Liberty Street: 2007-05-20

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Putting Current U.S. Policy in Historical Context

Technorati Tags: Rep. Jim McDermott, Iran

This was posted today at AlterNet [bolds are mine]:

Representative Confronts American Empire on House Floor

By Jim McDermott, AlterNet. Posted May 26, 2007.

Rep. Jim McDermott rescues some history from the Memoryhole and puts Iraq into context: It's always been all about the oil.

Editor's note: After a week that saw Democrats cave to the White House in the worst possible way on Iraq, we thought this speech, offered on the House floor by Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wa., last Wednesday, was worth highlighting. In a brief, five-minute commentary, McDermott does something almost unheard of in Washington: He looks at an issue in its larger historical context instead of pretending it just sprung up overnight like mushrooms after a rainfall.

Mr. Speaker:

This president and vice president have vowed to repeat the mistakes of history, and they have put into motion a plan to do just that in Iran, even as the House is about to send the president a box of blank checks for Iraq, against the will of the American people.

The history is worth knowing.

In 1953, the United States and United Kingdom launched Operation Ajax, a covert CIA operation to destabilize and remove the democratically elected government of Iran, including then Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh.

Why? Oil.

Under Mossadegh, the Iranian government decided to reclaim Iran's rightful ownership of its national oil treasure, which had been exclusively controlled by the British who were taking 85 percent of the profits.

Oh, and by the way, the U.K. also kept the books secret, merely telling Iran what its 15 percent take was.

As soon as Mossadegh began to reclaim Iran's oil treasure, it was all over. Operation Ajax was set into motion.

The U.S. embassy in Tehran provoked phony internal Iranian dissent, while the Brits engineered an Iranian financial crisis by orchestrating a global boycott of Iranian oil. We brought down the Iranian government and installed the Shah.

For two decades, we propped up the Shah against the will of the Iranian people. It was all about controlling Iran. It still is. Today, ABC News is reporting exclusively that this president has authorized a new covert CIA plot to bring down the Iranian government.

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the journalism produced by chief investigative reporter Brian Ross and Richard Esposito of ABC News.

This is their lead sentence in the story.

"The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert 'black' operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com."

We’re back in 1953, and that worked out so well.

Of course, the vice president wanted to invade Iran, so we can be sure he will spin new tales of fear in coming days to keep his preferred option, invasion, very much alive.

The president knows only one way -- my way or the highway.

His vice president knows only one way -- invade and seize control of what you want -- and he wants the oil treasure of Iraq and Iran to become wholly owned subsidiaries of the western oil companies he so favors.

With Iraq in civil war, the president has authorized a secret plan to repeat the doomed mistakes of history in Iran.

How many billions of reconstruction money for Iraq will be siphoned off for the deconstruction of Iran?

The American people are virtually shouting at us to pay attention and get our soldiers out of Iraq, now.

Vast sums of U.S. taxpayer money are flowing into Iraq and billions of U.S. dollars are missing.

The special inspector for Iraq reconstruction told a San Antonio newspaper last week that corruption in Iraq is endemic and debilitating.

But, Prime Minister al-Maliki has granted ministers and former ministers immunity from prosecution by Iraq’s Commission on Public Integrity.

And, in turn, the ministers can shield their own employees from prosecution.

And, a government that has been told by this president and vice president to pass an oil law that transfers control -- and profits -- to Western oil companies, just like the good old days in Iran.

Overthrowing Iran in 1953 was all about oil. Invading Iraq was all about oil. And the new secret plot against Iran is all about oil.

Oil is the only benchmark this president and vice president want, and they will keep American soldiers fighting and dying until an oil law is passed in Iraq that gives Western oil companies control of the spigot.

It is time to unmask the latest doomed plot to overthrow Iran and past time to get out soldiers out of Iraq.

Nothing less than protecting our troops is acceptable.

Thank you.

And thank you to Chief for drawing my attention to this speech.

Ohio Executioners Take Two Hours, Ten Attempted Injections, and One Bathroom Break To Kill Christopher Newton

Technorati Tags: death penalty, capital punishment, state execution, lethal injection, torture

This is revolting beyond words:

The execution team stuck Christopher Newton at least 10 times with needles Thursday to insert the shunts where the chemicals are injected.

He died at 11:53 a.m., nearly two hours after the scheduled start of his execution at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. The process typically takes about 20 minutes.

"What is clear from today's botched execution is that the state doesn't know how to execute people without torturing them to death," American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio attorney Carrie Davis said Thursday.

"Having one botched execution is too many; that Ohio has now had two botched executions in as many years is intolerable."

Officials said the delay was due to Newton's size -- he weighed 265 pounds. In May 2006, the execution of Joseph Lewis Clark was delayed about 90 minutes because the team could not find a suitable vein. He was a longtime intravenous drug user.

A group of Ohio inmates is suing over the state's injection method, saying it is unconstitutionally cruel, and Thursday's delay helps show that the state is unable to smoothly complete executions, said Greg Meyers, chief counsel for the Public Defender's Office.

