intensifying and there was no letup in sight.
As Ross wrote:
“This was worse than anything the Americans had suffered anywhere in World War II; worse than Tarawa, worse than Normandy, worse than on the beachead at Anzio. There was no doubt that the Marines were in the bloodiest battle since Gettysburg. An anxious homefront bought newspaper extras by the thousands and listened for radio bulletins about the battle’s progress. Theaters showed newsreels of the assault, sometimes updating them daily as new footage arrived. For the first time live broadcasts were beamed to the States from a beachhead under fire.”
This was all Hearst and McCormick needed. They launched an all out “howling, well-orchestrated chant” against the tactics and strategy at Iwo (i.e. they were attacking Nimitz). According to Ross, Hearst’s San Francisco Examiner “printed a front-page editorial with a heavy black banner. It said Marines certainly would capture Iwo Jima, but ‘there is awesome evidence in the situation that the attacking American forces are paying heavily for the island, perhaps too heavily. ... It is the same thing that happened at Tarawa and Saipan.’ ” (Nimitz commanded the Tarawa and Saipan campaigns.)
The next day, Ross writes how Heart “unleashed the next salvo” in the lead editorial of the Examiner. From the editorial (emphasis is in the original text):
“GENERAL MacARTHUR is our best strategist. He is our most SUCCESSFUL strategist. He wins all his objectives. ... HE SAVES THE LIVES OF OUR MEN, not only for the future and vital operations that must be fought before Japan is defeated, but for their safe return. ... Why do we not use him more, and indeed, why do we not give him supreme command in the Pacific war, and utilize to the utmost his rare military genius of winning important battles without excessive loss of precious American lives?”
People on the homefront were outraged, but not all of them in the way Hearst wanted.
Ross notes how the managing editor of the Examiner, William Wren, “expected a wave of excitement” the day the Hearst editorial hit the stands in San Francisco. Ross:
“It was shortly after 10 p.m. and the next edition was on deadline. Nearly a hundred Marines stormed toward the editor’s cluttered, glassed-in office. Their eyes blazed, and they pushed aside anyone blocking their advance. A frightened staffer turned in a riot call as Marines surrounded Wren.
“ ‘Look,’ (Wren) said. ‘I take orders from my commanding officer, just like you do, and they came from Mr. Hearst at San Simeon. He said to run the editorial as he wrote it, and I did.’
“Furious Marines demanded that Hearst be called, and Wren got on the direct line. ‘Mr. Hearst is too busy to be disturbed,’ he was told. The Chief had spoken, and would have nothing more to say. ...”
Eventually, police and Navy Shore Patrol arrived at the Examiner’s office, telling the Marines to go home.
“Asked if legal action would be taken against the men, a Marine officer said, ‘Probably not. They were off duty and acting as individuals. Apparently they read the editorial and didn’t like it.’”
The next day, the Examiner buried the story inside in a three-paragraph brief.
But the furor wasn’t over.
Many concerned citizens, upset at the dreadful news coming from Iwo, started writing to Secretary of the Navy Forrestal. One letter from a woman read:
“Please, for God’s sake, stop sending our finest youth to be murdered on places like Iwo Jima. It is too much for boys to stand, too much for mothers to take. ... Why can’t objectives be accomplished in some other ways? It is almost inhuman -- stop! stop!”
Forrestal answered:
“On December 7, 1941, the Axis confronted us with a simple choice: fight or be overrun. There was then, and is now, no other possibility. ... There is no shortcut or easy way. I wish there were.”
Then Hearst’s media rivals jumped into the full-scale domestic donnybrook, one of them Hearst’s cross-town competitor, the San Francisco Chronicle. Its lead editorial read:
“The recapture of the Philippines [under MacArthur’s command] remains competent, energetic and immensely heartening to the American people. We are proud of that job.
“To slur the United States Marines in one type of operation, however, to draw odious comparisons between theirs and the type of operations conducted by General MacArthur, is to raise sinister fantasy. To hint that the Marine and Naval leadership in that assault is incompetent is an attempt at a damnable swindle of the American people.
“The Chronicle does not propose to engage in a controversy over the relative merits of our fighting forces in the various theaters of war. But neither does the Chronicle propose to remain mute when the United States Marines, or any force on the world battle line, is butchered at home to make a Roman holiday.”
Ross ends the account -- and the chapter on the media -- by noting that Mrs. Phyllis de Young Tucker, one of four sisters who owned the Chronicle, had been told three days before the newspaper ran its editorial that her only son, Lt. Nion R. Tucker Jr., had been killed on the first day of battle on Iwo Jima.
Hub Blog’s response: I wrote about the ‘embedded journalists’ subject the other day -- and then immediately afterward read this column by Tom Friedman (via Dan Kennedy) about the loss of national unity since Sept. 11. Then I read this article by Mark Jurkowitz on how the media will cover the Iraq war, if it comes to war. Somehow, the two pieces -- by Friedman and Jurkowitz -- came zipping back to me later that night after I read Ross’ chapter on the media, which shattered a number of my long-held myths about the nature of WWII unity and public debate during the ‘Good War.’ ...
Of course, there ARE differences between what the homefront went through in 1945 and what we’re seeing today. The homefront in ‘45 was overwhelmingly in support of the war -- but Ross makes clear there was always sharp-edged debate about the course of the war during WWII. The battlefield media was censored in ‘45 -- but Ross shows reporters were given enough leeway to provide graphic and accurate accounts right from the battlefield, accounts that were often the basis for blistering and sometimes irresponsible debates at home. Etc.
And by the way, notice all the political role reversals in Ross’ account above, as compared to today’s debate over Iraq. Fascinating. There’s so much hypocrisy in the world, now and then. ...
I don’t know. Maybe this overly long item (and tale) makes no sense. But, for a strange reason, I felt a heck of a lot better about our predicament today precisely because, like in ‘45, we’re still debating and arguing away. As usual. As it should be.
To set the stage: Hub Blog has been reading Bill D. Ross’ classic ‘Iwo Jima: Legacy of Valor,’ and I stumbled across a terrific chapter on how the press covered the World War II battle and how the homefront reacted to the horrible news coming out of the Pacific. FYI: Ross was a Marine sergeant combat correspondent on Iwo and later had a distinguished career covering the White House and the Korean War for the AP.
To set the historic stage: Unlike the unified Allied command in Europe under Eisenhower, command of the Pacific theater during WWII was shared by Adm. Chester Nimitz and Gen. Douglas MacArthur. They didn’t get along too well. There were also two media moguls, William Randolph Hearst and Robert McCormick, who were both rabid isolationists before the war but who became bombastic experts on all matters pertaining to the military once the war started. Hearst and McCormick, who separately were the most powerful newspaper, newsreel and wire service media barons of their day, both hated Nimitz. They both liked MacArthur -- and openly pushed for him to be sole commander of the Pacific campaign. Then came the battle of Iwo Jima, overseen by the Navy and Marines under Nimitz -- and all hell broke loose. On the island as well as the homefront.
Now here’s where Ross’ account takes over, part paraphrased, part quoted:
Iwo Jima was a savage battle from Minute 1, as military and civilian reporters accurately and graphically conveyed to the American public, even though they weren’t allowed to cite specific casualty figures (and other facts) so as not to alert the enemy of what was being accomplished or not accomplished on Iwo.
After 52 hours of carnage, Nimitiz, to his credit and knowing he would catch you-know-what even as the battle raged, issued the following statement:
“At 1800, as of February 21 (1945), our casualties on Iwo Jima were estimated at 644 killed, 4,108 wounded and 560 missing.”
The stunned American public -- putting together 644 killed and 560 missing and knowing many of the wounded would die -- understood we were losing troops at the rate of about 500 per day. They were aghast, particularly when reporters (who couldn’t cite casualty figures) told them how the battle was intensifying and there was no letup in sight.
As Ross wrote:
“This was worse than anything the Americans had suffered anywhere in World War II; worse than Tarawa, worse than Normandy, worse than on the beachead at Anzio. There was no doubt that the Marines were in the bloodiest battle since Gettysburg. An anxious homefront bought newspaper extras by the thousands and listened for radio bulletins about the battle’s progress. Theaters showed newsreels of the assault, sometimes updating them daily as new footage arrived. For the first time live broadcasts were beamed to the States from a beachhead under fire.”
This was all Hearst and McCormick needed. They launched an all out “howling, well-orchestrated chant” against the tactics and strategy at Iwo (i.e. they were attacking Nimitz). According to Ross, Hearst’s San Francisco Examiner “printed a front-page editorial with a heavy black banner. It said Marines certainly would capture Iwo Jima, but ‘there is awesome evidence in the situation that the attacking American forces are paying heavily for the island, perhaps too heavily. ... It is the same thing that happened at Tarawa and Saipan.’ ” (Nimitz commanded the Tarawa and Saipan campaigns.)
The next day, Ross writes how Heart “unleashed the next salvo” in the lead editorial of the Examiner. From the editorial (emphasis is in the original text):
“GENERAL MacARTHUR is our best strategist. He is our most SUCCESSFUL strategist. He wins all his objectives. ... HE SAVES THE LIVES OF OUR MEN, not only for the future and vital operations that must be fought before Japan is defeated, but for their safe return. ... Why do we not use him more, and indeed, why do we not give him supreme command in the Pacific war, and utilize to the utmost his rare military genius of winning important battles without excessive loss of precious American lives?”
People on the homefront were outraged, but not all of them in the way Hearst wanted.
Ross notes how the managing editor of the Examiner, William Wren, “expected a wave of excitement” the day the Hearst editorial hit the stands in San Francisco. Ross:
“It was shortly after 10 p.m. and the next edition was on deadline. Nearly a hundred Marines stormed toward the editor’s cluttered, glassed-in office. Their eyes blazed, and they pushed aside anyone blocking their advance. A frightened staffer turned in a riot call as Marines surrounded Wren.
“ ‘Look,’ (Wren) said. ‘I take orders from my commanding officer, just like you do, and they came from Mr. Hearst at San Simeon. He said to run the editorial as he wrote it, and I did.’
“Furious Marines demanded that Hearst be called, and Wren got on the direct line. ‘Mr. Hearst is too busy to be disturbed,’ he was told. The Chief had spoken, and would have nothing more to say. ...”
Eventually, police and Navy Shore Patrol arrived at the Examiner’s office, telling the Marines to go home.
“Asked if legal action would be taken against the men, a Marine officer said, ‘Probably not. They were off duty and acting as individuals. Apparently they read the editorial and didn’t like it.’”
The next day, the Examiner buried the story inside in a three-paragraph brief.
But the furor wasn’t over.
Many concerned citizens, upset at the dreadful news coming from Iwo, started writing to Secretary of the Navy Forrestal. One letter from a woman read:
“Please, for God’s sake, stop sending our finest youth to be murdered on places like Iwo Jima. It is too much for boys to stand, too much for mothers to take. ... Why can’t objectives be accomplished in some other ways? It is almost inhuman -- stop! stop!”
Forrestal answered:
“On December 7, 1941, the Axis confronted us with a simple choice: fight or be overrun. There was then, and is now, no other possibility. ... There is no shortcut or easy way. I wish there were.”
Then Hearst’s media rivals jumped into the full-scale domestic donnybrook, one of them Hearst’s cross-town competitor, the San Francisco Chronicle. Its lead editorial read:
“The recapture of the Philippines [under MacArthur’s command] remains competent, energetic and immensely heartening to the American people. We are proud of that job.
“To slur the United States Marines in one type of operation, however, to draw odious comparisons between theirs and the type of operations conducted by General MacArthur, is to raise sinister fantasy. To hint that the Marine and Naval leadership in that assault is incompetent is an attempt at a damnable swindle of the American people.
“The Chronicle does not propose to engage in a controversy over the relative merits of our fighting forces in the various theaters of war. But neither does the Chronicle propose to remain mute when the United States Marines, or any force on the world battle line, is butchered at home to make a Roman holiday.”
Ross ends the account -- and the chapter on the media -- by noting that Mrs. Phyllis de Young Tucker, one of four sisters who owned the Chronicle, had been told three days before the newspaper ran its editorial that her only son, Lt. Nion R. Tucker Jr., had been killed on the first day of battle on Iwo Jima.
Hub Blog’s response: I wrote about the ‘embedded journalists’ subject the other day -- and then immediately afterward read this column by Tom Friedman (via Dan Kennedy) about the loss of national unity since Sept. 11. Then I read this article by Mark Jurkowitz on how the media will cover the Iraq war, if it comes to war. Somehow, the two pieces -- by Friedman and Jurkowitz -- came zipping back to me later that night after I read Ross’ chapter on the media, which shattered a number of my long-held myths about the nature of WWII unity and public debate during the ‘Good War.’ ...
Of course, there ARE differences between what the homefront went through in 1945 and what we’re seeing today. The homefront in ‘45 was overwhelmingly in support of the war -- but Ross makes clear there was always sharp-edged debate about the course of the war during WWII. The battlefield media was censored in ‘45 -- but Ross shows reporters were given enough leeway to provide graphic and accurate accounts right from the battlefield, accounts that were often the basis for blistering and sometimes irresponsible debates at home. Etc.
And by the way, notice all the political role reversals in Ross’ account above, as compared to today’s debate over Iraq. Fascinating. There’s so much hypocrisy in the world, now and then. ...
I don’t know. Maybe this overly long item (and tale) makes no sense. But, for a strange reason, I felt a heck of a lot better about our predicament today precisely because, like in ‘45, we’re still debating and arguing away. As usual. As it should be.
Thursday, March 13, 2003
The spread of weblogs ...: Jeff Jarvis, a blogger and the Internet honcho at Advance.net, which runs the web sites for Advance Publications (Condé Nast etc.), has a new 'War in Iraq’ blog for all of Advance's newspaper sites, though I couldn’t find his blog over at Springfield’s Union-News. Interesting. A form of syndication. Sort of. Here's an interview with Jeff on the venture (via Instapundit.) ... Of course, the Boston-based Christian Science Monitor, while it hasn’t syndicated out its site (or I don’t think it has), has long had its own war weblog -- and it’s been widely praised as one of the best one-stop places to go for war-related news. But Jeff’s site has a lot more, well, attitude. ... And so more and more institutions are experimenting with blogs. Harvard is now getting in on the act, with silly school policies attached, of course.
Update: Just found Jeff’s new blog over MassLive.com, Advance’s site in western Massachusetts. In turn, I discovered MassLive.com is really getting into blogging, including one by MassLive.com editor Scott Brodeur. Cool. There are lots of links there to other western Mass bloggers. Here's more news on Jeff's venture.
Update: Just found Jeff’s new blog over MassLive.com, Advance’s site in western Massachusetts. In turn, I discovered MassLive.com is really getting into blogging, including one by MassLive.com editor Scott Brodeur. Cool. There are lots of links there to other western Mass bloggers. Here's more news on Jeff's venture.
'Nobody asked me but...': From Reader No. 1 on my item directly below:
"A few points which nobody is bringing up about the Mass budget/reform debates:
"1. I suggest there is an inherent conflict between the short timeframe which a newly elected executive has to accomplish major changes, and the timeframe required to produce a truly detailed plan for accomplishing said changes. Why do US Presidents achieve so much in their first year and so little afterwards? Because the momentum from their election dissipates quickly. This is what Romney is up against. This is not an excuse but it is reality.
"2. Speaking of truly detailed, when will a Boston newspaper do a story examining whether or not Bill Bulger is really a great university President? It seems that almost everyone is taking this on faith without examining facts and assumptions.
"3. Even if Bulger has been a great university President, his office has to reduce expenses. Everyone else has to do it today whether they like it or not.
"4. The Bulger-Romney personality debate is only an issue to the extent that writers like Joan Vennocchi focus it to the exclusion of other issues like (a) cost reduction and (b) whether the UMass system has been well managed or not."
"A few points which nobody is bringing up about the Mass budget/reform debates:
"1. I suggest there is an inherent conflict between the short timeframe which a newly elected executive has to accomplish major changes, and the timeframe required to produce a truly detailed plan for accomplishing said changes. Why do US Presidents achieve so much in their first year and so little afterwards? Because the momentum from their election dissipates quickly. This is what Romney is up against. This is not an excuse but it is reality.
"2. Speaking of truly detailed, when will a Boston newspaper do a story examining whether or not Bill Bulger is really a great university President? It seems that almost everyone is taking this on faith without examining facts and assumptions.
"3. Even if Bulger has been a great university President, his office has to reduce expenses. Everyone else has to do it today whether they like it or not.
"4. The Bulger-Romney personality debate is only an issue to the extent that writers like Joan Vennocchi focus it to the exclusion of other issues like (a) cost reduction and (b) whether the UMass system has been well managed or not."
Tommy, Billy and the Slick Mormonator: First off, Tom Finneran is absolutely right: Mitt’s budget figures are a mess and his explanations about reform savings vs. actual cuts are bogus. Even though many of his reform ideas are quite valid in principle, Mitt’s people better come up with detailed budget numbers -- and soon. Why? Because it’s becoming pretty damn clear the confusion is going to justify the excuse. What excuse? To block any and all of his reforms. Finneran is sending that clear, unmistakable signal. They’re looking for excuses and think they got one. ... Glad to see Mitt -- as well as his aides -- admitting the proposed budget is a little, er, sloppy. In turn, he’s absolutely right about Beacon Hill fearing “bold change.” That’s pretty obvious. But Mitt is really hurting himself with these numbers. He needs to regroup -- and then resume the battle. If we don’t get reforms out of this, it should be absolutely, 100 percent clear in the end who killed them -- and without the ‘confusion’ excuses ... Tom: Is there any ‘confusion’ about the Quinn bill? ...