"There will be a day in trial that they will have to answer up as to what caused this two-hour delay," he said. "That's a lot of time messing around trying to get a needle in a vein."

But Newton, who had insisted on the death penalty as punishment and made no attempt to appeal, chatted and laughed with prison staff throughout the delay. It took so long that the staff paused to allow Newton a bathroom break.

Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat who took office in January, said every precaution was taken to make sure Newton was treated respectfully and was not in pain. He said he understood why death penalty opponents wanted a moratorium, but "I think what happened today is not any supporting justification for that."

Yes, I can certainly see how trying 10 times over two hours to inject lethal chemicals into a man's veins might be considered taking every precaution to make sure he was being treated respectfully.

It's About the Oil, It's About the Oil, It's About the Oil

Technorati Tags: Iraq, oil

Ann Wright is a retired colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves. She was working at the Department of State when Pres. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003; she resigned in protest. Now she writes, at AfterDowningStreet.org, about what Congress really voted for on Thursday:

Thursday, May 24 the US Congress voted to continue the war on Iraq. They called it “supporting the troops.” I call it stealing Iraq’s oil--the second largest oil reserves in the world. The “benchmark” or goal the Bush administration has been working on furiously since the US invaded Iraq is the privatization of Iraqi oil. Now they have the US Congress blackmailing the Iraqi Parliament and Iraqi people: no privatization of Iraqi oil, no reconstruction funds.

This threat could not be clearer. If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, the US Congress will withhold US reconstruction funds promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed in Iraq. The privatization law, written by American oil company consultants hired by the Bush administration, would leave the control of only 17 of 80 known oil fields with the Iraq National Oil Company. The remainder (two-thirds) of known oil fields and all yet undiscovered oil fields would be up for grabs by the private oil companies of the world (but guess how many would go to the United States firms given to them by the compliant Iraqi government.)

No other nation in the Middle East has privatized its oil. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Iran give only limited usage contracts to international oil companies for one or two years. The $12 billion dollar “Support the Troops” legislation US Congress passed requires Iraq, in order to get reconstruction funds from the United States, to privatize its oil resources and put them up for long term (20-30 year) contracts.

About Al-Sadr's Reappearance in Iraq

Technorati Tags: Moqtada al-Sadr

The Washington Post has an interesting piece about the return of al-Sadr:

The influential Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr emerged publicly on Friday for the first time in months, calling for U.S. forces to leave Iraq and vowing to defend Sunnis and Christians. His appearance, and remarks, seemed part of an ongoing tactical shift by Sadr to recast himself as a nationalist who can unify and lead a post-occupation Iraq.
[...]
As in previous speeches, Sadr demanded a timetable for the pullout of U.S. troops. He urged an end to clashes between his Mahdi Army militia and Iraq's security forces and called on his militiamen to stage peaceful demonstrations and "be patient," seemingly a show of concern about a lack of discipline in the ranks. He criticized the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for not providing basic services to Iraqis and urged Sunnis to unite with Shiites against the U.S. occupation.

Significantly, Sadr for perhaps the first time declared that he would protect Sunnis and Christians, the two groups that his militia has been widely accused of killing by the thousands and driving from their homes in the sectarian violence plaguing the nation. Sadr told his followers that it was "forbidden" to spill "the blood of our brothers, the Sunnis and Christians." He railed against Sunni extremists who have recently been forcing Christians to convert to Islam, calling such actions "detestable" and against the principles of Islam.

Watch for the same righties who claimed al-Sadr's vanishing act was proof that he feared the surge, to now crow that al-Sadr's return to Iraq is proof that the surge is working.

When Have We Heard This Before?

Technorati Tags: Iraq, troop withdrawals

The New York Times passes on some stunning news we've never heard before:

The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.

It is the first indication that growing political pressure is forcing the White House to turn its attention to what happens after the current troop increase runs its course.

Is it now? I don't think so, and neither does Glenn:

For four straight years, the same set of war supporters have constantly and repetitiously given the same exact false assurances about Iraq -- virtually verbatim -- in order to protect themselves politically. It is hard to know what is more amazing about this ritual -- (a) how stupid they believe Americans are that they can make the same commitments over and over which never transpire, or (b) that the press jumps each time to proclaim the imminent troop reductions as though it never happened before[.]

Read on.

More on U.S. Rejection of Climate Change Proposal

Technorati Tags: climate change, global warming, Tony Blair, Pres. Bush, G8 climate change proposal

Joe Gandelman has an excellent post on the ramifications of Pres. Bush's refusal to sign on to the G8 proposal on climate change:

Despite recent press reports suggesting that the United States might at least start to inch towards the same page on greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. has rejected a German proposal that reportedly enjoyed great support in Europe — sharply pitting the Bush administration against European governments more than ever on environmental issues[.]