... But that’s not the fun part of this post. The fun part is buried at the very, very bottom of the same story: Tommy is backing Billy! Surprise, surprise. Here’s what Tommy had to say:
''If you expunged everybody's last name and just looked at the record, he's been the best university president that I've seen, and I've seen many of them. ... It would probably be helpful for everybody to back away from political personalities and the emotions that attach to those personalities, and just look at the record.''
But, Tom, the problem is you can’t expunge everybody’s last name in the real world. And there are two sides to Billy’s record in the real world. And you can’t take the ‘political personalities’ out of politics in the real world. And you can’t detach emotions from those personalities in the real world. That’s the problem, Tom. Bulger is Bulger -- the good, the bad and the ugly. You don’t get half a man. You get the whole enchilada. Yes, Bulger has been a good UMass president. But here’s the other side of his record and the people he hung out with throughout his life -- one of whom is still on the lam, wanted for the alleged murder of 19 people, an alleged mass murder Billy won’t lift a finger to help apprehend. As Howie Carr has said, this really is a ‘simple story.’ ...
... Joan Vennochi, saying Billy has to go, captures the conflicting emotions and attitudes we have toward Billy. He really HAS been a good UMass president. But there are two sides -- a full record -- to this man. And you just can’t continue looking the other way, not after A.) reading the grand jury transcripts of his cold defiance of the law and common decency and B.) seeing him take the Fifth. Joan raises an intriguing political point about what happens if Billy goes:
“Then, the fight becomes less about personality and more about policy. Romney's passion for revolutionary change, damn the consequences, will subside when he doesn't have Bill Bulger to kick around.”
She’s right. It will subside. To a degree. I think Mitt’s higher-ed reforms, or most of them, will indeed collapse if Billy goes. Wouldn’t mind if that happened. Not a big fan of the high-ed reforms. But Bulger’s departure would mean we at least get one ‘reform’ -- and then we could argue and haggle over the other non-UMass reforms, which aren’t and shouldn’t be connected with Billy’s fate.
... Meanwhile, Jeff Jacoby raises a similar political point which I’d summarize in this way: Billy stays, reformers win. Billy goes, reformers win. Jeff:
“Mitt Romney, who won his job by decisively defeating a Bulger ally, represents the potential of a fresher, less cynical style of government. Billy Bulger represents the very worst of the old style. A prizefight between the two of them could well prove a clarifying and constructive encounter. Bring it on.”
A quibble: The prizefight is already under way and already proving to be a very clarifying and constructive encounter. ...
Update -- Said the other day it would be curious to see who sided with Billy. We now know where Tommy stands. Would love to have Jill Stein tracked down and asked about the prizefight. If she answers the way I think she will, it would confirm, beyond reasonable doubt, Hub Blog’s theory on the Progressive/Hack Alliance. If she says something different, well, yikes, I’ll be pleasantly surprised but I’d have to rethink my P/H Alliance theory, or at least determine whether the P/H Alliance is splintering.
Enough with this issue! On to ...
... But that’s not the fun part of this post. The fun part is buried at the very, very bottom of the same story: Tommy is backing Billy! Surprise, surprise. Here’s what Tommy had to say:
''If you expunged everybody's last name and just looked at the record, he's been the best university president that I've seen, and I've seen many of them. ... It would probably be helpful for everybody to back away from political personalities and the emotions that attach to those personalities, and just look at the record.''
But, Tom, the problem is you can’t expunge everybody’s last name in the real world. And there are two sides to Billy’s record in the real world. And you can’t take the ‘political personalities’ out of politics in the real world. And you can’t detach emotions from those personalities in the real world. That’s the problem, Tom. Bulger is Bulger -- the good, the bad and the ugly. You don’t get half a man. You get the whole enchilada. Yes, Bulger has been a good UMass president. But here’s the other side of his record and the people he hung out with throughout his life -- one of whom is still on the lam, wanted for the alleged murder of 19 people, an alleged mass murder Billy won’t lift a finger to help apprehend. As Howie Carr has said, this really is a ‘simple story.’ ...
... Joan Vennochi, saying Billy has to go, captures the conflicting emotions and attitudes we have toward Billy. He really HAS been a good UMass president. But there are two sides -- a full record -- to this man. And you just can’t continue looking the other way, not after A.) reading the grand jury transcripts of his cold defiance of the law and common decency and B.) seeing him take the Fifth. Joan raises an intriguing political point about what happens if Billy goes:
“Then, the fight becomes less about personality and more about policy. Romney's passion for revolutionary change, damn the consequences, will subside when he doesn't have Bill Bulger to kick around.”
She’s right. It will subside. To a degree. I think Mitt’s higher-ed reforms, or most of them, will indeed collapse if Billy goes. Wouldn’t mind if that happened. Not a big fan of the high-ed reforms. But Bulger’s departure would mean we at least get one ‘reform’ -- and then we could argue and haggle over the other non-UMass reforms, which aren’t and shouldn’t be connected with Billy’s fate.
... Meanwhile, Jeff Jacoby raises a similar political point which I’d summarize in this way: Billy stays, reformers win. Billy goes, reformers win. Jeff:
“Mitt Romney, who won his job by decisively defeating a Bulger ally, represents the potential of a fresher, less cynical style of government. Billy Bulger represents the very worst of the old style. A prizefight between the two of them could well prove a clarifying and constructive encounter. Bring it on.”
A quibble: The prizefight is already under way and already proving to be a very clarifying and constructive encounter. ...
Update -- Said the other day it would be curious to see who sided with Billy. We now know where Tommy stands. Would love to have Jill Stein tracked down and asked about the prizefight. If she answers the way I think she will, it would confirm, beyond reasonable doubt, Hub Blog’s theory on the Progressive/Hack Alliance. If she says something different, well, yikes, I’ll be pleasantly surprised but I’d have to rethink my P/H Alliance theory, or at least determine whether the P/H Alliance is splintering.
Enough with this issue! On to ...
‘A preposterous display of incompetence and waste’: Another day, another scandal. Must have been those confusing budget numbers that caused this to happen.
Oh, so we’re causing anti-Americanism: France's ambassador to the US, Jean David Levitte, appears to be a smart, decent man, based on interviews I’ve seen with him in the past. Makes some sense in this interview with the Christian Science Monitor, but then he strains credibility when he mutters things like this:
"French bashing may be a game in the United States but it is a dangerous game because it fuels anti-Americanism in France at the moment when we don't have anti-American feelings."
"French bashing may be a game in the United States but it is a dangerous game because it fuels anti-Americanism in France at the moment when we don't have anti-American feelings."
Who is John Kerry?: Oh, my God. It’s a vampire issue that can’t be killed by normal methods. ... Today’s ‘Who is John Kerry?’ piece comes from Wayne Woodlief, who asks the question that started this story and has kept it alive ever since: “Who is this guy, really?” ... We’re back to Square One!
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
Who is John Kerry?: Ahhhhhhhh! It still won’t go away! ..... But, like earlier this week, wait a second. It’s Scot Lehigh committing a late hit but still making a little sense. Scot:
“As stories go, the Case of the Half-Hinted but Hollow Hibernian Heritage fell well short of being damning. ...
“Bottom line: This is the kind of story that a paper publishes when one of its own is running for president to ensure that its scrub of the hometown candidate has been vigorous and complete. It certainly shouldn't be read as a sweeping indictment of Kerry's character, however. But the sulking, while pretending not to? Now, that's another matter altogether.”
OK, the Globe officially got in the last punch. Now, can we please, please, please let the Case of the Half-Hinted but Hollow Hibernian Heritage rest? Apparently: no! Ahhhhhhhhh!
“As stories go, the Case of the Half-Hinted but Hollow Hibernian Heritage fell well short of being damning. ...
“Bottom line: This is the kind of story that a paper publishes when one of its own is running for president to ensure that its scrub of the hometown candidate has been vigorous and complete. It certainly shouldn't be read as a sweeping indictment of Kerry's character, however. But the sulking, while pretending not to? Now, that's another matter altogether.”
OK, the Globe officially got in the last punch. Now, can we please, please, please let the Case of the Half-Hinted but Hollow Hibernian Heritage rest? Apparently: no! Ahhhhhhhhh!
‘Romney stands to lose credibility’: The Globe editorial board says Mitt ‘stands to lose credibility with continued attacks on the inspector general.’ In a sense, it’s true, politically speaking. It looks bad. Then again, the Herald’s Rachelle Cohen, a week or so back, wrote a devastating non-online op-ed about how worthless the Inspector General’s office has been over the years. She was quite convincing. So, in a sense, it’s not true, pragmatically speaking. ... Of course, the Globe might be partial toward the inspector general’s office -- in a good sort of way -- because the office recently confirmed, sort of, much of the Globe’s recent, devastating investigative series about Big Dig management incompetence. Too bad it took a newspaper to do the IG’s job, but that’s a different matter. ... So here’s the editorial reform scorecard for the Globe: Opposed to Quinn bill, support Inspector General. That’s about it. ... Again: No reforms, no new taxes. Citizens! Alors! To the Bastille!
... Speaking of reforms and scorecards, Howie has a very interesting scorecard this morning. No wonder the Alleged Mass Murderer Protector is now muttering things like this: “Actually, it's not the Romney/Healey administration. It's the Romney/Boston Herald administration.” ...
... Speaking of reforms and scorecards, Howie has a very interesting scorecard this morning. No wonder the Alleged Mass Murderer Protector is now muttering things like this: “Actually, it's not the Romney/Healey administration. It's the Romney/Boston Herald administration.” ...
Steve Bailey is playing class warfare!: Actually, this is a fun type of class warfare, aimed at the Roy family. ... A little bit of Roy patronage in state government? Read until the end.
Questioning corporate tax breaks: Read these two paragraphs in this story:
“But now, with Raytheon and Fidelity shedding jobs and the state facing a yawning budget gap, some lawmakers are rethinking those corporate breaks.”
And ...
“ ‘We need to rethink everything government does,’ said Senate Taxation Committee chairwoman Cynthia Stone Creem, a Newton Democrat. ‘And we need to look at taxes as a whole, not in a vacuum.’”
With ‘Raytheon and Fidelity shedding jobs,' we now have to ‘rethink everything,’ which means ... tax them while they’re shedding jobs! ... Question: Does Sen. Creem really mean ‘rethink everything’? Everything? Does that include the MDC and Turnpike, senator? Well, um, ah, er, maybe she really didn’t mean that. Not in the Trav’s Senate.
“But now, with Raytheon and Fidelity shedding jobs and the state facing a yawning budget gap, some lawmakers are rethinking those corporate breaks.”
And ...
“ ‘We need to rethink everything government does,’ said Senate Taxation Committee chairwoman Cynthia Stone Creem, a Newton Democrat. ‘And we need to look at taxes as a whole, not in a vacuum.’”
With ‘Raytheon and Fidelity shedding jobs,' we now have to ‘rethink everything,’ which means ... tax them while they’re shedding jobs! ... Question: Does Sen. Creem really mean ‘rethink everything’? Everything? Does that include the MDC and Turnpike, senator? Well, um, ah, er, maybe she really didn’t mean that. Not in the Trav’s Senate.
Pensions, UMass bonds and Billy’s taxpayer-funded lobbying: From Reader No Nickname:
“Just a few quick thoughts –
“Pension and Land Brouhaha -- Before we pile on the legislators too much about the pension issue, it should be noted that most of them were probably engaged with this issue because of its possible effect on their districts. If the state is looking to sell properties in their district, they want to know about it. They’ve certainly fixated on it too much, but you guys might be overstating their direct self-interest.
“U-Mass Bond Issue – Wayne Woodlief’s article was predicated on two questionable points – 1) that bond yields are at their low point (and will shortly increase) and 2) that investors will not buy these bonds at a later date. If President Bulger or his staff or Wayne Woodlief can predict future bond yields with absolute certainty, they should perhaps consider a different, more lucrative line of work. ... Now I have no idea how these (UMass) construction projects are typically financed, but it seems like questionable practice to borrow funds up front for a multi-year project, portions of which do not yet have proper regulatory approval. In this non-expert’s opinion, it’s akin to taking out a mortgage now for a house you want to buy in three years.
“Larger Issue Behind the Bulger-Romney Thing – I realize that politics is a contact sport, but isn’t there something a little unseemly about state-funded agencies using their own resources to so actively lobby? I think it’s one thing for Billy Bulger to personally take on Romney or to lobby in the back rooms. But it’s another thing to have his state-funded press secretaries and President's Office doing the same thing. ... It seems like a series of self-perpetuating agencies have popped up around State government – starting with the U-Mass president’s office and moving on to the Mass. Turnpike Authority and so on and so on. Maybe I am naïve, but wasn’t the ‘checks and balances’ system supposed to be between the Governor, the Legislature, and the courts? Not agencies using state funds to flack, organize protests, run PR events, and stick their names on everything.”
Hub Blog’s response: OK, the lawmakers were also concerned about the land sales. But, jeez, they sure seemed concerned about the impact of the land sales on the pension system ... Yet another reader who thinks I caved too early on the UMass bond sales by supporting Wayne. ... Unseemly? Billy? Bulger has has long thought he can do whatever he wants, including protecting alleged mass murders.
“Just a few quick thoughts –
“Pension and Land Brouhaha -- Before we pile on the legislators too much about the pension issue, it should be noted that most of them were probably engaged with this issue because of its possible effect on their districts. If the state is looking to sell properties in their district, they want to know about it. They’ve certainly fixated on it too much, but you guys might be overstating their direct self-interest.
“U-Mass Bond Issue – Wayne Woodlief’s article was predicated on two questionable points – 1) that bond yields are at their low point (and will shortly increase) and 2) that investors will not buy these bonds at a later date. If President Bulger or his staff or Wayne Woodlief can predict future bond yields with absolute certainty, they should perhaps consider a different, more lucrative line of work. ... Now I have no idea how these (UMass) construction projects are typically financed, but it seems like questionable practice to borrow funds up front for a multi-year project, portions of which do not yet have proper regulatory approval. In this non-expert’s opinion, it’s akin to taking out a mortgage now for a house you want to buy in three years.
“Larger Issue Behind the Bulger-Romney Thing – I realize that politics is a contact sport, but isn’t there something a little unseemly about state-funded agencies using their own resources to so actively lobby? I think it’s one thing for Billy Bulger to personally take on Romney or to lobby in the back rooms. But it’s another thing to have his state-funded press secretaries and President's Office doing the same thing. ... It seems like a series of self-perpetuating agencies have popped up around State government – starting with the U-Mass president’s office and moving on to the Mass. Turnpike Authority and so on and so on. Maybe I am naïve, but wasn’t the ‘checks and balances’ system supposed to be between the Governor, the Legislature, and the courts? Not agencies using state funds to flack, organize protests, run PR events, and stick their names on everything.”
Hub Blog’s response: OK, the lawmakers were also concerned about the land sales. But, jeez, they sure seemed concerned about the impact of the land sales on the pension system ... Yet another reader who thinks I caved too early on the UMass bond sales by supporting Wayne. ... Unseemly? Billy? Bulger has has long thought he can do whatever he wants, including protecting alleged mass murders.
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
Anheuser-Busch is responsible!: First, it was Clear Channel Communications. Now it’s Anheuser-Busch. Hub Blog is still waiting to see if the R.I. lawyers go after the deep-pocket maker of the lighter that was used to start the West Warwick blaze. And don't forget the deep-pocket maker of the bar napkins. ...
... Pay attention to a number of other liability matters relating to the West Warwick tragedy. Among them: 1.) Cities and towns cracking down on nightclubs. Not saying they shouldn’t take steps to improve public safety. But I wonder if some municipalities, watching West Warwick getting hammered, are starting to rethink if nightclubs are worth the liability. 2.) And don’t forget insurance companies thinking along the same lines.
Update -- Dan Kennedy asks whether the city council is engaging in 'regulation or harassment' of nightclubs. Good point. Unfortunately, I think this is only the beginning.
... Pay attention to a number of other liability matters relating to the West Warwick tragedy. Among them: 1.) Cities and towns cracking down on nightclubs. Not saying they shouldn’t take steps to improve public safety. But I wonder if some municipalities, watching West Warwick getting hammered, are starting to rethink if nightclubs are worth the liability. 2.) And don’t forget insurance companies thinking along the same lines.
Update -- Dan Kennedy asks whether the city council is engaging in 'regulation or harassment' of nightclubs. Good point. Unfortunately, I think this is only the beginning.
‘Embedded journalists’: Will not mention the ‘I’ word. Will not mention the ‘I’ word. But Hub Blog will refer to the ‘I’-word subject, thus technically keeping the site (at least for today) an ‘I’-word-free zone, at Reader No. 1’s suggestion. ... The Globe, the Herald and the Christian Science Monitor are all writing about -- war and journalists. One could easily criticize these articles and the CSM site for taking a sort of We-Are-The-Story angle. But the criticism would be unfair. Why? Because this is a rather historic development/experiment between the military and journalists. If journalists really want to cover the war, they have to be with the troops. And if they’re going to be with the troops, they’re going to have to learn how to survive -- or at least not risk the lives of those around them. The journalism ethicists will drone on and on about the perils of this arrangement, blah, blah, blah. But I think it’s generally good. It appears the military and media have come to a compromise arrangement, falling somewhere in between how World War II and Vietnam were covered. Anything’s better than the awful Gulf War coverage we got. So this is a step in the right direction. I hope. ... And, God, I wish I was over there. Really do. Momentous events are unfolding. ...