The German proposal has the support of Japan as well, which increases the impact of U.S. obstructionism on this issue [bolds in original]:

Just how isolated the United States now is on this issue is underscored by another fact brought out in the New York Times piece linked above:
It had been a foregone conclusion that the Western European members of the Group of 8 — Germany, Italy, France and Britain — would back the reductions. But on Thursday, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan threw his lot in with the Europeans, and proposed cutting carbon emissions as part of a new framework to replace the Kyoto Protocol, whose mandatory caps on gases end in 2012.

Consequently, the Times reports, European diplomats are “furious” and one says the United States remains “virtually isolated.”

Joe makes the additional crucial point that this is not just about climate change:

The problem with a country becoming isolated on key issues is that the spillover reduces the country’s overall clout on other matters. Politicos in Congress may work with the Bush administration on issues of joint self-interest despite huge disagreements on some issues but the administration’s clout has shrunk.

Similarly, look for opposition to the Bush administration to increase in Europe as European governments and their increasingly assertive leaders begin to conclude that the U.S. isn’t interested in consensus (something the Bush administration usually ignores in domestic policy and which most other American administrations of both parties have tried to create). These EU government leaders will likely start to count down the days until Bush and his unique American administration leave office. Just as many members of Congress of both parties are already doing.

Joe includes the commentary of several other bloggers as well.

U.S. Rejects German Climate Change Proposal, Embarrassing Tony Blair

Technorati Tags: Tony Blair, Pres. Bush, climate change, G8 summit in Germany

The Bush administration just chopped off the limb Tony Blair was out on:

The US has rejected any prospect of a deal on climate change at the G8 summit in Germany next month, according to a leaked document.

Despite Tony Blair's declaration on Thursday that Washington would sign up to "at least the beginnings" of action to cut carbon emissions, a note attached to a draft document circulated by Germany says the US is "fundamentally opposed" to the proposals.

The note, written in red ink, says the deal "runs counter to our overall position and crosses multiple 'red lines' in terms of what we simply cannot agree to".

"This document is called FINAL but we never agreed to any of the climate language present in the document ... We have tried to 'tread lightly' but there is only so far we can go given our fundamental opposition to the German position," it says.

The tone is blunt, with whole pages of the draft crossed out and even the mildest statements about confirming previous agreements rejected. "The proposals within the sections titled 'Fighting Climate Change' and 'Carbon Markets' are fundamentally incompatible with the President's approach to climate change," says another red-ink comment.

This is embarrassing for Mr Blair, who said on Thursday with some confidence that the US was moderating its position on climate change as the summit approached. Before visiting the White House this month, the prime minister suggested that he was close to persuading George Bush to accept the establishment of carbon trading schemes, one of five main proposals drawn up ahead of the G8. But Washington rejected the sections on carbon trading, saying to back trading schemes would imply acceptance of emission caps.

A diplomatic source said the German EU presidency and the US government appeared now so far apart it was hard to see how negotiators could reach anything other than a meaningless agreement in Heiligendamm in just under two weeks.

As well as cutting global emissions, Germany had stated in its draft that it wanted agreement to curb the rise in average temperatures this century to 2C and raise energy efficiency in power and transport by 20% by 2020. Both positions are compatible with policies in California and other US states, which have set their own targets and timetables.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, this week suggested that there was little hope of a deal. She said preliminary talks at the EU-Russia summit and in meetings with G8 members had been "difficult".

The director of Greenpeace, John Sauven, said the leaked document proved Britain had failed to influence the US. "Despite his protestations to the contrary Tony Blair's efforts to persuade George Bush of the importance of tackling climate change have singularly failed," he said.

The scene is set for a showdown between the US and other G8 countries who want early action on climate change. Germany's environment minister, Sigmar Gabriel, said the country was prepared to block decisions on other issues unless the US and other G8 members made concessions on the environment. "America doesn't want to commit to firm goals. We can't put the global future of our children at risk because of the narrow-mindedness of individual negotiating partners."

And after everything Blair has done for Bush. That's gratitude for you.

Friday, May 25, 2007

You Gotta Be In It To Win It

Technorati Tags: party politics

Barbara has a point here. Quoting Jonathan Alter in Newsweek, she writes:

Although I disagree with Jonathan Alter that “Democrats in Congress had no choice but to proceed the way they have this week on the war in Iraq,” I suspect he is right when he says “what’s going on inside the Democratic Party now is a family argument about tactics, not principle.”

I’ve seen many assumptions that the Dems folded because they don’t understand War Is Bad or that they secretly support the war and intend to keep it going. But I think Alter speaks for the Dems (and note that I think the Dems are mistaken) when he writes,
The whole “support the troops” meme has become a terrible problem for Democrats. Even though, as Glenn Greenwald has argued in Salon, cutting off funding doesn’t mean soldiers will have their guns and bullets and armor taken away in the middle of a battle, Americans have been convinced that it does. They want to end the war and support the troops at the same time—i.e., send back the food and still eat.

This is not a figment of some spineless Democrat’s imagination but the reality of what he or she will face back in the district over Memorial Day. Democrats who vote to cut funding not only risk getting thrown in the briar patch by Republican hit men in Washington; they also might not be able to satisfy their otherwise antiwar constituents at home.