... Nice editorial by the Globe on the muddled masses changing their views on the war. Count Hub Blog among them, drifting one day between a ‘He’s Botching It Hawk’ to an ‘Anything to Keep Tony Blair in Office Hawk’ to whatever. ... The CSM shoots down arguments about how America is acting like a typical imperial power of the past. America has been quite atypical, in my and CSM's estimation, though there are some unilateralist Pax America types who would like ... oh, never mind.
Update -- Mickey Kaus is tentatively putting John Kerry into the 'He's-Botching-It-Hawk' category. No, no, no! That's my position. I can't possibly be in the same category as Kerry. Kerry's actually in the 'He's-Botching-It-Have-It-Both-Ways Hawk' category. Very different. Very different.
... Nice editorial by the Globe on the muddled masses changing their views on the war. Count Hub Blog among them, drifting one day between a ‘He’s Botching It Hawk’ to an ‘Anything to Keep Tony Blair in Office Hawk’ to whatever. ... The CSM shoots down arguments about how America is acting like a typical imperial power of the past. America has been quite atypical, in my and CSM's estimation, though there are some unilateralist Pax America types who would like ... oh, never mind.
Update -- Mickey Kaus is tentatively putting John Kerry into the 'He's-Botching-It-Hawk' category. No, no, no! That's my position. I can't possibly be in the same category as Kerry. Kerry's actually in the 'He's-Botching-It-Have-It-Both-Ways Hawk' category. Very different. Very different.
The Progressive/Hack Alliance -- confirmed by Billy: The hack’s hack is playing the class-warfare, progressive card. Gotta love it! Wonder how many progressives will fall for Billy's spiel. This time, I don’t think many will, except for Jill Stein, perhaps. Billy is just too odious a person to be associated with, except for Jill Stein, perhaps. ... Look at all the exquisitely chosen words Billy, who definitely didn’t take the 5th yesterday, used in an attempt to press all the right Jill Stein buttons concerning Romney -- ''corporate takeover'' and ''arrogance'' and ''a kind of elitism,'' and ''Bain & Co. -- what do they know? No one knows.'' Etc., etc. etc. ... Thank you, Billy Bulger. Thank you. You have just confirmed Hub Blog’s theory of a Progressive/Hack Alliance that has been running this state for too damn long, i.e. ‘You guys give us our perks and power, and we’ll give you your cherished spending programs.’ Scratch, scratch, scratch those backs! ... Now don't get into a snit. I'm not saying all progressives fall into this category. But I am saying that enough progressives consistently look the other way when it comes to reforms. ...
... Peter Gelzinis just nails Bulger. And Peter makes a good point: Many of the substanative things Bulger said about the higher-ed reform were indeed true. Quite true. Among others, Hub Blog believes in public higher education and is against privatizing higher education in Massachusetts. But that wasn’t the game Billy was playing yesterday, right? The calculating game he was playing was class warfare. ... Did Billy really say the following? -- “Actually, it's not the Romney/Healey administration. It's the Romney/Boston Herald administration.” ... Fascinating. Truly fascinating. He’s not attacking the Globe. ... And it’s going to be even more fascinating to watch who sides with Billy in coming days. Any guesses? Any bets? These are fun, fun times at the Statehouse. ... Oh, what the hell. Let’s end it with a quote from Peter:
“You have to wonder if, at any time during the length of his treacherous and tumultuous political career, Billy Bulger ever planned on being nudged off the highway by a creature like Mitt Romney. Where were the buttons Billy could push, the way he did so successfully with that bourbon-basted Republican WASP, Bill Weld?” ... And, while you’re at it, read until the very end of this Herald story -- last two grafs. Gee. What a surprise. The pot calling the old kettle black.
... Peter Gelzinis just nails Bulger. And Peter makes a good point: Many of the substanative things Bulger said about the higher-ed reform were indeed true. Quite true. Among others, Hub Blog believes in public higher education and is against privatizing higher education in Massachusetts. But that wasn’t the game Billy was playing yesterday, right? The calculating game he was playing was class warfare. ... Did Billy really say the following? -- “Actually, it's not the Romney/Healey administration. It's the Romney/Boston Herald administration.” ... Fascinating. Truly fascinating. He’s not attacking the Globe. ... And it’s going to be even more fascinating to watch who sides with Billy in coming days. Any guesses? Any bets? These are fun, fun times at the Statehouse. ... Oh, what the hell. Let’s end it with a quote from Peter:
“You have to wonder if, at any time during the length of his treacherous and tumultuous political career, Billy Bulger ever planned on being nudged off the highway by a creature like Mitt Romney. Where were the buttons Billy could push, the way he did so successfully with that bourbon-basted Republican WASP, Bill Weld?” ... And, while you’re at it, read until the very end of this Herald story -- last two grafs. Gee. What a surprise. The pot calling the old kettle black.
More on the old Massachusetts pension game: From Reader No. 1:
“Ah, I love this Massachusetts pension talk! A couple of points:
“1. The reason it was a hot topic during last Friday's budget hearing should be obvious to all: it's the principal carrot legislators can hold out to payroll patriots.
“2. ‘...it's an entirely different thing for all of state workers' pensions to be subject to the vagaries of the market.’ It isn't clear from yesterday's GLOBE article whether these are the words of the teacher who invests a mere 5% of his retirement in the market, or the paraphrase of the reporter. But it begs this point: ultimately all of our pensions are subject to the vagaries of the market.
“I don't always agree with Brighton Reader but he/she is on the ball. Picking up the ‘Pleasantville’ theme: surprised HubBlog didn't note the sharp divide detailed in yesterday's Globe between the technology job market (in Business - very sad stories about talented, hardworking people who can't find work) and how the still soaring home market prices out so many people (in the Globe Magazine). Perhaps the greatest source of anxiety today (and it plays into the pension story above): our model of social organization is changing rapidly and we can't see what it is changing into... so is Mitt really one of the last heralds of market forces in our lives? Or the herald of a new management style? (Not to be confused with the ‘Third Way.’)"
Hub Blog’s response: Yes, I saw the Sunday business-section stories on the unemployed but didn't want to work myself into a funk by reading them. As a substitute, here's Margery Eagan’s column on the same general point. Haven’t read the housing story yet in the Globe Sunday Magazine. Will try to do so later.
“Ah, I love this Massachusetts pension talk! A couple of points:
“1. The reason it was a hot topic during last Friday's budget hearing should be obvious to all: it's the principal carrot legislators can hold out to payroll patriots.
“2. ‘...it's an entirely different thing for all of state workers' pensions to be subject to the vagaries of the market.’ It isn't clear from yesterday's GLOBE article whether these are the words of the teacher who invests a mere 5% of his retirement in the market, or the paraphrase of the reporter. But it begs this point: ultimately all of our pensions are subject to the vagaries of the market.
“I don't always agree with Brighton Reader but he/she is on the ball. Picking up the ‘Pleasantville’ theme: surprised HubBlog didn't note the sharp divide detailed in yesterday's Globe between the technology job market (in Business - very sad stories about talented, hardworking people who can't find work) and how the still soaring home market prices out so many people (in the Globe Magazine). Perhaps the greatest source of anxiety today (and it plays into the pension story above): our model of social organization is changing rapidly and we can't see what it is changing into... so is Mitt really one of the last heralds of market forces in our lives? Or the herald of a new management style? (Not to be confused with the ‘Third Way.’)"
Hub Blog’s response: Yes, I saw the Sunday business-section stories on the unemployed but didn't want to work myself into a funk by reading them. As a substitute, here's Margery Eagan’s column on the same general point. Haven’t read the housing story yet in the Globe Sunday Magazine. Will try to do so later.
Monday, March 10, 2003
More on Kerry: Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit is pummeling John Kerry's description of the coalition we've lined up against Iraq. Well, it is insulting regarding Britain, Australia, Spain et al. Their leaders are taking enormous political risks backing us. But the description does apply to Pakistan (bludgeoned and bribed) and Turkey (assuming it backtracks, with multibillion-dollar incentives in place). Kerry didn't distinguish between the two, so he deserves to get roughed up a bit. ... Obviously, Hub Blog agrees with Kerry's description of the administration's truly lousy diplomacy in the past year. Which partly explains why the leaders of the countries he insults are now risking their political lives standing by us. (Spain's prime minister, according to a recent WSJ article I can't link to, told Bush a short while ago that our European backers needed political help -- and he specifically asked that Rummy keep his mouth shut.)
Postscript: Is this another example of my being a 'He's Botching it Hawk' or an 'Anything to Keep Tony Blair in Office Hawk'? See Update II in this post to understand what I'm talking about.
Postscript II: Reader No. 1 has just told me I write too much about Iraq. Damn. I knew it. Should have stuck to my Iraq-free-zone policy.
Postscript: Is this another example of my being a 'He's Botching it Hawk' or an 'Anything to Keep Tony Blair in Office Hawk'? See Update II in this post to understand what I'm talking about.
Postscript II: Reader No. 1 has just told me I write too much about Iraq. Damn. I knew it. Should have stuck to my Iraq-free-zone policy.
Alienating and losing the Catholic faithful: Wow. Want to read a painful but beautiful blog item? Check out John Farrell’s take on the recent attack by George Weigel and John Neuhaus on the 58 priests who dared to ask for Cardinal Law’s resignation. From John:
“I'm not a liberal. I must say, at my age, I have no patience with people who want to turn the Catholic Church into the Burger King of liberal Christianity.
“Having said that, I am in the media (in however humble a capacity), and I am alarmed by the apparent strategy on the part of critics like Father Neuhaus to go after doctrinally lax clergymen in print when what he and other writers need to be doing is reminding the bishops and administrators in the Church in this country that they need to operate less like corporate bankers and more like the preservers of the Gospel Jesus Christ meant them to be.”
He then proceeds to systematically demolish Neuhaus's arguments, step by step, point by point. This is not a standard fisking. It's an intellectual massacre of a writer, Neuhaus, who just doesn't understand the deep pain church leaders have caused.
“I'm not a liberal. I must say, at my age, I have no patience with people who want to turn the Catholic Church into the Burger King of liberal Christianity.
“Having said that, I am in the media (in however humble a capacity), and I am alarmed by the apparent strategy on the part of critics like Father Neuhaus to go after doctrinally lax clergymen in print when what he and other writers need to be doing is reminding the bishops and administrators in the Church in this country that they need to operate less like corporate bankers and more like the preservers of the Gospel Jesus Christ meant them to be.”
He then proceeds to systematically demolish Neuhaus's arguments, step by step, point by point. This is not a standard fisking. It's an intellectual massacre of a writer, Neuhaus, who just doesn't understand the deep pain church leaders have caused.
Has it been worth it?: Sorry. Can’t resist. One item on Iraq. Tom Friedman’s column yesterday kind of complements/backs up Tom Oliphant’s thesis yesterday. Meanwhile, even the father of the modern American Euro Suck-up Movement -- William Pfaff -- can be right some of the times. Ignore most of what Pfaff, always sucking up to his French hosts, says. But this paragraph makes sense:
“Washington only now is discovering that its efforts to override or divide opposition to what it wants on Iraq have created a coherent international opposition that before was not there. It has diminished rather than affirmed its old international leadership.”
And I keep asking myself: Has it been worth it? Our foreign policy/alliances are in shambles. The hawk unilateralists are taking us in a Pax America direction most Americans don’t want to go. Again: Has it been worth it?
Update -- A very odd time-delayed story from the Times of London, based on a week-old story about Bush Sr.'s speech at Tufts University. But the point is made: Bush Sr. was signaling -- how else to interpret it? -- that we need allies and the UN.
Update II -- Mickey Kaus, whose views on the war have been somewhat unclear ('Don't rush me!'), nevertheless is having a merry old time pointing out all the contradictions of the climb-downers, let's-go/let's-wait types. He even has a new category of pro-war/Bush critics: 'He's Botching it Hawks.' Have a gut instinct I fall in that category. Or maybe something else a little more toward the muddled center. Don't know at this point. Been all over the map on Iraq, like many others. ... Maybe there's a new category: 'Anything to Keep Tony Blair in Office Hawk.' That's a good compass and goal, right? Kind of covers all the safe bases.
“Washington only now is discovering that its efforts to override or divide opposition to what it wants on Iraq have created a coherent international opposition that before was not there. It has diminished rather than affirmed its old international leadership.”
And I keep asking myself: Has it been worth it? Our foreign policy/alliances are in shambles. The hawk unilateralists are taking us in a Pax America direction most Americans don’t want to go. Again: Has it been worth it?
Update -- A very odd time-delayed story from the Times of London, based on a week-old story about Bush Sr.'s speech at Tufts University. But the point is made: Bush Sr. was signaling -- how else to interpret it? -- that we need allies and the UN.
Update II -- Mickey Kaus, whose views on the war have been somewhat unclear ('Don't rush me!'), nevertheless is having a merry old time pointing out all the contradictions of the climb-downers, let's-go/let's-wait types. He even has a new category of pro-war/Bush critics: 'He's Botching it Hawks.' Have a gut instinct I fall in that category. Or maybe something else a little more toward the muddled center. Don't know at this point. Been all over the map on Iraq, like many others. ... Maybe there's a new category: 'Anything to Keep Tony Blair in Office Hawk.' That's a good compass and goal, right? Kind of covers all the safe bases.
Hold the presses! Teachers union opposes a reform!: A fight over reform just wouldn’t be a fight over reform without teachers’ unions opposing a reform. I still say the pension overhaul is a dog of an issue -- or at the very least a distraction -- for the administration. ...
But Cosmo Macero has a very interesting take on all of Mitt’s reform plans: They’re mostly bargaining chips, so they probably won’t/shouldn’t be taken off the table until the last minute. Don’t know how much bargaining leverage the administration has, but the ‘flood-the-zone-with-ideas’ tactic makes sense.
But Cosmo Macero has a very interesting take on all of Mitt’s reform plans: They’re mostly bargaining chips, so they probably won’t/shouldn’t be taken off the table until the last minute. Don’t know how much bargaining leverage the administration has, but the ‘flood-the-zone-with-ideas’ tactic makes sense.
Who is John Kerry?: Ahhhhhhhh! It won’t go away! .... But, wait, Joe has some interesting points, some off, some on target. He’s off to suggest it was never a story. It was, in the context of Kerry’s silly campaign to show people -- and columnists -- that, really, truly, ‘I’ve changed.’ The ‘I’ve changed’ campaign preceded the ‘Who’s John Kerry?’ spat. One flowed right into the other. And then Kerry kept the story going by hustling down to Florida and shamelessly yapping about his stupid ‘epiphany.’ But ‘Who’s John Kerry?’ was a story for only a few days, a week at most, even with the stirring ‘epiphany’ saga. Yet it didn’t go away. Last week’s story by the Globe just went too far. Making the ‘Who’s John Kerry?’ story truly ‘creepy,’ as Joe rightly notes. ...
... Now here’s a story I hope goes away. Real soon. Robert Reich for senator? I thought Kerry’s spot was reserved for Mayor Menino. (Sorry, Tom, couldn’t resist.)
... Now here’s a story I hope goes away. Real soon. Robert Reich for senator? I thought Kerry’s spot was reserved for Mayor Menino. (Sorry, Tom, couldn’t resist.)
The church is paying the price: Church attendance and collections are down. And what are church leaders doing about it? Going after the victims and 58.
‘The phallus-destroying vigilantes’: Speaking of non-story stories, I kind of wonder if Cathy Young should be spending time with this subject (or Hub Blog, for that matter), though she’s right: The snow statue was sophomoric and shouldn’t have been built (yes, I’m a prude on these things), it’s not a First Amendment issue, and academic feminists are laughable, irrelevant hypocrites.
‘Some rules will have to be imposed’: The Herald is following up on Dave Winer’s blog project at Harvard. This line from a Harvard type stuck out: “Some rules will have to be imposed, Palfrey said, such as a ban on promoting products, causes or political candidates.” ... The ‘promoting products’ part makes sense. But banning support/discussions of ‘causes’ and ‘political candidates’? ... Jeez. Talk about making blogs boring.
Mitt, the media, budget ambushes, pledges, mayors and Doug Foy: Now it’s Brighton Reader’s turn to mouth off on a host of issues:
“Mitt and the media: I agree he is getting good coverage overall especially on the newscasts. Curious how long he can keep the State House press at arms length. This Rose Garden strategy works to an extent for a president, but the public has different expectations for governors and mayors, they really are held accountable for things like snow storms and road repairs. ....
“The budget hearing: Do not agree that it was an ambush. That is what budget hearings are supposed to be, lots of questions about how the numbers add up. I agree with the reader who said too many questions about pensions -- what about all the services that people really depend on? (This does not include the racetracks, Trav!) Powerpoint Mitt, as opposed to Pleasantville Mitt, is what people voted for and if his administration starts to look shaky on its numbers, it will really hurt their credibility.
“Mitt's three promises: HubBlog's mantra of no reform, no additional taxes is great. Unfortunately Mitt campaigned on no additional taxes, no cuts to core services and lots of reform. None were dependent on the other, and he had to know the budget deficit was higher than one billion.
“Mitt and the mayors: Too many unnecessary battles. He campaigned against Beacon Hill, not city and town halls. ...
“Mitt and Reform: Beyond any reorganization or reshuffling, just by engaging individual legislators he is altering the dynamic in the State House. He has an agenda, he is fighting for it and it is restoring a balance of power among the branches of government. There may be a huge Democratic majority in both houses, but no legislator feels that Mitt can just be ignored.
“Doug Foy: Disappointing. ‘Transferable development rights’? Sounds like Not In My Backyard to me. Killing the Greenbush line (and it sounds like they are going to do that) sends the wrong message: if you have enough money, you can wear the state down, it will raise the cost and eventually the state will cave. If the budget impels it, delay, do not destroy this initiative. The suburban voters who would use this line will appreciate it once in operation. It may be both Mitt and Foy are being cagey, trying to avoid a fight with the base on the hot button development issue. ...
“Finally: The Saturday Globe profiled the town of Mendon, and noted that the Prop 2 1/2 override for a new library was turned down but the one that would provide funds to buy open space was approved. Talk about Pleasantville.”
“Thanks for taking the time to maintain a site to give all of us a chance to spout off!”
Hub Blog’s response: You’re welcome. ... Also, RE the line about taxes, core-service cuts and reform: ‘None were dependent on the other.’ Ah, well, yes, they were dependent and connected with each other. Mitt told voters -- and Shannon at the last big debate -- that he could balance the budget, without taxes and cutting core services, by rooting out waste and inefficiencies. That kind of connects them together, don’t you think?
“Mitt and the media: I agree he is getting good coverage overall especially on the newscasts. Curious how long he can keep the State House press at arms length. This Rose Garden strategy works to an extent for a president, but the public has different expectations for governors and mayors, they really are held accountable for things like snow storms and road repairs. ....
“The budget hearing: Do not agree that it was an ambush. That is what budget hearings are supposed to be, lots of questions about how the numbers add up. I agree with the reader who said too many questions about pensions -- what about all the services that people really depend on? (This does not include the racetracks, Trav!) Powerpoint Mitt, as opposed to Pleasantville Mitt, is what people voted for and if his administration starts to look shaky on its numbers, it will really hurt their credibility.
“Mitt's three promises: HubBlog's mantra of no reform, no additional taxes is great. Unfortunately Mitt campaigned on no additional taxes, no cuts to core services and lots of reform. None were dependent on the other, and he had to know the budget deficit was higher than one billion.
“Mitt and the mayors: Too many unnecessary battles. He campaigned against Beacon Hill, not city and town halls. ...
“Mitt and Reform: Beyond any reorganization or reshuffling, just by engaging individual legislators he is altering the dynamic in the State House. He has an agenda, he is fighting for it and it is restoring a balance of power among the branches of government. There may be a huge Democratic majority in both houses, but no legislator feels that Mitt can just be ignored.
“Doug Foy: Disappointing. ‘Transferable development rights’? Sounds like Not In My Backyard to me. Killing the Greenbush line (and it sounds like they are going to do that) sends the wrong message: if you have enough money, you can wear the state down, it will raise the cost and eventually the state will cave. If the budget impels it, delay, do not destroy this initiative. The suburban voters who would use this line will appreciate it once in operation. It may be both Mitt and Foy are being cagey, trying to avoid a fight with the base on the hot button development issue. ...
“Finally: The Saturday Globe profiled the town of Mendon, and noted that the Prop 2 1/2 override for a new library was turned down but the one that would provide funds to buy open space was approved. Talk about Pleasantville.”
“Thanks for taking the time to maintain a site to give all of us a chance to spout off!”
Hub Blog’s response: You’re welcome. ... Also, RE the line about taxes, core-service cuts and reform: ‘None were dependent on the other.’ Ah, well, yes, they were dependent and connected with each other. Mitt told voters -- and Shannon at the last big debate -- that he could balance the budget, without taxes and cutting core services, by rooting out waste and inefficiencies. That kind of connects them together, don’t you think?
Sunday, March 09, 2003
Mitt’s media style, church leaders, bond sales etc.: Reader No. 1 just emailed to say he saw Jon Keller’s “Keller At Large” on Channel 56 and enjoyed seeing Hub Blog in non-live person. Reader No. 1 has a few interesting observations on the show and other other issues raised in recent days:
-- “One observation on the Keller discussions: the segment on Romney's communications style missed what is for me a key point about the Romney constituency to the extent that it is dominated by working married suburbanites. This group does not read the newspaper columns, where the advocacy groups and veteran legislators have had a stake in the ground for years and years. Romney's electronic media appeals -- on talk radio during rush hour (primarily Howie Carr) and ESPECIALLY 10 PM TV news coverage recounting the administration's expertly staged event of the day (when exhausted parents are about to turn in after getting the weather) -- are the best way for him to bypass the translation layer of ink-stained wretches.”
-- “The various Catholic stories this weekend suggest that things have not changed nearly as much as screaming headlines and non-stop coverage would suggest, eh?” ... [See 'The churchmen who kept silent' item posted earlier today]
-- “I completely disagree with you on Wayne Woodlief's column. There is NOTHING in this column or elsewhere that suggests why the Commonwealth should issue new debt roughly equivalent to the purchase price of the Boston Celtics at this time or any other. Is Woodlief suggesting we should spend $400 million now to save money in the future? I suspect even Bechtel Corporation could fix the leaking roof described at the end of this column for less than $370 million.” ...[See item directly below.]
-- “One observation on the Keller discussions: the segment on Romney's communications style missed what is for me a key point about the Romney constituency to the extent that it is dominated by working married suburbanites. This group does not read the newspaper columns, where the advocacy groups and veteran legislators have had a stake in the ground for years and years. Romney's electronic media appeals -- on talk radio during rush hour (primarily Howie Carr) and ESPECIALLY 10 PM TV news coverage recounting the administration's expertly staged event of the day (when exhausted parents are about to turn in after getting the weather) -- are the best way for him to bypass the translation layer of ink-stained wretches.”
-- “The various Catholic stories this weekend suggest that things have not changed nearly as much as screaming headlines and non-stop coverage would suggest, eh?” ... [See 'The churchmen who kept silent' item posted earlier today]
-- “I completely disagree with you on Wayne Woodlief's column. There is NOTHING in this column or elsewhere that suggests why the Commonwealth should issue new debt roughly equivalent to the purchase price of the Boston Celtics at this time or any other. Is Woodlief suggesting we should spend $400 million now to save money in the future? I suspect even Bechtel Corporation could fix the leaking roof described at the end of this column for less than $370 million.” ...[See item directly below.]
The holiest of all holy line items: Mitt’s call to revamp the state’s pension system (switching over to 401(k)-style plan) is going nowhere. Two reasons: 1.) 401(k)s are not popular right now, as anyone who has one knows, and so he won’t get any groundswell of support for the idea from those outside government. 2.) The state pension system is the holiest of all holy line items for those inside state government, as lawmakers indicated at a recent Statehouse hearing and as later elaborated on by a Hub Blog reader. Save your ammo and breath, Mitt. It ain’t going to happen.
... The best analysis of the UMass bond spat, courtesy of Wayne Woodlief. Here’s another area where the administration is probably going to have to tactically retreat. They probably won’t find a smoking gun/timebomb in the bond package (even though we know there’s probably one in there) and it could end up costing the state if we delay the sale much longer. The message has been sent to Billy -- and so now proceed with the bond sale. ...
Oh, this makes me feel swell about the state’s anti-terrorism efforts.
... The best analysis of the UMass bond spat, courtesy of Wayne Woodlief. Here’s another area where the administration is probably going to have to tactically retreat. They probably won’t find a smoking gun/timebomb in the bond package (even though we know there’s probably one in there) and it could end up costing the state if we delay the sale much longer. The message has been sent to Billy -- and so now proceed with the bond sale. ...
Oh, this makes me feel swell about the state’s anti-terrorism efforts.
And here comes the war: Sadly, as much as Hub Blogs wants to keep this site as Iraq-free as possible, one can’t. War is coming. After the invasion, one of the first places our MASH units -- if they’re still called that -- should head to is the village of Halabja. Excellent story by Charlie Sennott, who cuts to the humanitarian heart of the matter: Why haven’t we helped these people? Know we were allied with Saddam in 1988, when he gassed the village. But since 1990 we’ve had every opportunity to reach out to these people. We haven't. No one has. ...
... Tom Oliphant picks apart the administration’s ever-changing justifications for war. Oliphant, who has always favored a tough stance on Iraq and views the case against Saddam as being just, ends with a devastating observation about why the country and world are not united, partly because of the way the administration has constantly shifted our justifications for entering a just war. ... A call for a Powell Plan, similar to the Marshall Plan. We won’t do it, though. Another blown opportunity on the horizon.
And speaking of the coming war ...
Graham Greene and the Quiet American: This is a great essay by George Packer on Graham Greene, “The Quiet American,” dangerous American naivety, and snobbish anti-Americanism -- all as we head to war in Iraq. Somehow, Packer pulls it together. An excerpt:
“Perhaps the United States is about to make a colossal mistake in Iraq. Or perhaps a war will bring some measure of relief and freedom to long-suffering Iraqis who, whatever their resentments against America, see their own predicament more realistically than we do. Perhaps neither World War II nor Vietnam is the precedent for what's going to happen in the Middle East; perhaps we will all have to think up a new way to understand America's role in the world. The trouble is, America's strength is also its weakness -- and at the same time, what the rest of the world resents it also admires. To understand the times in which we live, we need to keep that entire thought in our heads. Graham Greene was able to hold only half of it, which makes him worth listening to as a cautionary voice-- but not as a prophet.”
Read the essay in full. Don’t think it will neatly confirm your beliefs. It won’t. That’s its strength.
... Tom Oliphant picks apart the administration’s ever-changing justifications for war. Oliphant, who has always favored a tough stance on Iraq and views the case against Saddam as being just, ends with a devastating observation about why the country and world are not united, partly because of the way the administration has constantly shifted our justifications for entering a just war. ... A call for a Powell Plan, similar to the Marshall Plan. We won’t do it, though. Another blown opportunity on the horizon.
And speaking of the coming war ...
Graham Greene and the Quiet American: This is a great essay by George Packer on Graham Greene, “The Quiet American,” dangerous American naivety, and snobbish anti-Americanism -- all as we head to war in Iraq. Somehow, Packer pulls it together. An excerpt:
“Perhaps the United States is about to make a colossal mistake in Iraq. Or perhaps a war will bring some measure of relief and freedom to long-suffering Iraqis who, whatever their resentments against America, see their own predicament more realistically than we do. Perhaps neither World War II nor Vietnam is the precedent for what's going to happen in the Middle East; perhaps we will all have to think up a new way to understand America's role in the world. The trouble is, America's strength is also its weakness -- and at the same time, what the rest of the world resents it also admires. To understand the times in which we live, we need to keep that entire thought in our heads. Graham Greene was able to hold only half of it, which makes him worth listening to as a cautionary voice-- but not as a prophet.”
Read the essay in full. Don’t think it will neatly confirm your beliefs. It won’t. That’s its strength.
‘The churchmen who kept silent’: Yesterday, they were going after the 58 priests who stood up to Cardinal Law. Today, Eileen McNamara notes how they’re going after the victims again. ...
... Margery Eagan on Tommy: “To Tom Finneran, priests failing to report the rape of children is not worthy of lawmakers' intervention. But preventing gay marriage is.” ... In response to this column by Jeff Jacoby on the same subject of gay marriages, I was all set to write, “Jeff, you’re on the wrong side of history.” But, upon reflection, he makes an interesting legal argument against a court ordering gay marriages vs. a legislative solution to gay marriages. He doesn’t support gay marriages in general. I disagree with him in general. But he does make a fascinating point about how we could be heading down the old legal slippery slope if this issue isn’t handled correctly.
... Margery Eagan on Tommy: “To Tom Finneran, priests failing to report the rape of children is not worthy of lawmakers' intervention. But preventing gay marriage is.” ... In response to this column by Jeff Jacoby on the same subject of gay marriages, I was all set to write, “Jeff, you’re on the wrong side of history.” But, upon reflection, he makes an interesting legal argument against a court ordering gay marriages vs. a legislative solution to gay marriages. He doesn’t support gay marriages in general. I disagree with him in general. But he does make a fascinating point about how we could be heading down the old legal slippery slope if this issue isn’t handled correctly.
Ocean Spray: The final days of Ocean Spray, they’re in sight. It’s sad. It’s a great New England company/cooperative based on a classic New England industry. But the co-op system isn’t working. The market is nudging Ocean Spray in a new direction reflecting global realities. So ...
Saturday, March 08, 2003
Dianne Wilkerson etc., Part II: A reader reacts to an earlier item:
“Tough review of the Joint Ways & Means hearing. ...
“Were you confused about the source of the $800m in hidden cuts (was mentioned in Rick Klein's tick-tock piece on the budget last week) or by Rogers' question?
“Am I the only person who wanted to stand up and cheer for Rep. Alice Wolf? Besides a few scattered references to Senior Pharmacy, she was the first (and perhaps only) representative to ask about the effect of Health and Human Service cuts. Everyone else seemed to be obsessed with the land transfer to the pension fund -- no less than 8 of 20-25 legislators there asked about it. It’s a $180m item in a $22.8b budget, important to be sure, but hardly deserving of all air time it got.
“There was a noticable dichotomy between the two chairs - Rogers was focussed on the big picture, while Murray was much more interested in the details -- the pension land swap (again) and making sure that Raytheon and Fidelity (who were identified specfically) get roughed up. Rogers also used the term ‘structural deficit’ twice, which sounds a bit more tax averse than if the term ‘cyclical deficit’ had been used.”
Hub Blog’s response: No, I wasn’t at the hearing. But I could read between the pension-concerned lines. They're really pumped up about the pension, aren't they? ... I was indeed confused by the $800M reference in general.
Update -- 3-8-03 -- Someone just wrote in explaining the $800 million. Now I get it. Not really important to the story. And Rogers apparently wasn't linking it to the pension system, although lawmakers are indeed obsessed with the pension system. ... And if you don't understand what the hell I'm talking about, I'm making this too complicated. So ignore it.
“Tough review of the Joint Ways & Means hearing. ...
“Were you confused about the source of the $800m in hidden cuts (was mentioned in Rick Klein's tick-tock piece on the budget last week) or by Rogers' question?
“Am I the only person who wanted to stand up and cheer for Rep. Alice Wolf? Besides a few scattered references to Senior Pharmacy, she was the first (and perhaps only) representative to ask about the effect of Health and Human Service cuts. Everyone else seemed to be obsessed with the land transfer to the pension fund -- no less than 8 of 20-25 legislators there asked about it. It’s a $180m item in a $22.8b budget, important to be sure, but hardly deserving of all air time it got.
“There was a noticable dichotomy between the two chairs - Rogers was focussed on the big picture, while Murray was much more interested in the details -- the pension land swap (again) and making sure that Raytheon and Fidelity (who were identified specfically) get roughed up. Rogers also used the term ‘structural deficit’ twice, which sounds a bit more tax averse than if the term ‘cyclical deficit’ had been used.”
Hub Blog’s response: No, I wasn’t at the hearing. But I could read between the pension-concerned lines. They're really pumped up about the pension, aren't they? ... I was indeed confused by the $800M reference in general.
Update -- 3-8-03 -- Someone just wrote in explaining the $800 million. Now I get it. Not really important to the story. And Rogers apparently wasn't linking it to the pension system, although lawmakers are indeed obsessed with the pension system. ... And if you don't understand what the hell I'm talking about, I'm making this too complicated. So ignore it.
Terrorism 'wormed its way into the NBA consciousness': Hope foreign or domestic terrorists weren’t watching last night’s nationally televised Celts game, because some sicko(s) performed a test-run for them, free of charge and risk. Hate to say that. But we all know it’s true -- and possible. Jackie MacMullan didn’t go overboard by stating the obvious about what people were thinking: “And, suddenly, the threat of a terrorist attack wormed its way into the NBA consciousness.” ... As a guest of a friend, I attended the Celts-Knicks game on Wednesday, sitting right on the floor near the Celts bench. I said to my friend then -- and I’ll repeat now: I thought the security at the Fleet Center was very lax. I was surprised at the casual security getting into the arena. I was even more surprised by how close I could get to the bench without showing my ticket stub. I kept the stub in my breast pocket, thinking someone sooner or later would ask for it. No one did. ... Apparently, there’s supposed to be tight security around the bench because of Paul Pierce’s past problems with hoods. Don’t know if that’s the reason why SWAT-like police are stationed near the bench area, but they obviously didn’t deter the apparent mace attack last night.
Update -- A friend from Southern California suggests that the only terror involved has been watching the L.A. Clippers all year. They are a terror. They were supposed to be decent this year, no?
Update II - 3-8-03 -- The incident is now officially being called a ‘sick prank,’ as we all knew it was. But a little innocence was lost Friday night -- and we deep-down know it and dread it.
Update -- A friend from Southern California suggests that the only terror involved has been watching the L.A. Clippers all year. They are a terror. They were supposed to be decent this year, no?
Update II - 3-8-03 -- The incident is now officially being called a ‘sick prank,’ as we all knew it was. But a little innocence was lost Friday night -- and we deep-down know it and dread it.