Barbara links to yesterday's New York Times poll, which shows that although an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the war and want a timeline for withdrawal, or performance benchmarks, most Americans do not want the troops to lose their supplies and equipment -- and that's what they think will happen if Congress rejects war funding legislation:

Note: Only 13 percent want Congress to cut off funding for the war. Dems look at those numbers and assume that cutting off funds would be political suicide. That, folks, is motivation. That’s why the supplement bill passed both houses yesterday.
[...]
I think if the Dems had made an all-out effort to go to the American people and say Bush is bluffing about the troops running out of money. If you want us to end the war we need you to support what we’re doing in Congress, then they could have put up a better fight and rallied more of the public to their side.

But the Dems aren’t good at doing that. They don’t have the infrastructure of media, “think tanks” and astroturf organizations that the Republicans use to pound their talking points into peoples’ heads. Plus, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has been dominating national politics for so long that only the very oldest Washington politicians remember those long-ago days when they weren’t quaking in terror under its shadow. Old dogs, new tricks, and all that.
[...]
I’m not saying that the Dems couldn’t and shouldn’t have put up a better fight. I’m saying this is why they didn’t.

I support efforts to target Steny Hoyer and the Blue Dogs generally in next year’s primaries. Dems need to learn they have more to fear from their base than from Faux Snooze.

But adopting an "A plague on both your houses" attitude is not the answer, either. And on this point I agree with Barbara wholeheartedly:

The truth is that if you want to have a say in what goes on in government, you have to do it through party politics. And another truth is that there’s not going to be a viable, national third party in my lifetime. Maybe there’ll be one in yours if you are very young, but in any event bolting to a third party is no remedy to our current problems. The practical reality is that our only hope of effecting a progressive agenda in the U.S. in the foreseeable future is to take the Dems into hand and mold it into a party that responds to us.

It’s not about our supporting the Democrats; it’s about training the Democrats to support us. It’s going to take more than one or two election cycles to accomplish this. I’ve been saying that all along.

E.J. Dionne Advises Liberals To Take the Long View

Technorati Tags: Iraq war funding, Democrats in Congress

E.J. Dionne, Jr. advises liberals who are furious over the Democrats' capitulation to Pres. Bush on Iraq war funding to take the long view:

... The decision to drop withdrawal timelines from the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill is not a decisive defeat. It is a temporary setback in a much longer struggle for minds and votes that the administration's critics are actually winning.

The progressives' anger is not hard to fathom. Bush's botched war has been immensely harmful to our country. Polls show that most Americans want out. Democrats won the 2006 midterm election in significant part because of the public's exhaustion with the war and with the Bush presidency. According to the Real Clear Politics Web site, the president's disapproval rating across a series of polls averages 61 percent. Opponents of the war feel the wind at their backs. Why, they ask, did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid cave in?
[...]
Pelosi's case is that the war's congressional opponents have already helped move the debate by passing antiwar measures and by prying Republicans loose from the president's policy. "It is just a matter of time," she says, before Republicans can "no longer stay with the president."
[...]
As a tactical matter, it could have been useful for the Democrats to move another bill containing timelines to Bush's desk for a second veto, simply to underscore the president's unwillingness to seek bipartisan accord on a change in policy. But these are the brute facts: Democrats narrowly control the House but don't have an effective majority in the Senate since Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) votes with the Republicans on the war and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) is still too ill to vote.

Democrats, in short, have enough power to complicate the president's life, but not enough to impose their will. Moreover, there is genuine disagreement even among Bush's Democratic critics over what the pace of withdrawal should be and how to minimize the damage of this war to the country's long-term interests. That is neither shocking nor appalling, but, yes, it complicates things. So does the fact that the minority wields enormous power in the Senate.

What was true in January thus remains true today: The president will be forced to change his policy only when enough Republicans tell him he has to. Facing this is no fun; it's just necessary.

Dionne misses the point. Antiwar activists know that Democrats don't have enough votes to override a presidential veto. The point is that what the president wants -- a blank check for endless war with no accountability -- is something this country cannot afford anymore, in every sense of the word "afford." The financial cost, the human cost, and the cost to global and national security is too high. When a policy is harmful, dangerous, and deeply immoral, you don't sign on to it simply because the other side opposes you.

I can see Juan Cole's point that the public's overall mood may be less important to Congress than the political temperature in their own districts and states. It's true that those of us who think Democrats in Congress have nothing to fear from a populace that is overwhelmingly in favor of ending U.S. involvement in Iraq "don't have to run against a well-heeled opponent with lots of money for television spots with which to rip off our faces in only a year."

But that's a lot different from claiming, as Dionne does, that Democrats who voted yes on funding the war with no timeline were acting out of some kind of principled strategy to come back in September with a stronger antiwar bill.