Attacking the church messengers -- again: Now the long knives are being drawn. It’s payback time. According to conservative church voices, the 58 priests who signed a letter calling for Cardinal Law’s resignation are ''men who had repeatedly and publicly denied the Church's teaching on the moral truth'' and who had previously pushed for a ''subculture of infidelity.'' ... Their choice of words -- ‘moral truth’ and ‘subculture of infidelity’ -- was obviously made without a hint of irony or shame. These guys are out of it. Simply out of it. They hate these priests because they were right. And the 58 can never be forgiven as a result.
Rhode Island, home of the best lawyer ads in America: Anyone who has spent time in Rhode Island, as I have over the years, gets a certain kick watching all the attorney ads on TV, particularly the ones with celebrities, such as Robert Vaughn. Sometimes you see the TV lawyers themselves in Newport bars, throwing money around and acting like famous movie stars with beautiful women in tow. It’s a treat to behold. ... So it’s not the least bit shocking to read this story about how attorneys are now going after the deep-pocket owner of a radio station that promoted the Great White concert at The Station. Before it’s all over, by God, I’m predicting they’ll go after the deep-pocket owner of the company that sold bar napkins to the Derderians. Why not? ... Speaking of the Derderians, Jeff’s lawyer is blaming the Great White crew member who actually lit the fuse. Come to think of it, what type of lighter did he use? Bic? Whoa!
Dianne Wilkerson, our budget, tax and accounting watchdog: What do you get when you combine an incredibly sloppy budget proposal with hypocritical lawmakers? Answer: Yesterday’s farce of a committee hearing at the Statehouse. ... Notice how they concentrated on the state pension, the holiest of all holy line items. ... So John Rogers doesn’t like ‘one-time’ revenue fixes? OK, no use of ‘reserve funds,’ since once you use them, they’re gone. And no borrowing, please. That’s also a one-time fix, unless you pull an Oliver and go back to Wall Street asking for second helpings. ... For the life of me, I could not understand the exchange between Kriss and Rogers about how the administration apparently has $800 million in potential other cuts hidden away and why Rogers was upset that they didn’t use those cuts to replace other cuts. Huh? But it tied into the pension system somehow, so it made a little sense, in a cynical sort of way. (Message from Rogers: Play funny-money games with other line items, but not the pension.) ... Dianne Wilkerson lecturing people about a lack of clarity and too many apologies. Dianne Wilkerson. ... No pom-poms from Hub Blog for the administration, though. God, what a frigging mess. Is this how they did it at Bain? ... The hearing was definitely a Hack Ambush. And the administration skipped right into it like Shirley Temple on her way to grandma’s house. ... Advantage: Democrats.
Cosmo on blogging & the Herald’s paid content, etc.: Congrats to Cosmo for the slow but steady increase in blogger readership! (Scroll down below where he threatens to shoot the poor dog -- that Cosmo. Oooh. So Evil. I think he’s bluffing.) ... Hub Blog? Haven’t the foggiest idea what my traffic is. Caught between the old Rock and Hard Place, to wit: Laziness and Denial. Laziness: Don’t track my traffic ‘cause I don’t get the technology, which is a function of my laziness (frankly -- sort of like learning a second language). Denial: I don’t want to know my traffic. Would have probably discouraged me to continue with Hub Blog in the early stages. ...
... Cosmo reports a negative reaction to the Herald’s new online pay-to-view policy. He asks readers to give it a chance. Somehow, I don’t think the Herald has stumbled upon a Dan Bricklin-like killer ap for the Internet. Could be wrong. Hope I’m wrong. Want to live and work in blogger/Internet utopia. ...
A reader responds: Responding to the Herald's new online policy, Reader BK writes in:
"Too bad about the Herald. They oughtta offer a digital subscription (a lá TNR) to read all of their columnists -- but for only two dollars per week. That might amount to $104 million a year in revenue from about a million 'digital' (and mostly) Rte. 128 to Rte. 495 'suburban' readers. Suggestion for the $2.00 per week 'digital' Herald: Run Hub Blog and run him very hard. Then the question would become: what features can they 'value-add' to make the print edition a more compelling buy, especially in the residential neighborhoods and the 'inner-ring' Boston suburbs?"
Hub Blog's response: Don't know about $104 million a year. Now that would be a killer ap. Still, the $2/week package idea isn't bad. More realistic than $4.95 per month per columnist. I really do wish the Herald luck. Want to see someone figure out how to profit from the Internet/blogging. It will ultimately benefit yours truly, too.
Update -- You may have noticed, as I did, the ads at the top of my site. They're clearly Boston orientated (at least they were this morning) -- and apparently aimed at Hub Blog readers. So I'm extremely flattered they're there. Support them! But gotta make one thing clear: I'm not getting any money from them. Blogger is. That's the trade: I get this free blog spot, they get to find advertisers. It's a fair trade, in my opinion. And intriguing.
... Cosmo reports a negative reaction to the Herald’s new online pay-to-view policy. He asks readers to give it a chance. Somehow, I don’t think the Herald has stumbled upon a Dan Bricklin-like killer ap for the Internet. Could be wrong. Hope I’m wrong. Want to live and work in blogger/Internet utopia. ...
A reader responds: Responding to the Herald's new online policy, Reader BK writes in:
"Too bad about the Herald. They oughtta offer a digital subscription (a lá TNR) to read all of their columnists -- but for only two dollars per week. That might amount to $104 million a year in revenue from about a million 'digital' (and mostly) Rte. 128 to Rte. 495 'suburban' readers. Suggestion for the $2.00 per week 'digital' Herald: Run Hub Blog and run him very hard. Then the question would become: what features can they 'value-add' to make the print edition a more compelling buy, especially in the residential neighborhoods and the 'inner-ring' Boston suburbs?"
Hub Blog's response: Don't know about $104 million a year. Now that would be a killer ap. Still, the $2/week package idea isn't bad. More realistic than $4.95 per month per columnist. I really do wish the Herald luck. Want to see someone figure out how to profit from the Internet/blogging. It will ultimately benefit yours truly, too.
Update -- You may have noticed, as I did, the ads at the top of my site. They're clearly Boston orientated (at least they were this morning) -- and apparently aimed at Hub Blog readers. So I'm extremely flattered they're there. Support them! But gotta make one thing clear: I'm not getting any money from them. Blogger is. That's the trade: I get this free blog spot, they get to find advertisers. It's a fair trade, in my opinion. And intriguing.
Friday, March 07, 2003
Hub Blog goes TV: FYI: Jon Keller kindly invited me on his Sunday “Keller At Large’ show on WLVI-Channel 56. Mark Jurkowitz and I were his guests. We taped the show yesterday. Lots of talk about Mitt, the media and West Warwick tragedy. The show airs on Sunday at 8:30 a.m. ... Blogging is coming of age, folks.
‘Opinion is all-important’: First, William Shirer’s ‘Collapse of the Third Republic’ and then Ernest May’s ‘Strange Victory.’ Now Felix Markham’s ‘Napoleon.’ Yes, Hub Blog is a closet Francophile. (Is that the right word?) Anyway, just finished Markham’s book. No mini-review. Among many other things, this observation by Napoleon on public opinion stuck out: “A man is only a man. His power is nothing if circumstances are not favourable. Opinion is all-important.” And this from a dictator. Wish George Bush, who’s the elected leader of the world’s most powerful democracy, had paid more attention to public opinion -- without losing sight of his goals -- when trying to rally national and world opinion against Iraq. Now there’s a sense of dread in the air. You can feel it.
He made three pledges -- not two: Very, very interesting Globe editorial this morning on the contradictions between Mitt’s pledges to A.) Not cut core services and B.) No new taxes on the deficit. Naturally, the Globe urges him to abandon ‘B’ in order to obtain ‘A.’ (Strange how it never works the other way around, eh?) ... Anyway, Hub Blog, who opposes Mitt’s no-new-tax pledge on the deficit, tips its hat to the Globe for at least recognizing the fundamental contradictions in those two pledges. If he sticks to one, he abandons the other, etc. But didn’t he make three fundamental promises during the campaign? The last one is C.) To clean up the mess on Beacon Hill. I’m not shoving that one into the mix because I’ve become somewhat obsessed about the subject (although, come to think of it, I have become somewhat obsessed). It was part of his campaign theme -- and it’s now a fundamental part of Mitt’s budget proposal. The Globe has even run editorials on some aspects of his reform ideas, as they apply to the budget. So why isn’t the Globe now factoring reform into its pledges formula? Hub Blog’s mantra: No reforms, no new taxes. Advice to Mitt: Stick to ‘B’ until you get ‘C’ so you can avoid ‘A.’ ... That’s the grand formula -- and compromise -- Hub Blog offers to the universe.
‘Those little timebombs left behind’: Gotta admit: Don’t know who’s right or wrong in the UMass bond spat. Could go either way. Flip a coin. If we go through with the bond package, we might find out later that the underwriting, legal and/or construction contracts were greased ahead of time by Billy and the boys. There’s an equal chance we’ll see Mitt retreating on the bond package because they found no evident grease marks to justify blocking it, sort of the way Mitt had to retreat on nixing Jane Swift’s last-minute appointments of her cronies. But that’s OK. Better safe than sorry. ... The Herald has a fun editorial on the subject: “The bond plan was, of course, another of those little timebombs left behind by acting Gov. Jane Swift.” ...
Postscript: What a hoot. The chairman of the state Democratic party, Philip Johnston, is accusing Mitt of playing politics with the bond package. Gee. Didn’t know the chairman of the state Democratic party was such an expert on complex, low-interest bond sales.
Postscript: What a hoot. The chairman of the state Democratic party, Philip Johnston, is accusing Mitt of playing politics with the bond package. Gee. Didn’t know the chairman of the state Democratic party was such an expert on complex, low-interest bond sales.
Losing lunch-bucket Dems on Iraq: Think it was Mickey Kaus who said, soon after Sept. 11, that President Bush had to prosecute the war by reaching out to moderate Dems in order to maintain the largest possible consensus. Same logic applied to moderates in Europe. But Bush initially didn’t follow that strategy on Iraq, allowing himself to be egged on by hawk unilateralists in the administration. He’s since backtracked -- but the damage was long ago done. Now support is slowly melting away among moderates, as indicated in this Scot Lehigh column and H.D.S. Greenway column. Both of them have been pretty tough on Iraq. They’re not wavering per se, but they aren’t enthusiastically backing the president either. And that’s not good. (There’s also this more easily dismissed piece by Brian McGrory, who’s playing the all-too-lame Peace Dividend angle, but the point is also made. ... By the way, what happened to the post-Cold War Peace Dividend? Oh, yeah, forgot. We spent it. And life still isn't perfect and we need more money, blah, blah, blah.) ... Even though hard-core conservatives bristle at the suggestion that Bush has mishandled the PR/diplomatic war, he has, in fact, mishandled it. He’s allowed himself to be painted as the warmonger. Last night’s press conference definitely showed a tired, subdued, genuinely sincere leader grappling with tough decisions -- and a leader who doesn’t want to come across as a warmonger, which he isn’t, in my opinion. But, again, the damage has already been done, here and abroad. He has no one to blame but himself ...
... Still think this Tom Friedman piece from last month was right on target. And, again, check out this fascinating interview between Josh Marshall and Kenneth Pollack, both smart Dems, on Iraq. ... Postscript: Pollack says in the interview that, no matter how we got to this point, we’re at this point and we have to deal with it. I’m in his Reluctant Warrior Camp. We have to do something about Saddam.
Update -- Just when you think you've arrived at a rational point and/or found someone who makes sense on Iraq, it gets blown away. Mickey Kaus, whose views on Iraq have been a little odd and vague (to put it mildly), picks apart Pollack's arguments.
... Still think this Tom Friedman piece from last month was right on target. And, again, check out this fascinating interview between Josh Marshall and Kenneth Pollack, both smart Dems, on Iraq. ... Postscript: Pollack says in the interview that, no matter how we got to this point, we’re at this point and we have to deal with it. I’m in his Reluctant Warrior Camp. We have to do something about Saddam.
Update -- Just when you think you've arrived at a rational point and/or found someone who makes sense on Iraq, it gets blown away. Mickey Kaus, whose views on Iraq have been a little odd and vague (to put it mildly), picks apart Pollack's arguments.
Doug Foy, welcome to non-advocacy governing: Doug Foy is getting whacked by business groups and whacked by environmentalists. Does that mean he’s doing something right? In a way, yes. Foy: “My observation has been that advocacy is the art of the pure, but government is the art of the possible.” I.e. He gets it. He’s not a radical. But I’m becoming a little worried that he’s also a non-radical idealist at heart, especially when it comes to his Quaint Town Centers/It Takes a Village vision of ‘smart growth.’ Look at this paraphrased comment about why Foy isn’t backing the Greenbush commuter line: “Foy's response has been that although it (Greenbush) would take cars off the Southeast Expressway, commuter rail can also encourage sprawl, as developers build subdivisions so people can drive to stations with giant parking lots.” ... Huh? Don’t we WANT developers building subdivisions near stations? Or does this clash with Foy's idealized Quaint Town Centers/It Takes a Village concept? Maybe he came up with this lame rationale because the decision on Greenbush has already been made based on financial considerations. But still ...
Thursday, March 06, 2003
Celts update: Almost forgot: Went to the Celts-Knicks game last night. Quick impressions: Impressed with the Celts' defense. Impressed with the entire team's enthusiasm. Impressed by J.R.'s play. Impressed with Dave Cowens, who was in attendance and looked like he could play tomorrow. Impressed when Antoine took it to the basket. Not impessed when Antoine hung out at the key waiting for another 3-point shot. Not impressed with the overall lack of a consistent inside game. Not impressed with Paul Pierce, who's playing well but looks like hell these days -- very disturbing. He's playing too many minutes and getting beat up. ... Despite it being a fantastic game, there was an element of sadness at the non-Garden Garden. I'll let Michael Gee explain.
‘Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II’: The entire Homeland Defense debate has been off Hub Blog’s radar screen -- until now. What the feds want to do at Logan, from the Herald:
“The program, run by the federal Transportation Security Administration, will analyze credit reports, bank account data, criminal records and more to assign a risk level to all airline passengers, according to a recent notice in the Federal Register.”
They just crossed my line.
“The program, run by the federal Transportation Security Administration, will analyze credit reports, bank account data, criminal records and more to assign a risk level to all airline passengers, according to a recent notice in the Federal Register.”
They just crossed my line.
Iran, Iraq, Al Qaeda, Pakistan: Readers may have noticed: Hub Blog has been a relatively Iraq-free zone in recent days. Exhausted by the debate. Then I read this story in the Christian Science Monitor and this other story in CSM. And I thought: Holy shit. What the hell are we getting into? Where does this end?
Buying into ‘Tommy Taxes’ too much, Part II: Hub Blog tried (for less than 24 hours) to be open to the idea of Tommy Taxes not really being Tommy Taxes, even going so far as to write in the ‘update’ portion of my item yesterday that maybe I needed to see the budget debate through different lenses. Then I read this story by the Globe’s Rick Klein -- and now I’m wondering if the new political bifocals are necessary. Finneran may be a fiscal conservative, but I don’t trust him. ... The Herald is warning about the Trav’s tricks over in the Senate. ...
... Joan Vennochi is getting in on the Tease Mitt Over Fees and Taxes fun. Who can blame her? It’s too much fun. And she has fun, gleefully shooting down a lot of tax-fee ducks in rapid-fire succession. But I do disagree with the notion that corporations aren’t paying their ‘fair share’ of taxes. One could go on an on about how corporations really don’t pay taxes -- or at least not as much as some people think and/or hope. Corporations either cut back on capital/operational expenditures and/or pass off most costs to consumers. Corporations ultimately exist to make individuals -- like CEOs -- lots of moola so they can go off and do stupid things, such as buying trophy art, avoid paying sales taxes and then getting caught by the feds, etc. It’s individuals, human beings, who ultimately pay taxes. Perhaps sensing this (while shooting away at the easy tax-fee ducks in a row), Joan includes comments from Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s Michael Widmer, who’s quoted a lot these days because he’s one of the few talking sense: ''They (past corporate tax cuts) are legitimate tax reforms that improve the competitiveness of the Massachusetts economy over time. It encourages business to locate and expand here.'' ... I’m not saying all corporations -- or their CEOs -- are pure. Take a gander at the current fight over Tyco (once headed by the same CEO who got caught buying trophy art without paying sales taxes). But most corporations -- believe it or not, Jill Stein -- are honest and just want to go about their business. Widmer is right: The overall thrust of cutting corporate taxes in the ‘90s was sound economic policy. Bottom line: Plug the loopholes, keep the breaks.
... Joan Vennochi is getting in on the Tease Mitt Over Fees and Taxes fun. Who can blame her? It’s too much fun. And she has fun, gleefully shooting down a lot of tax-fee ducks in rapid-fire succession. But I do disagree with the notion that corporations aren’t paying their ‘fair share’ of taxes. One could go on an on about how corporations really don’t pay taxes -- or at least not as much as some people think and/or hope. Corporations either cut back on capital/operational expenditures and/or pass off most costs to consumers. Corporations ultimately exist to make individuals -- like CEOs -- lots of moola so they can go off and do stupid things, such as buying trophy art, avoid paying sales taxes and then getting caught by the feds, etc. It’s individuals, human beings, who ultimately pay taxes. Perhaps sensing this (while shooting away at the easy tax-fee ducks in a row), Joan includes comments from Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s Michael Widmer, who’s quoted a lot these days because he’s one of the few talking sense: ''They (past corporate tax cuts) are legitimate tax reforms that improve the competitiveness of the Massachusetts economy over time. It encourages business to locate and expand here.'' ... I’m not saying all corporations -- or their CEOs -- are pure. Take a gander at the current fight over Tyco (once headed by the same CEO who got caught buying trophy art without paying sales taxes). But most corporations -- believe it or not, Jill Stein -- are honest and just want to go about their business. Widmer is right: The overall thrust of cutting corporate taxes in the ‘90s was sound economic policy. Bottom line: Plug the loopholes, keep the breaks.