Endless War Is an Emotional Issue

Technorati Tags: John Boehner, Iraq Supplemental

John Nichols on John Boehner's tears yesterday before the final vote on the accountability-stripped Iraq Supplemental:

House Minority Leader John Boehner wept Thursday night, as he delivered the final Republican appeal on behalf of funding President Bush's perpetual war in Iraq.

This is obviously a serious matter for the tear-inclined Ohio congressman, who last lost his composure during a February soliloquy on the need for "solemn debate" in the House.

Unfortunately for Boehner, he is seriously misinformed about the issue that is bringing him to tears.

Perhaps we can help Boehner compose himself.

The minority leader made clear that he believes it will be necessary to sacrifice more U.S. lives in Iraq as a response to the September 11, 2OO1, terrorist attacks on World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Speaking of the 19 religious zealots from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon who have been identified as the perpetrators of those attacks, the ranking Republican in the House was shaking with anger at Democrats who had delayed the dispatch of the latest billions to fund the president's Iraq adventure.

"After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to stand up and take them on? When are we going to defeat 'em?" demanded Boehner. "Ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you, if we don't do it now, and if we don't have the courage to defeat this enemy, we will long, long regret it. So thank you for the commitment to get the job done today."

It appears that Boehner is suffering from some confusion about the reason why President Bush dispatched U.S. troops to Iraq.

In a moment of such confusion, perhaps it is best to turn to the commander in chief for clarification.

In August, 2006, when President Bush was explaining how the 9/11 attacks inspired his "freedom agenda," Cox News reporter Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. And the president set things straight once and for all.

"The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East," said Bush.

"What did Iraq have to do with it?" asked Herman.

"What did Iraq have to do with what?" responded a confused Bush.

"The attack on the World Trade Center," explained Herman.

"Nothing," admitted Bush, who went on to say that "nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack."

For emphasis, Bush repeated, "Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq."

Hopefully, this will come as some comfort to Congressman Boehner. Debates about Iraq funding have nothing to do with September 11 or fighting terrorism. They are about whether young American men and women will continue to die in another country's civil war, and that does not seem to bother Boehner or the Congress.

So there's no need for tears here, except perhaps for the republic.

It's Depressingly Easy To Intimidate Democrats

Technorati Tags: Iraq Supplemental, Democrats in Congress, Iraq

Pres. Bush got his war money tonight --$95 billion to fund the production of more American and Iraqi corpses. The Grim Reaper's representative in the White House promised us that today [emphasis mine]:

President George W. Bush said on Thursday this summer will be a critical time for his troop buildup strategy in Iraq and predicted heavy fighting in the weeks and months ahead.

Faced with demands to make progress in Iraq by September from Democrats and many Republicans, Bush told a news conference that the last troops in a 30,000-troop buildup should be in place by mid-June, and said "This summer is going to be a critical time for the new strategy."

"We expect heavy fighting in the weeks and months" ahead, Bush said. He said more American and Iraqi casualties should be expected.

"I would like to see us in a different configuration at some point in Iraq. However it's going to require taking control of the capital," he said.

With dozens of U.S. troops killed in Iraq this month, Bush said he realized the loss of life was devastating for the families. He also said he was confident the U.S. military was doing everything it could to find two American soldiers missing since their patrol was ambushed on May 12.

What a fucking hypocrite. I'm sure his "realization" is a great comfort to Joseph Anzack, Jr.'s, family and friends, or the families and friends of the other 11 American soldiers who died today and yesterday in Iraq:

Members of the three soldiers' platoon were crushed by reports that a body had been found.

"It just angers me that it's just another friend I've got to lose and deal with, because I've already lost 13 friends since I've been here and I don't know if I can take anymore of this," said Spc. Daniel Seitz, 22, from Pensacola, Fla.

Unfortunately, he will have to, because George W. Bush, the man whose inherited privilege has enabled him to put Daniel Seitz through hell on earth even as Bush enjoys his private heaven on earth, has announced that we are to expect to see many more pine boxes coming off planes.

And thanks to his trembling toadies, aka Democrats in Congress, he can make that happen.

That said, we who are liberals first and Democrats second do have options:

As I have stated before and as my actions have demonstrated, I am a liberal first and a Democrat second. The vast majority of the time the philosophy intersects with the party, but when it is not, I support liberal ideas over the political party. The most significant liberal policy goal in my mind is to redeploy US forces from Iraq and fix the decision process and the intellectually constrained framework of our current foreign policy debate. This mindset is why I have long encouraged netroots backed primary challengers to numerous Democrats in the 2008 cycle. I supported Ned Lamont against Joe Lieberman for the same reason.

I just want to thank some of the spineless Democratic establishment for making the collective research and targeting decisions for people who share similar attitudes as me in which Democratic primaries we should be supporting aggressive challengers. In the Senate, the simplifying vote so far has been the Reid-Feingold vote with the following Democrats voting against establishing a priority of withdrawal by a certain deadline:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)

Chris Bowers goes one step further. He thinks that some Democrats in Congress may actually feel it serves their interests to blow off their progressive grassroots base:

By now, I'm sure most people have seen this:
Democrats said they did not relish the prospect of leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break -- the second recess since the financing fight began -- and leaving themselves vulnerable to White House attacks that they were again on vacation while the troops were wanting. That criticism seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left by bowing to Mr. Bush.

This isn't just a reporter putting words in Democratic mouths. As Matt showed earlier today, several specific Democrats are actually scared of Bush on this. Now, if you think it seems more than a little inane to be scared of a guy whose approval rating just hit an all-time low today, especially when it comes to a war which just reached its all-time low in terms of support today, and when, on Tuesday, centrist beltway firm GQR released a report showing that Republicans were being significantly damaged by the Iraq War debate, then you are probably right. I mean, given all of that, there is an outside chance you are right. Maybe.

But there is something else going on here besides a bizarre fear of continuing to oppose the least popular president in thirty years on the least popular war in fifty-five years, and a fear of prolonging a debate that was causing Democrats to win over voters in frontline House districts. Keep in mind that while a demoralized progressive activist base has negative repercussions for Democratic electoral fortunes in general elections, in terms of intra-party power struggles, a demoralized, progressive, grassroots activist base actually strengthens the position of neoliberals, LieberDems, and the DLC-nexus within the Democratic Party power structure. If progressive grassroots activists are too demoralized to make small donations, the party becomes more reliant on large donors. If we are too demoralized to run for party office or challenge sitting Democrats in primaries, the establishment Democratic power structure are never held accountable for running ineffective campaigns or selling out the base. If we don't use the strength of the progressive movement in the 2008 presidential primaries, then the influence the DLC-nexus, neoliberals, and LieberDems have in determining the direction of the Democratic Party increases. And on and on. In other words, there are those who benefit internally from a demoralized, inactive, progressive grassroots base, even if the party as a whole is damaged. We all saw this from 1994-2002, when the Democratic Party was regularly defeated in general elections on a scale not seen since the 1920s, and while the DLC-nexus simultaneously solidified a unprecedented level of control over the Democratic Party establishment.

For example, the idea that Hillary Clinton would be facing any serious challenge to the Democratic nomination without the expansion and maturation of the contemporary progressive movement and open left in the last four years is preposterous. That isn't to say that she has no support within the new movement, but just to state the obvious: she has less support within the movement than do other candidates, and far less support within the movement relative to the rest of the Democratic rank and file. Further, that isn't to imply that the only support candidates like Obama and Edwards have comes from the progressive movement, but once against to state the obvious: each candidate is greatly buoyed by the support he is receiving from the movement. Yet further, I do not mean to imply that there is an active "demoralize the grassroots base" strategy being undertaken by the Clinton campaign. I just wish to point out that one of the reasons some Democrats might be less scared of the activist base than they are of Bush is because a demoralized grassroots base actually has positive, intra-party side effects for some Democrats. See Lieberman, Joe for more information on that subject.

Maybe a better way to understand the situation is to state that some Democrats are more afraid of Bush than they are of a demoralized, progressive, grassroots base. After all, there are probably some Democrats who wish, for example, that the progressive blogosphere never came into existence, because then no one in the base would be calling them out on a regular basis. We are a direct threat to the long-accrued power of many members of the Democratic establishment, but only when we are active and energized. Given this, why should any of our favorite punching bags be afraid of doing something that would demoralize us? In fact, there are probably many who are eager to demoralize us. This is worth remembering whenever Democrats do something -- secret trade deals, Iraq funding capitulation, lobbying reform collapses -- that gives you the urge to thrown in the towel on intra-party activism. A demoralized grassroots base removes one of the main checks against Democrats who run amuck. Personally, after a short period of dejection, I now feel that the ways some Democrats have screwed up in the last couple weeks-- secret trade deals, Iraq funding capitulation, lobbying reform collapses--is a useful splash of cold water to remind me of how much work is left to be done in our intra-party struggles. I hope, as time goes on, more and more of us feel the same way. We will only lose over the long-term if we give up because of the short-term.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Pay for the Broken Crockery and Go Home

Technorati Tags: Pottery Barn rule, QuandO, Oliver Willis

Dale Franks at QuandO has some "questions for our liberal friends."

Oliver Willis has the answers.

Libby Spencer cautions liberals not to let conservatives get away with misframing the Pottery Barn rule:

Progressives are making a huge mistake by validating the GOP framing. Cernig is the only blogger I know who has the correct intepretation on this. To begin with the rule is "you broke it, you bought it." It's not "you broke it, you fix it."

If you break the crockery at Pottery Barn, you pay for it and go home. You're free to take the pieces with you, but you don't send in your gang of home boys to take over the store while you run out to buy some glue to put it back together. Neither do you get to fix it, put it back on the shelf and then tell the store owner how to run his business. All you get is a flawed item that may be repairable to functionality, but will never be perfect again.

But Bush didn't just break a random crock. He busted out the plate glass window because he just couldn't wait for the store to open. He got his statue but it got broken in the crush of looters he let him in behind him and now he, and by extension we, are responsible for all the lost merchandise.