Higher ed reforms and confusion: For the time being, I’m going to try to stay out of the higher-ed reform debate until I get more information. It’s too confusing. In general, though, I’m going to hover around these positions until swayed otherwise: A.) Billy, go. B.) Linking the mission of some institutions to the economy is great. C.) Hack out the hacks and duplication. D.) Make UMass a shining example of our commitment to public higher-education. E.) Treat ‘privatization’ with skepticism because public higher-education is important. ... For your own edification, the Globe had a pretty good overview editorial this morning on Mitt’s plans for reforms. For your edification, too, read this op-ed and gag at the description of Billy Bulger:
“When I first became involved in Massachusetts politics in 1988, I shared the same anti-Bulger prejudice as many of my fellow Amherst residents. I was a kid, new to politics, and I was wrong. What I learned - and learned quickly - was that there was no stronger supporter of public education, libraries, and excellence than Senate President Bulger. Strip away the rhetoric and you are left with a gentleman who has supported the aspirations of working families from one end of the Commonwealth to the other.”
Postscript: Haven’t a clue if holding up this UMass bond sale is a good idea. Is Billy up to something? Or is the administration later going to have to retreat and pull a Slick Mormonator move? At first blush, you have to wonder about the bond package when ‘William Bulger’ and ‘Jane Swift’ are mentioned as working together. Ten bucks says Jane ends up with some sort of job at UMass. Any takers?
“When I first became involved in Massachusetts politics in 1988, I shared the same anti-Bulger prejudice as many of my fellow Amherst residents. I was a kid, new to politics, and I was wrong. What I learned - and learned quickly - was that there was no stronger supporter of public education, libraries, and excellence than Senate President Bulger. Strip away the rhetoric and you are left with a gentleman who has supported the aspirations of working families from one end of the Commonwealth to the other.”
Postscript: Haven’t a clue if holding up this UMass bond sale is a good idea. Is Billy up to something? Or is the administration later going to have to retreat and pull a Slick Mormonator move? At first blush, you have to wonder about the bond package when ‘William Bulger’ and ‘Jane Swift’ are mentioned as working together. Ten bucks says Jane ends up with some sort of job at UMass. Any takers?
Wednesday, March 05, 2003
Buying into 'Tommy Taxes' too much: A regular reader, who I've yet to give a nickname, writes in that Hub Blog may be off a bit in my analysis of the budget fight. From the reader:
"I think you've bought into Howie Carr's 'Tommy Taxes' rap on Finneran too much. The House Leadership is actually very conservative, probably more so than Romney in a lot of cases. I'd look for a public split at some point on the budget between the House and Senate. John Rogers (House Ways & Means) came out yesterday and told mayors to expect a 20% cut in local aid (which makes Romney look soft in comparison). This statement, combined with Rogers' disdain for Romney's figures, has several implications:
"1) A meaningful tax increase is probably off the table, certainly nothing approaching last year's $1.2b increase. There's been no groundswell around raising taxes (which should have come post-Romney budget, if at all) and it looks like the conservative Dems in the House see this deficit as structural, not cyclical (i.e. you can't tax your way out of it).
"2) These same House Dems appear to have no interest in Romney's multitude of reforms and ensuing savings projections (e.g. folding the MDC into another agency and saving X dollars). Therefore, they have to make big cuts in things like local aid to make the numbers add up.
"Given Travaligini's seeming inability to articulate even one program that should be cut back, I can't see him going along with the above scenario. This is going to be a lot of fun to watch."
Hub Blog's response: Excellent points -- and a lot to think about. Hope you're right about the lack of groundswell for taxes. As for 'Tommy Taxes,' yeah, I've kind of bought into the nickname perhaps too much. He's more fiscally conservative than I give him credit for. Still, he WILL choose taxes over reform -- every time. The preservation-of-power instinct in Finneran is stronger than his fiscal conservativism. And so I don't think the nickname is too far off.
Update -- Another reader, reacting to Reader No Nickname above, says he largely agrees with his assessment and has heard that a very large chunk of the House is opposed to a tax hike. Interesting. Time to start looking at this through a different set of lenses? The reforms, I assume, are non-negotiatable in the House. Meaning: No way. No surprise. Which requires no change in lenses. Hub Blog will need a pair of political bifocals before this is over.
"I think you've bought into Howie Carr's 'Tommy Taxes' rap on Finneran too much. The House Leadership is actually very conservative, probably more so than Romney in a lot of cases. I'd look for a public split at some point on the budget between the House and Senate. John Rogers (House Ways & Means) came out yesterday and told mayors to expect a 20% cut in local aid (which makes Romney look soft in comparison). This statement, combined with Rogers' disdain for Romney's figures, has several implications:
"1) A meaningful tax increase is probably off the table, certainly nothing approaching last year's $1.2b increase. There's been no groundswell around raising taxes (which should have come post-Romney budget, if at all) and it looks like the conservative Dems in the House see this deficit as structural, not cyclical (i.e. you can't tax your way out of it).
"2) These same House Dems appear to have no interest in Romney's multitude of reforms and ensuing savings projections (e.g. folding the MDC into another agency and saving X dollars). Therefore, they have to make big cuts in things like local aid to make the numbers add up.
"Given Travaligini's seeming inability to articulate even one program that should be cut back, I can't see him going along with the above scenario. This is going to be a lot of fun to watch."
Hub Blog's response: Excellent points -- and a lot to think about. Hope you're right about the lack of groundswell for taxes. As for 'Tommy Taxes,' yeah, I've kind of bought into the nickname perhaps too much. He's more fiscally conservative than I give him credit for. Still, he WILL choose taxes over reform -- every time. The preservation-of-power instinct in Finneran is stronger than his fiscal conservativism. And so I don't think the nickname is too far off.
Update -- Another reader, reacting to Reader No Nickname above, says he largely agrees with his assessment and has heard that a very large chunk of the House is opposed to a tax hike. Interesting. Time to start looking at this through a different set of lenses? The reforms, I assume, are non-negotiatable in the House. Meaning: No way. No surprise. Which requires no change in lenses. Hub Blog will need a pair of political bifocals before this is over.
The Slick Mormonator: Well, now we have two nicknames to choose from: Scot Lehigh's ‘Slick Willard’ or Margery Eagan’s ‘The Mormonator.’ Let’s combine the two into: The Slick Mormonator. It’s a little more accurate. ... Already commented on the Margery piece the other day, so let’s cut to Scot’s column this morning. Alas, he’s buying into the ‘personal-income gains’ explanation of state spending in the ‘90s. Ugh. I disagreed with that analysis the other day -- and still disagree with such comparisons. I’m still waiting for an explanation of these two figures: $9.37 billion and $17.23 billion. But as for the main point of his column, i.e. ‘Slick Willard’? What can I say. It’s true. Mitt’s killing himself with these antics. He not only loses credibility, but it gives defenders of the status quo an excuse to dismiss ALL of his arguments. Mitt doesn’t need the ‘slick’ image. He needs the pure ‘Mormonator’ image. And Lord knows we need a Mormonator with the latest outside calls to reform the judiciary or Cosmo’s story on Billy and Ameresco Energy Services. Each and every day in Massachusetts, we’re subjected to stories like these. And nothing ever gets done. ... Tom Keane is also zeroing in on the slick image. Minor stylistic quibble with Tom’s piece: Whenever you have to insert a line like this into a column -- “I trust the point is clear ...” -- then, well, maybe ... Anyway, I did get the point: Fee increases are indeed a form of taxation. If I ‘voluntarily’ go to a restaurant and have to pay a ‘meal tax,’ then it’s still a ‘meal tax’ even if you change the name to ‘meal fee.’ ...
... Which brings us to the issue of: taxation. Somewhere, somehow all this ‘Slick Willard’ and ‘Mormonator’ and ‘CEO’ and ‘JV’ and other rhetoric ties into the fight over taxes. Throw out the arguments about spending in the ‘90s or spending cuts to balance the budget. Those arguments are over and/or irrelevant at this time. We already spent the money. We’ve already begun cutting. The issue is: taxes. I’m one of those who regrets Mitt’s no-new-taxes pledge on the deficit. I don’t like no-new-tax pledges in general. I wish Mitt hadn’t made the pledge. But ... but I’m now beginning to see the benefits of holding to the pledge as long as possible. If Mitt gives up the pledge right now, it lets Tommy and the Trav and their progressive allies off the hook. They could then pass whatever they want, knowing they can tell the public, “Hey, even Mitt said taxes are OK. So we raised them.” But if Mitt holds to the pledge (or appears to hold to the pledge -- thus using the word ‘fees’ for ‘taxes’), Tommy and the Trav and their progressive allies can’t take over the budget process by themselves. They need Mitt as cover. And that’s the leverage, I think, Mitt has on them, as meager as it is. The Progressive/Hack Alliance knows it’ll get creamed if they pass their ideal budget -- lots of taxes, no reforms -- over Mitt’s objections. Is Mitt playing this game? I don’t know. But the effect has been to shift the debate toward reform, toward more spending cuts and away from immediate use of taxation as the primary tool to solve the budget crisis. Bottom line: Mitt is no Paul Cellucci or Jane Swift. He’s controlling much (but not all) of the debate and agenda -- despite his silly and self-defeating lapses into the ‘Slick Willard’ mode.
... Which brings us to the issue of: taxation. Somewhere, somehow all this ‘Slick Willard’ and ‘Mormonator’ and ‘CEO’ and ‘JV’ and other rhetoric ties into the fight over taxes. Throw out the arguments about spending in the ‘90s or spending cuts to balance the budget. Those arguments are over and/or irrelevant at this time. We already spent the money. We’ve already begun cutting. The issue is: taxes. I’m one of those who regrets Mitt’s no-new-taxes pledge on the deficit. I don’t like no-new-tax pledges in general. I wish Mitt hadn’t made the pledge. But ... but I’m now beginning to see the benefits of holding to the pledge as long as possible. If Mitt gives up the pledge right now, it lets Tommy and the Trav and their progressive allies off the hook. They could then pass whatever they want, knowing they can tell the public, “Hey, even Mitt said taxes are OK. So we raised them.” But if Mitt holds to the pledge (or appears to hold to the pledge -- thus using the word ‘fees’ for ‘taxes’), Tommy and the Trav and their progressive allies can’t take over the budget process by themselves. They need Mitt as cover. And that’s the leverage, I think, Mitt has on them, as meager as it is. The Progressive/Hack Alliance knows it’ll get creamed if they pass their ideal budget -- lots of taxes, no reforms -- over Mitt’s objections. Is Mitt playing this game? I don’t know. But the effect has been to shift the debate toward reform, toward more spending cuts and away from immediate use of taxation as the primary tool to solve the budget crisis. Bottom line: Mitt is no Paul Cellucci or Jane Swift. He’s controlling much (but not all) of the debate and agenda -- despite his silly and self-defeating lapses into the ‘Slick Willard’ mode.
Here come the lawyers: You knew this was coming -- the lawsuits following the West Warwick tragedy. Some sort of compensation, not to mention criminal justice, is in order. No doubt. But ... what a mess. West Warwick is in big doo doo. And other municipalities across the region must now be wondering: Is it worth it? Is it worth having these nightclubs around? The ramifications of the West Warwick tragedy -- and the legal and economic issues involved -- are going to be felt for decades and decades.
Who is Michael Savage?: I’ve been out of it. Never heard of Michael Savage until recently. Now I know. Have no plans to listen to his talk show.
Tuesday, March 04, 2003
‘Massachusetts's Big Dig of the mind’: Oh, the critics will keep carping about MCAS. But it’s just getting harder and harder for them to criticize the results with a straight face. By the way, Scot Lehigh had this story nailed a while ago. He also noted other MCAS bright spots/interesting developments beyond the test scores and graduation rates. To wit: A.) The dropout rate is declining in many districts and B.) There appears to be a correlation between poor test scores and the number of missed school days. Besides giving struggling districts more money and besides assigning tutors to struggling students, we should make sure they’re in school in the first place -- and beef up the ranks of the dreaded ‘truant officers’ who hound students and shame parents into getting kids into the classrooms. ...
... Why stop at 90 percent success? The state should shoot for 95 percent. But Hub Blog does want to throw a few drops of cold water on the MCAS celebrations. I like the idea of using tests to measure performance and prod students in the right direction. My biggest complaint about MCAS is that maybe there are too many tests, spread over multiple number of grades, as if MCAS supporters (who I respect) are little too fanatical about the idea of testing. Keep It Simple Stupid applies to MCAS, too. Keep the graduation requirements, yes. Spread out tests early and often enough to catch problem students before it’s too late, yes. But don’t lard up the system with too many tests. Been hearing complaints about this lately coming from MCAS-supporting parents.
... Why stop at 90 percent success? The state should shoot for 95 percent. But Hub Blog does want to throw a few drops of cold water on the MCAS celebrations. I like the idea of using tests to measure performance and prod students in the right direction. My biggest complaint about MCAS is that maybe there are too many tests, spread over multiple number of grades, as if MCAS supporters (who I respect) are little too fanatical about the idea of testing. Keep It Simple Stupid applies to MCAS, too. Keep the graduation requirements, yes. Spread out tests early and often enough to catch problem students before it’s too late, yes. But don’t lard up the system with too many tests. Been hearing complaints about this lately coming from MCAS-supporting parents.
The hounds chasing multiple numbers of prey: I read this latest story about the West Warwick fire tragedy. Planned to make a comment about how the hounds are now (rightly) chasing more than one fox in this saga. But Joan Vennochi sums it up much better, so let her take it away. ... P.S. Joan expresses regret at the end of her column about her prior metaphorical use of the West Warwick tragedy in another column. Class act. Issue (if it ever was one) over. ...
... Actually, it’s not over. Why? It’s Hub Blog War Stories Time! Gather around. ... Once upon a time, there was this smart-ass reporter who wrote a news story (and not a column, mind you) with a few viciously snide lines that he thought were apt and so funny but which got him into heaps and heaps of trouble (and justifiably so) with an entire class of readers, i.e union members. After the dust settled, the reporter’s editor, who had a couple Pulitzers under his belt and didn’t need grief caused by one of his not-so-funny smart-ass reporters, took the reporter out to dinner for steaks and quarts and quarts of wine. The editor finally brought up ‘the subject,’ saying something like: “I can’t believe you wrote that. Can’t believe I allowed it in. Don’t let it happen again. OK? Finished. By the way, how’s your steak?” ... The best part: the incident happened in the pre-Internet/Lexus days! No electronic traces! (I think. I hope.)
... Actually, it’s not over. Why? It’s Hub Blog War Stories Time! Gather around. ... Once upon a time, there was this smart-ass reporter who wrote a news story (and not a column, mind you) with a few viciously snide lines that he thought were apt and so funny but which got him into heaps and heaps of trouble (and justifiably so) with an entire class of readers, i.e union members. After the dust settled, the reporter’s editor, who had a couple Pulitzers under his belt and didn’t need grief caused by one of his not-so-funny smart-ass reporters, took the reporter out to dinner for steaks and quarts and quarts of wine. The editor finally brought up ‘the subject,’ saying something like: “I can’t believe you wrote that. Can’t believe I allowed it in. Don’t let it happen again. OK? Finished. By the way, how’s your steak?” ... The best part: the incident happened in the pre-Internet/Lexus days! No electronic traces! (I think. I hope.)
Random thoughts on Mitt’s budget, Part II: You know the terms of the debate have been altered, if slightly, when Democrats are belly-aching about how Mitt didn’t go after the Quinn bill in his budget. They’re right. He should have. But let’s see what they do with the issue in coming months. Margery Eagan already has a hunch about what will happen. Sigh. ...
... A couple emails came in after I posted yesterday’s original ‘Random thoughts on Mitt’s budget’ (scroll down). One came from someone who described himself as being somewhat close to the Romney people, but not part of the administration. His major complaint: That I wasn’t giving Romney enough credit for how far-reaching his reforms truly are and how I was siding with his opponents. A few quick points from moi:
-- I do think his reforms touch almost every aspect of state government. The proposed restructuring of the health services/agencies alone -- considering how much of the budget health care now gobbles up -- touches a huge, huge portion of state government. Add in his proposals for union work-rule changes, privatizing state services, higher-ed changes, eliminating the Turnpike and MDC etc., and you have a huge restructuring that, well, again, touches almost every aspect of government. True.
-- However, the ‘savings’ from these moves, at least in the first fiscal year, are not nearly as much as Mitt is making them out to be, though they will save hundreds of millions of dollars (if not much more) in future years. For whatever tactical/strategic reasons, Mitt isn’t explaining it this way. And his critics will use this -- or any other excuse -- to kill his ideas and force him into a tax increase. The goal and/or effect of critics if they get their way: Keeping the status quo.