If we're going to apply the Pottery Barn rule, then it's time to accept we're going to have to go home with nothing of real value and we're going to have leave all those shiny new fixtures we paid so dearly to replace, behind. Paying for the damage doesn't give us ownership of the store and breaking in the first place doesn't really give us the right to decide who ultimately gets to run the business.

Democrats in Congress: We Had To Cave In; We Had No Choice

Technorati Tags: Democrats in Congress

It's not surprising, just profoundly dispiriting: Democratic "leaders" decided not to stand up to White House bullying -- thereby making the next round just that much more difficult, because everyone knows that giving in to a bully makes the bully harder, not easier, to deal with. But as today's New York Times makes clear, Democrats are terrified of the president -- so much so that betraying the American people's wishes is a tertiary concern for them:

Congressional contortions over the Iraq spending bill could end up with most House Democrats momentarily occupying the position they were so desperate to vacate: the minority.

The decision by the Democratic majority to strip the measure of a timetable for troop withdrawal has raised the prospect that it could be approved mainly by Republicans with scattered Democrat support. The idea that many Democrats would be left on the losing side in a consequential vote has exposed a sharp divide within the party, drawn scorn from antiwar groups, confused the public and frustrated the party rank and file.

But in recounting the leadership’s thinking, senior Democrats and other officials said that by early this week they had concluded there was no alternative but to give ground to President Bush despite their view that he had mishandled the war and needed to be put under tighter Congressional rein.

Democrats said they did not relish the prospect of leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break — the second recess since the financing fight began — and leaving themselves vulnerable to White House attacks that they were again on vacation while the troops were wanting. That criticism seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left by bowing to Mr. Bush.

Some lawmakers favored sending Mr. Bush another bill with a timetable for withdrawal and risking a second veto, the senior Democrats said. But they said they had questioned whether such a measure could pass the Senate a second time, raising the possibility that Congress would be left sitting on the bill and carrying the blame.

That would be much too scary, I understand.

It gets even worse: Matt Stoller at MyDD reports that Fred Yang, a Democratic pollster, is celebrating the cave-in as an "obvious good move":

Democrats said this week they would have jeopardized their fall bargaining position if they had insisted on keeping withdrawal timelines in the current supplemental spending bill (HR 2206). Persisting now would likely have resulted in another veto and would have handed Republicans talking points for the Memorial Day recess about which party supports the troops in the field.

Democrats were particularly worried about the prospect of Bush declaring at wreath-laying ceremonies that “Democrats have stopped resources for the troops,” said Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala.

“The problem is that we have to provide money for the troops, and if we don’t, the Democrats will be blamed,” added Rep. James P. Moran, D-Va., a war opponent. “Bush has the bully pulpit, so he will define who is responsible.”

“Obviously it’s a good move,” said Democratic pollster Fred Yang. “It gives President Bush and Republicans one less thing to shoot at” during the upcoming recess week.

Matt again:

These are the attitudes of Democratic members and pollsters. There's no evidence that Bush moves numbers anymore. In fact, when he talks he becomes less popular. He has no credibility, which means that his access to the bully pulpit is severely diminished. Yet Democrats are afraid of him. More than that, Democratic members think that by capitulating to him that Republicans will stop saying that Democrats won't fund the troops. It's crazy. It's like they didn't notice the 2002 election where they were like 'we can take Iraq off the table'.

And while the news media is abuzz with talk of Democratic capitulation, I'm watching idiots like Louise Slaughter on C-Span saying that this is not a concession to Bush, and that Congress is fighting to end the war. And she really believes it. She really thinks that Democrats are fighting Bush with this bill. It's amazing. It's like la-la land.

Yang's comments are particularly silly, though I guess I shouldn't be surprised since he accepted Third Way's fraudulent study as 'useful' when it was actually statistical malpractice. There's actually a secret problem in Democratic politics where a lot of our pollsters actually don't know how to do professional polling. But we'll leave that aside.

The key take-away here is that the Democratic Party is degraded and disorganized, and it shows. It's not just that the party is bought off, though some members are. It's that even the ones who want to do the right thing are constantly being told by people like Yang that capitulating to the President is obviously the right move, and that their concession is not actually a concession.

On the other hand, Greg Sargent thinks that Democrats have been quite courageous overall, and that this cave-in is an anomaly:

But look, what's done is done. And now that we're finished popping off, it needs to be said that generally this new Dem Congressional leadership has repeatedly defied expectations with its willingness to take on the White House. Just not this time.

If there's anything that pisses me off more than the Democrats' gutlessness, it's liberal activists with such incredibly low standards.

Cross-posted at Shakesville.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

No Room on the Plane for Unbiased Reporters

Technorati Tags: McClatchy, Defense Secretary's plane,

"Unprofessional, undemocratic, and petty": Yep, that pretty much describes the Bushies:

Staffers at McClatchy's Washington, D.C., Bureau -- one of the few major news outlets skeptical of intelligence reports during the run-up to the war in Iraq -- claims it is now being punished for that coverage.