... and for all of you who think this budget crisis was caused exclusively by too much spending or too little taxation, read this Charlie Stein column. Don’t forget the recession.
... A couple emails came in after I posted yesterday’s original ‘Random thoughts on Mitt’s budget’ (scroll down). One came from someone who described himself as being somewhat close to the Romney people, but not part of the administration. His major complaint: That I wasn’t giving Romney enough credit for how far-reaching his reforms truly are and how I was siding with his opponents. A few quick points from moi:
-- I do think his reforms touch almost every aspect of state government. The proposed restructuring of the health services/agencies alone -- considering how much of the budget health care now gobbles up -- touches a huge, huge portion of state government. Add in his proposals for union work-rule changes, privatizing state services, higher-ed changes, eliminating the Turnpike and MDC etc., and you have a huge restructuring that, well, again, touches almost every aspect of government. True.
-- However, the ‘savings’ from these moves, at least in the first fiscal year, are not nearly as much as Mitt is making them out to be, though they will save hundreds of millions of dollars (if not much more) in future years. For whatever tactical/strategic reasons, Mitt isn’t explaining it this way. And his critics will use this -- or any other excuse -- to kill his ideas and force him into a tax increase. The goal and/or effect of critics if they get their way: Keeping the status quo.
... and for all of you who think this budget crisis was caused exclusively by too much spending or too little taxation, read this Charlie Stein column. Don’t forget the recession.
‘Opposing superiority complexes’: Though I love visiting France and secretly would love to retire there (or Italy or Hawaii etc.), I’ve loved every minute of the recent French bashing. As Dr. Phil says, never keep your anger inside! But the Christian Science Monitor had a pretty fun story this morning on the Trans-Atlantic spat, and it popped off this appropriate line: “Yet rarely have two allies had such overt and opposing superiority complexes.” ... An acquaintance recently said to me: The French (and Germans) are indeed pains, but they’re also giving us enormously critical help behind the scenes in fighting terror. He’s right. Bottom-line: We ought to cool down, on both sides, the mutual Trans-Atlantic bashing -- after I get one or two more smacks in for good measure.
FDR vs. JFK: Alex Beam has an interesting tale about the differences between how the FDR and JFK presidential libraries handle access to information. If Alex’s information /numbers are correct, the FDR library came clean with sensitive medical information about Roosevelt within 38 years after his death. Forty years after JFK’s death, they’re still stonewalling and trying to preserve the old Camelot image.
Monday, March 03, 2003
Sorry for the late posts. My cold of last week came roaring back. Wasn’t feeling so good this morning, as you could probably tell by the muddled and border-line sophomoric ‘Herald moves toward paid content’ item posted earlier. Feeling a little better, so here goes:
Random thoughts on Mitt’s budget: OK, we all knew it would take days to sort through Mitt’s budget. The verdict is coming in (as I suspected earlier): It’s a mess. The numbers -- as they’ve been explained, i.e. restructuring ‘savings’ vs. actual ‘cuts’ -- don’t make sense. But here’s the political money graf from the Globe story this morning:
“The debate over the true savings in Romney's budget cuts to the heart of the governor's plans for remaking government. The newly installed governor believes that restructuring can create a more efficient operation, significantly lowering the state's bottom line. But others see restructuring as having little effect on spending, undercutting Romney's argument that the overhaul is necessary.”
Read the last sentence again. Now reread the last clause of the last sentence. Opponents of reform WILL use the ‘little-effect-on-spending’ excuse to try to kill reform and restructuring. Think about it: Because most of the savings do indeed come from actual cuts (and not from restructuring), they will kill reform. If they were true reformers, the logical thing for them to say would be: ‘Too bad more of the reductions didn’t come from reform and restructuring. Let’s pass the disappointingly few savings from restructuring in Mitt’s budget and try to find other ways to reform and restructure. We may not find much more. But we should try. Otherwise, we’ll have to cut like Mitt did and/or raise taxes.’ Ah, but they’re not true reformers. And that’s not what they’re saying. What they’re saying is: Kill reform. ... The hacks are out to protect their turf and perks. The progressives want to avoid any and all cuts. And that’s where the two intersect to create the Progressive/Hack Alliance. ...
... Got to admit, I’m disappointed with the budget. Or at least the way it’s being explained. There’s a lot in there that I love -- obviously most of the reforms and restructuring. What I’m disappointed in is the way Mitt is trying to portray the budget as some sort of massive restructuring. It isn’t. Obviously. Still, the restructuring part terrifies the hacks, while the
old-fashioned cuts make progressives go bonkers and rail against reforms. So at least we’re exposing them for what they are. But we’ve already been over this. ...
... So what’s his game plan? Don’t know. Not sure if Mitt knows. He definitely threw the old spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks. He doesn’t have much room to maneuver, but he’s maneuvering -- and throwing spaghetti in his wake to trip up foes. ... I’m definitely not counting him out. Here’s what Mitt said yesterday according to the Herald: “We'll be going back and forth and I'm sure we'll learn some of our proposals didn't work very well and we'll have to change them.” ...
Good. Mitt, while you’re at it, keep the Bulger and a few others details of higher-ed reform. Junk most everything else. I believe in public higher education. We have enough private universities and colleges in Massachusetts. Keep ‘em public, or shut ‘em down. ...
And while you’re at it, think of this: No reforms, no new taxes. It will split the Progressive/Hack Alliance at bit. A lot of moderate liberals will back you on reform if you give them something in exchange.
Random thoughts on Mitt’s budget: OK, we all knew it would take days to sort through Mitt’s budget. The verdict is coming in (as I suspected earlier): It’s a mess. The numbers -- as they’ve been explained, i.e. restructuring ‘savings’ vs. actual ‘cuts’ -- don’t make sense. But here’s the political money graf from the Globe story this morning:
“The debate over the true savings in Romney's budget cuts to the heart of the governor's plans for remaking government. The newly installed governor believes that restructuring can create a more efficient operation, significantly lowering the state's bottom line. But others see restructuring as having little effect on spending, undercutting Romney's argument that the overhaul is necessary.”
Read the last sentence again. Now reread the last clause of the last sentence. Opponents of reform WILL use the ‘little-effect-on-spending’ excuse to try to kill reform and restructuring. Think about it: Because most of the savings do indeed come from actual cuts (and not from restructuring), they will kill reform. If they were true reformers, the logical thing for them to say would be: ‘Too bad more of the reductions didn’t come from reform and restructuring. Let’s pass the disappointingly few savings from restructuring in Mitt’s budget and try to find other ways to reform and restructure. We may not find much more. But we should try. Otherwise, we’ll have to cut like Mitt did and/or raise taxes.’ Ah, but they’re not true reformers. And that’s not what they’re saying. What they’re saying is: Kill reform. ... The hacks are out to protect their turf and perks. The progressives want to avoid any and all cuts. And that’s where the two intersect to create the Progressive/Hack Alliance. ...
... Got to admit, I’m disappointed with the budget. Or at least the way it’s being explained. There’s a lot in there that I love -- obviously most of the reforms and restructuring. What I’m disappointed in is the way Mitt is trying to portray the budget as some sort of massive restructuring. It isn’t. Obviously. Still, the restructuring part terrifies the hacks, while the
old-fashioned cuts make progressives go bonkers and rail against reforms. So at least we’re exposing them for what they are. But we’ve already been over this. ...
... So what’s his game plan? Don’t know. Not sure if Mitt knows. He definitely threw the old spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks. He doesn’t have much room to maneuver, but he’s maneuvering -- and throwing spaghetti in his wake to trip up foes. ... I’m definitely not counting him out. Here’s what Mitt said yesterday according to the Herald: “We'll be going back and forth and I'm sure we'll learn some of our proposals didn't work very well and we'll have to change them.” ...
Good. Mitt, while you’re at it, keep the Bulger and a few others details of higher-ed reform. Junk most everything else. I believe in public higher education. We have enough private universities and colleges in Massachusetts. Keep ‘em public, or shut ‘em down. ...
And while you’re at it, think of this: No reforms, no new taxes. It will split the Progressive/Hack Alliance at bit. A lot of moderate liberals will back you on reform if you give them something in exchange.
Mitt on housing: The Globe editorial on Mitt’s housing ideas was heading in the right direction, zeroing in on zoning issues, such as the anti-snob zoning law Chapter 40B, and Doug Foy’s “transferable development rights.” (Foy’s idea makes me question my previous support for ‘smart growth’ policies.) The key to this debate is -- and always will be -- stimulating private-sector housing by addressing restrictive local zoning and building codes. And then channeling the private sector in the right directions. Alas, the editorial veered off into state budget cuts, government housing programs, blah, blah, blah.
The future of the North End: Give the seniors their supermarket. Support the yuppies in keeping out all other chains. It just might work, but the odds are still against the North End:
“Toscana owner Giovanni Gagliotta said he likes the new makeup of the neighborhood that has diversified his clientele. Gagliotta said there are obvious reasons why newer residents are taking up the defense of merchants like him.
“ 'They think it's chic,' said Gagliotta, as he rearranged 14 jars of specialty olives on the counter.'You know, in 20 years this is all going to be gone anyway. The Little Italies are all gone -- San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia.' ”
He’s right. And it’s depressing.
“Toscana owner Giovanni Gagliotta said he likes the new makeup of the neighborhood that has diversified his clientele. Gagliotta said there are obvious reasons why newer residents are taking up the defense of merchants like him.
“ 'They think it's chic,' said Gagliotta, as he rearranged 14 jars of specialty olives on the counter.'You know, in 20 years this is all going to be gone anyway. The Little Italies are all gone -- San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia.' ”
He’s right. And it’s depressing.
Herald moves toward paid content: I sensed something like this was going to happen. I’ll explain later. Anyway, Cosmo Macero, writing in the Herald today, unveils the Herald’s plan to switch to paid content. Sort of. I’ll let Cosmo explain it:
“Bostonherald.com - the free online edition of the Boston Herald - is diving into the choppy waters of paid content.
“The two-pronged strategy involves partnership with the Texas-based NewsStand Inc. to create a downloadable electronic replica of the paper's daily print edition - to be read offline, anytime, on a subscriber's personal computer.
“At the same time, a roster of Herald columnists in news, sports, business and features will be removed from the realm of the free lunch.
“Readers of bostonherald.com, in coming weeks, will have the choice of paying $4.95 for monthly subscriptions to each of their favorite columnists (pick me!), or $9.95 for three months.”
And then Cosmo quotes Erin Purcell saying:
“ ‘It's going to be tough. We did it for two columns, and we were inundated with e-mail,’ says Erin Purcell, executive vice president of Herald Interactive. ‘There is going to be a lot of pushback, and it's going to hinder our page views, too. But if we want to get people to pay for our content . . . we have to keep our value and maintain our brand.’ ''
My random and unsophisticated impressions? A.) I’ll pick you, Cosmo! B.) Downloading electronic newspaper replicas is already being done elsewhere and it’s the future. C.) Not sure if the pay-for-columnists gambit will work. D.) Adjustments to this strategy -- resulting from ‘pushback’ -- will be made over the course of time. Guaranteed. E.) Newspapers across the country are groping for an Internet strategy; nobody knows where this is all going. Still. Ask Salon.com. Maybe the answer is just the old WSJ tactic: Pay - or you don't read it online. F.) But not all publications have the WSJ's market clout. A publisher at a small paid newspaper once told me that he fully expects many traditional, smaller publications will have to switch to a free/controlled-circulation format as more people expect to get their information for free. He said this switch would occur within about five years. He made that prediction two years ago. G.) Think: Metro on your local T line. Think: Free lunch. H.) Clearly moves like this will hit bloggers, such as moi, but I really don’t care much because I don’t get paid for this; there will always be enough freebies out there to have fun. It will mean, though, that I will use less Herald material. Which I will regret. My loss. But the Herald's loss too. I like to think I give them good exposure. But, C'est la vie! I.) Curious to see what Dan Kennedy says about this. J.) I genuinely wish the Herald luck. I want Boston to remain a two-newspaper town. If this or something else helps the Herald, fine. I’m all for it.
Ah, I’ve tantalized you enough. How did I sense something like this was going to happen? A month or two ago, I got an email from Erin Purcell. Her message said something like: “Test, test, test.” That’s it. Not making it up. Sent back a lame but polite wisecrack. Never heard from her again. Now I read Cosmo’s column today and all I can say is: “Test, test, test.”
Update: Oops. Dan Kennedy beat me to the punch. He already posted on this. See point "H.)" above for my reaction. C'est la vie!
“Bostonherald.com - the free online edition of the Boston Herald - is diving into the choppy waters of paid content.
“The two-pronged strategy involves partnership with the Texas-based NewsStand Inc. to create a downloadable electronic replica of the paper's daily print edition - to be read offline, anytime, on a subscriber's personal computer.
“At the same time, a roster of Herald columnists in news, sports, business and features will be removed from the realm of the free lunch.
“Readers of bostonherald.com, in coming weeks, will have the choice of paying $4.95 for monthly subscriptions to each of their favorite columnists (pick me!), or $9.95 for three months.”
And then Cosmo quotes Erin Purcell saying:
“ ‘It's going to be tough. We did it for two columns, and we were inundated with e-mail,’ says Erin Purcell, executive vice president of Herald Interactive. ‘There is going to be a lot of pushback, and it's going to hinder our page views, too. But if we want to get people to pay for our content . . . we have to keep our value and maintain our brand.’ ''
My random and unsophisticated impressions? A.) I’ll pick you, Cosmo! B.) Downloading electronic newspaper replicas is already being done elsewhere and it’s the future. C.) Not sure if the pay-for-columnists gambit will work. D.) Adjustments to this strategy -- resulting from ‘pushback’ -- will be made over the course of time. Guaranteed. E.) Newspapers across the country are groping for an Internet strategy; nobody knows where this is all going. Still. Ask Salon.com. Maybe the answer is just the old WSJ tactic: Pay - or you don't read it online. F.) But not all publications have the WSJ's market clout. A publisher at a small paid newspaper once told me that he fully expects many traditional, smaller publications will have to switch to a free/controlled-circulation format as more people expect to get their information for free. He said this switch would occur within about five years. He made that prediction two years ago. G.) Think: Metro on your local T line. Think: Free lunch. H.) Clearly moves like this will hit bloggers, such as moi, but I really don’t care much because I don’t get paid for this; there will always be enough freebies out there to have fun. It will mean, though, that I will use less Herald material. Which I will regret. My loss. But the Herald's loss too. I like to think I give them good exposure. But, C'est la vie! I.) Curious to see what Dan Kennedy says about this. J.) I genuinely wish the Herald luck. I want Boston to remain a two-newspaper town. If this or something else helps the Herald, fine. I’m all for it.
Ah, I’ve tantalized you enough. How did I sense something like this was going to happen? A month or two ago, I got an email from Erin Purcell. Her message said something like: “Test, test, test.” That’s it. Not making it up. Sent back a lame but polite wisecrack. Never heard from her again. Now I read Cosmo’s column today and all I can say is: “Test, test, test.”
Update: Oops. Dan Kennedy beat me to the punch. He already posted on this. See point "H.)" above for my reaction. C'est la vie!
Sunday, March 02, 2003
An anti-anti-communist and anti-anti-Americans: Interesting mix of stories over at the Globe’s “Ideas” section. It had to be deliberate -- and it’s a nice move if so. There’s this article about British historian Eric Hobsbawn, who never could renounce communism because he loathed the thought of ''being in the company of anticommunists'' like Arthur Koestler. In other words, he’s one of those old anti-anti-communist types. Then there’s the story about the ‘anti-anti-Americans’ of Central Europe. Gee. Wonder which side is right: The detached Western intellectual or those with real-life experiences living under communism. Let me think. Let me think. Hmmmm. That’s a tough one. ... A curious question was asked to spark debate for the Globe’s discussion board: “Are they right to choose Bush over Chirac?” Here are some of the comments. The typical anti-Bush types are there, but a lot of other fascinating opinions literally from across the pond and political spectrum.
Meeting with Bechtel and lawmakers, and Vin Baker: Some quick notes from some regular readers:
Brighton Reader on Mitt meeting with Bechtel and rank-and-file lawmakers --
"Your item about Romney's meeting with Bechtel being the first one between a Massachusetts governor and the company since 1994 reminded me of a similar recent item (can't find the link, it was a Globe article). State Representative Dan Bosley, a committee chair interviewed about a recent meeting he had with Romney on the budget, said the last time a governor dropped by his office it was Dukakis. What were the last three Republican governors doing? By the way, I think that Finneran is the one who should heed Jill Stein's quote about the state being run like a democracy." [See 'Mit, the Reformer' below regarding Tommy/St. Jill quote.]
Reader No. 1 on Vin Baker and the Celts --
"I thought your comments on Vin Baker were very thoughtful. I know that if you have poor self-image it can be hard to do things well. And if you are getting paid a guaranteed $12 million dollars whether you do well or not you have little incentive to behave differently. If you want a sure bet, take this: GM Chris Wallace loses his job before Vin does.