Bureau Chief John Walcott and current and former McClatchy Pentagon correspondents say they have not been allowed on the Defense Secretary's plane for at least three years, claiming the news company is being retaliated against for its reporting.

"It is because our coverage of Iraq policy has been quite critical," Walcott told E&P. He added, "I think the idea of public officials barring coverage by people they've decided they don't like is at best unprofessional, at worst undemocratic and petty."

Mary Cheney's Son Is Born

Samuel David Cheney has arrived in the world. With his grandfather's name, of course, because that is the one that will privilege him. And the one that will keep him out of the military.

There Is No War on Terror

Technorati Tags: John Edwards, war on terror

John Edwards: There is no war on terror. The "war on terror" is an advertising campaign slogan to promote the Bush administration's main product: war.

Democrat John Edwards Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a "global war on terror," calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists.

In a defense policy speech he planned to deliver at the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards called the war on terror a "bumper sticker" slogan Bush had used to justify everything from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison to the invasion of Iraq.

"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."

In the first presidential debate last month in South Carolina, Edwards was one of four Democrats—including Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel—who said they did not believe there was a global war on terror. Front-runners Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama indicated that they did.

Post-Bush, post-Bush, post-Bush. ... Just saying it makes me feel better.

The complete text of Edwards' speech to the Council on Foreign Relations is here.

Keith Olbermann on the Democratic Betrayal

Technorati Tags: Iraq supplemental, Keith Olbermann

Keith Olbermann blasts the Democratic leadership for betraying the American people.

Hat tip to Crooks and Liars.

Mahablog has a video (out-of-synch, but okay otherwise) of Chris Dodd's statement of opposition to the cave-in bill.

The Right Never Overlooks an Opportunity To Vent Anti-Muslim Hatred

Technorati Tags: Muslim-Americans

The right is distraught over a just-released poll showing that large majorities of Muslims say that suicide bombings that target civilians are unacceptable. Why? Because 13% of Muslim respondents think that terrorist attacks against civilians are "sometimes" justified.

Can we say that right-wingers hate Muslims now? Their response to this poll doesn't seem to leave much doubt, does it? As Glenn says, "...the warrior-pundits are working in unison to milk every ounce of anti-Muslim fear-mongering that can be squeezed from this new poll:

It is literally difficult to overstate the prominence that fear and hatred of Muslims assumes in the worldview of these right-wing war proponents. They frantically search every news story for any possible angle to seize in order to exploit anti-Muslim hysteria. It is the centerpiece, the animating "principle," of the vast bulk of their public commentary.

In a separate post on the same subject today, Glenn points out that there is always a percentage of people, small though it might be, who will sign on to "almost anything"[Glenn's emphasis]:

The reality, though, is that it is almost impossible to conduct a poll and not have a sizable portion of the respondents agree to almost everything. And in particular, with regard to the specific question of whether it is justifiable to launch violent attacks aimed deliberately at civilians, the percentage of American Muslims who believe in such attacks pales in comparison to the percentage of Americans generally who believe that such attacks are justifiable.

The University of Maryland's highly respected Program on International Public Attitudes, in December 2006, conducted a concurrent public opinion poll of the United States and Iran to determine the comparative views of each country's citizens on a variety of questions. The full findings are published here (.pdf).

One of the questions they asked was whether "bombings and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified"? Americans approved of such attacks by a much larger margin than Iranians -- 51-16% (and a much, much larger margin than American Muslims -- 51-13%)[.]...

A rather substantial 24% of Americans thought that such attacks are justified "often" or "sometimes," while another 27% thought they were justified in rare cases. By stark contrast, only 11% of Iranians think such attacks are justified "often" or "sometimes," with a mere further 5% agreeing they can be justified in rare cases. Similar results were found with the series of other questions regarding violence deliberately aimed at civilians -- including women, children and the elderly. Americans believed such attacks could be justifiable to a substantially higher degree than Iranians.

But then, expecting integrity or intelligence from the likes of Mark Steyn or Michelle Malkin is like expecting a snowstorm in the Sahara.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Wrong Before, Wrong Now

Technorati Tags: Bob Kerrey, Iraq war

Bob Kerrey (D-NE) strongly supported the invasion of Iraq because, he said, it was "the only way to safely reduce our military commitment to the region." Now that the United States has been in Iraq for over four years with our military committed -- if war supporters have their way -- for the next 20 years or more, has Kerrey acknowledged his mistake?

Far from it. In fact, he's doing what many other war supporters have done: He is using American failure in Iraq to justify staying there:

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes."

This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.

Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups wouldn't have lasted a week.

Kerrey does not attempt to explain why, then, there was no radical Islamic terrorism in Iraq when there was an anti-democracy dictator there who cooperated with and supported the West.

Via Think Progress and Memeorandum.

Monday, May 21, 2007

John Kerry Pushes White House on Pay Raise for Iraq Troops

Technorati Tags: John