"More thoughts on the Celtics -- The true psychic damage for Celtic fans is that this deal is the evil twin of all those great steals Red Auerbach used to pull off. In particular, it's a virtual inversion of 1979's Bob McAdoo for ML Carr and a #1 pick which Red turned into Kevin McHale and Robert Parrish. The key point which so many others have already made: the financial considerations of the Baker contract prevent the team from improving for FOUR YEARS (unless ownership is willing to spend like Mark Cuban, and there's little indication they can or will do that). It's another reminder that the glory days of Celtic Pride are gone, gone, gone and there's no visibility they'll ever come back. "
Brighton Reader on Mitt meeting with Bechtel and rank-and-file lawmakers --
"Your item about Romney's meeting with Bechtel being the first one between a Massachusetts governor and the company since 1994 reminded me of a similar recent item (can't find the link, it was a Globe article). State Representative Dan Bosley, a committee chair interviewed about a recent meeting he had with Romney on the budget, said the last time a governor dropped by his office it was Dukakis. What were the last three Republican governors doing? By the way, I think that Finneran is the one who should heed Jill Stein's quote about the state being run like a democracy." [See 'Mit, the Reformer' below regarding Tommy/St. Jill quote.]
Reader No. 1 on Vin Baker and the Celts --
"I thought your comments on Vin Baker were very thoughtful. I know that if you have poor self-image it can be hard to do things well. And if you are getting paid a guaranteed $12 million dollars whether you do well or not you have little incentive to behave differently. If you want a sure bet, take this: GM Chris Wallace loses his job before Vin does.
"More thoughts on the Celtics -- The true psychic damage for Celtic fans is that this deal is the evil twin of all those great steals Red Auerbach used to pull off. In particular, it's a virtual inversion of 1979's Bob McAdoo for ML Carr and a #1 pick which Red turned into Kevin McHale and Robert Parrish. The key point which so many others have already made: the financial considerations of the Baker contract prevent the team from improving for FOUR YEARS (unless ownership is willing to spend like Mark Cuban, and there's little indication they can or will do that). It's another reminder that the glory days of Celtic Pride are gone, gone, gone and there's no visibility they'll ever come back. "
Mitt, the Reformer: Depending on your political outlook, there are many ways you can look at this Globe ‘Reforming Romney’ editorial: it’s fair, it’s unfair; it goes too far, it doesn’t go far enough, etc. But here’s the real significance of the editorial, in my humble opinion: That it was written at all. It shows that while Mitt may not be controlling the agenda, he is directing and influencing it. Reform is part of the budget mix. ... Of course, the Globe had to throw in this observation: “But the corporate view does not always fit the governmental mission. Indeed, as Green Party candidate Jill Stein said last year, the state should not be run like a business but like a democracy.” Three quick points: 1.) Yes, the corporate view does not always fit the government mission. 2.) I really don’t think Mitt or anyone else needs reminders from Jill Stein that the state needs to be run like a democracy. 3.) Is there anyone who seriously, truly believes Jill Stein would have taken up the reform challenge, taking on Trav and Tommy over the MDC, the Bechtel Turnpike Authority, the unions, Billy’s UMass empire etc.? ...
.... Here’s an inside peek, by Globe reporter Rick Klein, at how Mitt operates. Yes, it’s all ‘business.’ The big test is to see how he deals with the legislature. Yes, that’s the ‘democracy’ part.
.... Here’s an inside peek, by Globe reporter Rick Klein, at how Mitt operates. Yes, it’s all ‘business.’ The big test is to see how he deals with the legislature. Yes, that’s the ‘democracy’ part.
'The Mormonator': Hmmmm. Not a bad nick name for Mitt from Margery Eagan. From Margery: “I'm telling you: We've underestimated the Mormon stuff. Mr. Gee-Whiz/Cream of Wheat/He of the Inscrutable Mona Lisa Smile? He is nothing if not a True Believer.” (Her later description of Eric ‘Das Boot’ Fehrnstrom is even better.) She ends it thus: “Most political types say Mitt and Das Boot have bitten off way more than they can chew. But if they can torpedo just one of their targets - say, the ripoff Turnpike where they can't even paint the damn lines - this scam-weary little taxpayer will be, quite simply, ecstatic.” ... Actually, I want more than just one sinking. Don’t want mere bones thrown at us, like ‘Oh, okay, the masses are upset. Let’s give them the MDC and maybe they’ll shut up.’ No, I want more. I want multiple, multiple sinkings. The Hack convoy must be intercepted! But I catch Margery’s gist.
... Margery recommends Howie’s column in her column. I don’t know. I can’t recommend it. You decide. The UMass salaries don’t strike me as out of line. And, yes, I know what a provost is. The question is: Are these higher-ed people, with their high but competitive salaries, legitimate academics or hack academics. If the former, pay ‘em. If the latter, hack ‘em out.
... Margery recommends Howie’s column in her column. I don’t know. I can’t recommend it. You decide. The UMass salaries don’t strike me as out of line. And, yes, I know what a provost is. The question is: Are these higher-ed people, with their high but competitive salaries, legitimate academics or hack academics. If the former, pay ‘em. If the latter, hack ‘em out.
The myth about the myth about the myth about state spending: OK, Charlie Stein is now jumping into the state spending scrum. Know he doesn’t write his own headlines, but, boy, ‘No spending problem’ grates. It’s not what he says in the article, though he flirts with the concept. Reacting to the same Cato Institute study Jeff Jacoby wrote about last week, Charlie concentrates on the personal income numbers of this policy-wonk debate, noting the “tax burden went down because personal income grew 5.3 percent per year while state spending grew at a 4.8 percent annual pace.” He concludes: “In my book, 4.8 percent spending growth doesn't qualify as out-of-control behavior.” ... Hub Blog’s response: “In my book, state tax revenues increasing from $9.37 billion in 1990 to $17.23 billion in 2001 doesn’t qualify as ‘stingy’ spending either.” Bottom-line: The state may not have had out-of-control spending, but it DID overspend. Ipso facto, the myth about ‘no spending problem’ is just that -- a myth.
... As for the entire ‘personal-income’ debate, it is a good way to measure a tax burden. But it, too, is flawed. It doesn’t fully take into account how much pressure is on taxpayers, especially in Massachusetts, regarding, say, oh, the rising costs of housing or health care. The assumption/presumption that the state should grow by a percentage of taxpayers’ personal income gains is almost obscene and doesn’t take into consideration the other financial pressures taxpayers are facing. ... Let’s go to the opposite extreme and frame the debate another way: Let’s say some economic miracle happens here, such as discovery of a Norwegian-like oil field off the coast of Massachusetts. Under a ‘share the wealth’ plan, let’s say gobs of money are distributed to Massachusetts residents (such as what’s happening today in Norway). Let’s say everyone’s income rises, say, 100 percent over a decade. Does that mean the state should automatically and correspondingly expand spending in order to keep the ‘tax burden’ at the same level? ... By the way, Norway has been partying it up over the past 15 years or so. The party is going to come to an end one day. And their hangover is going to be awesome to behold.
... As for the entire ‘personal-income’ debate, it is a good way to measure a tax burden. But it, too, is flawed. It doesn’t fully take into account how much pressure is on taxpayers, especially in Massachusetts, regarding, say, oh, the rising costs of housing or health care. The assumption/presumption that the state should grow by a percentage of taxpayers’ personal income gains is almost obscene and doesn’t take into consideration the other financial pressures taxpayers are facing. ... Let’s go to the opposite extreme and frame the debate another way: Let’s say some economic miracle happens here, such as discovery of a Norwegian-like oil field off the coast of Massachusetts. Under a ‘share the wealth’ plan, let’s say gobs of money are distributed to Massachusetts residents (such as what’s happening today in Norway). Let’s say everyone’s income rises, say, 100 percent over a decade. Does that mean the state should automatically and correspondingly expand spending in order to keep the ‘tax burden’ at the same level? ... By the way, Norway has been partying it up over the past 15 years or so. The party is going to come to an end one day. And their hangover is going to be awesome to behold.
Boston’s getting ready for the convention: Don’t know what compelled Tom Oliphant to write about this today, but his behind-the-scenes look at Boston’s preparations for the 2004 Democratic National Convention is cool. ... Meanwhile, John Kerry is preparing for the convention in his own way -- out in California.
Liberal talk radio, blah, blah, blah: Jeff Jacoby has some opinions on the viability of liberal talk radio. I can’t get into this issue. My personal feeling is that liberal talk radio isn’t working today because liberalism is so out of favor these days. Period. Nothing to do with evil corporate conspiracies. Or how liberals are or aren’t funny. Or how conservatives naturally gravitate to radio, for some Buck Rogers telepathic reason. Repeat: Liberalism is out of favor these days. Things are unlikely to change soon, but you never know. After Vietnam and Watergate, it was hard to find any credible conservative in print, on the airwaves, anywhere. It was the sign of the times: Conservatism was out of favor in the ‘70s. Until Jimmy Carter mucked things up, of course, leading to the Reagan era.
... Funny column in the Globe today about how you just want to tell talk-show hosts and callers: ‘Shut up about Iraq!’ Reminds me, again, of Dan Kennedy’s item a week or so back, in which Neal Pollack told bloggers, "Shut up, antiwar people. Shut up, pro-war people. Shut down your computers and shut your goddamn pieholes.”
... Funny column in the Globe today about how you just want to tell talk-show hosts and callers: ‘Shut up about Iraq!’ Reminds me, again, of Dan Kennedy’s item a week or so back, in which Neal Pollack told bloggers, "Shut up, antiwar people. Shut up, pro-war people. Shut down your computers and shut your goddamn pieholes.”
‘It is momentous’: It is momentous. Let gays marry and/or have civil unions. They’re respecting the institution of marriage by wanting it. They’re not destroying it.
Saturday, March 01, 2003
‘For once, I agree with Dan Kennedy ...’: Not my words, Dan. Reader No. 1’s, in a complimentary/backhanded way. From Reader No. 1:
“Hey, Reader No. 1 did not overlook [Cosmo's] Professional Management angle on the Romney administration (check those post-election archives). I think the administration's approach is only idealistic if they fail to understand, for example, that the definition of ‘results’ has been different in Massachusetts' public and private sectors. In the political business, personal relationships = results.
“Was it ever thus? Was the JFK / 60s call that we ‘can do better’ about larding payrolls with permanent bureaucracies of hacks and academics, or was it just rhetoric?
“The outrage recorded throughout the Thursday Globe was a good sign that the budget proposal, and the philosophy behind it, hits the target. For once, I agree with Dan Kennedy: how will Romney overcome the plain fact that the Democratic legislature can just ignore what he sent up? I can't wait to see.”
And totally off the subject but also from Reader No. 1: ...
Paul Johnson on unilateralism: "This column by Paul Johnson in the new FORBES is the most lucid statement of the unilateralist position I have seen yet (and I'm a regular Sullivan & Krauthammer reader). You may not like it, but you won't be able to ignore it."
Hub Blog's response: I'll let Reader No. 1's comments speak for themselves on most things. But I can't, amid my chuckles and doubts, go without pointing out this classic line from Paul Johnson's piece as linked to above:
"We have been reminded that France is not to be trusted at any time, on any issue. The British have learned this over 1,000 years of acrimonious history, but it still comes as a shock to see how badly the French can behave, with their unique mixture of shortsighted selfishness, long-term irresponsibility, impudent humbug and sheer malice."
“Hey, Reader No. 1 did not overlook [Cosmo's] Professional Management angle on the Romney administration (check those post-election archives). I think the administration's approach is only idealistic if they fail to understand, for example, that the definition of ‘results’ has been different in Massachusetts' public and private sectors. In the political business, personal relationships = results.
“Was it ever thus? Was the JFK / 60s call that we ‘can do better’ about larding payrolls with permanent bureaucracies of hacks and academics, or was it just rhetoric?
“The outrage recorded throughout the Thursday Globe was a good sign that the budget proposal, and the philosophy behind it, hits the target. For once, I agree with Dan Kennedy: how will Romney overcome the plain fact that the Democratic legislature can just ignore what he sent up? I can't wait to see.”
And totally off the subject but also from Reader No. 1: ...
Paul Johnson on unilateralism: "This column by Paul Johnson in the new FORBES is the most lucid statement of the unilateralist position I have seen yet (and I'm a regular Sullivan & Krauthammer reader). You may not like it, but you won't be able to ignore it."
Hub Blog's response: I'll let Reader No. 1's comments speak for themselves on most things. But I can't, amid my chuckles and doubts, go without pointing out this classic line from Paul Johnson's piece as linked to above:
"We have been reminded that France is not to be trusted at any time, on any issue. The British have learned this over 1,000 years of acrimonious history, but it still comes as a shock to see how badly the French can behave, with their unique mixture of shortsighted selfishness, long-term irresponsibility, impudent humbug and sheer malice."
Towering New York: Hub Blog goes international and then New York on this item. Re: A commentary in the Times of London on the latest proposal to replace the World Trade Center. Clear, powerful writing. Really captures New York, post-Sept. 11 New York and the future of New York.
America’s ‘conniption’ toward France: This Globe article is both thrilling and disappointing. Thrilling because it chronicles the anti-French sentiment across the country. Disappointing because it’s so condescending toward that sentiment. Let me get this straight: anti-Americanism in Europe and France has reached such proportions that it can be argued -- and has been argued -- that it’s now a quasi-ideology. And Americans’ reaction to that quasi-ideology is dismissed as a case of dumb Americans just wanting to be liked? Hmmmmm. I would set forth this counter theory: Americans’ refusal in the past to acknowledge and confront rampant anti-Americanism, which existed long before George Bush took office, was a sign of Americans just wanting to be liked. Now they don’t care and are pushing back. The shock! ... P.S. I do hand Jack Thomas, the author of the article, this credit: He’s fighting against sophomoric stereotypes. Only recently -- after decades of vicious attacks on America’s ‘non-civilization civilization’ -- are a handful of French intellectuals, journalists and politicians fighting against sophomoric stereotypes of Americans. Better late than never, as they say. ... P.S. Yes, this article is another piece of evidence confirming Hub Blog's groundbreaking Suck Up to the French Theory.
Update 1:30 p.m. -- Someone just wrote in that "your [item above] inexorably leads to They-Started-It-First playground logic." Burst out laughing when I read the message. Have analyzed it and analyzed it. Thought of responding: Well, they did start it first. But, then, that would have proved her point, right? ... P.S. The reader is a mother of three and an old friend/journalist colleague from Illinois.
Update 1:30 p.m. -- Someone just wrote in that "your [item above] inexorably leads to They-Started-It-First playground logic." Burst out laughing when I read the message. Have analyzed it and analyzed it. Thought of responding: Well, they did start it first. But, then, that would have proved her point, right? ... P.S. The reader is a mother of three and an old friend/journalist colleague from Illinois.
Mitt and Bechtel: These two sentences from the Globe's Mitt-Bechtel story say it all: “It was the first meeting between a Massachusetts governor and the Big Dig's managers since the fall of 1994, when the project's cost was still $7.7 billion. It now stands at $14.6 billion.”
Applying private-sector management to government: One of the most ignored -- or derided, when anyone bothers to pay attention -- aspects of the Romney administration is how it’s trying to apply basic, common-sense, proven management techniques to government operations and, yes, to the current downsizing. Don’t know how I missed this Cosmo Macero column from yesterday, but it really captures what the administration, perhaps too idealistically, is trying to achieve. Example from Macero:
“The basic idea: Determine who's hurting us and who's helping us. Then minimize the former and maximize the latter.
“In some cases, it was an easy call -- such as the planned consolidation of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority into the state Highway Department.
“Pozen and Douglas Foy, Romney's environmental and development chief, used an early litmus test on Turnpike Chairman Matthew Amorello -- asking him to change the terms of a $1 million contract for Big Dig cost recovery.
" 'Not only did he not do it,’ Pozen recalled on Wednesday. 'He leaked the story.’”
Good-bye, Matt. Fascinating, fascinating column. ...Postscript: Does Pozen, the former Fidelity executive, sound like "JV" material to you?
“The basic idea: Determine who's hurting us and who's helping us. Then minimize the former and maximize the latter.
“In some cases, it was an easy call -- such as the planned consolidation of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority into the state Highway Department.
“Pozen and Douglas Foy, Romney's environmental and development chief, used an early litmus test on Turnpike Chairman Matthew Amorello -- asking him to change the terms of a $1 million contract for Big Dig cost recovery.
" 'Not only did he not do it,’ Pozen recalled on Wednesday. 'He leaked the story.’”
Good-bye, Matt. Fascinating, fascinating column. ...Postscript: Does Pozen, the former Fidelity executive, sound like "JV" material to you?
Vin Baker, sad, sad, sad: Hub Blog was an early booster of the Celts’ acquisition of Vin Baker, despite his ridiculous salary. A New England native and long-time fan of the Celtics, Baker’s initial enthusiasm -- and his family’s enthusiasm -- about playing in Boston was moving. He knew he had been in a rut before landing here. He knew he hadn’t been playing well. He was hoping being closer to home would jolt him out of his past stupor. Left largely unspoken -- but broadly hinted at -- was the fact that Baker apparently suffered from depression, the blues or whatever. We’ve all been there, right? You have to root for a guy like that -- or at least that was my view. But wearing a Celtics uniform didn’t change things. I was at a Fleet Center game earlier this season. Baker looked out of it. Mentally. He had that dazed, distant, distracted look that people have when they’re going through the outward motions of life while struggling with far more difficult problems inside. Or so I sensed. Some say his $12 million salary should be motivation enough to get cracking. I'm not so sure, without making excuses for him. I strongly suspect his alcoholism problem, if it’s indeed that, is a symptom of something else. There’s something very sad and tragic about Vin Baker.
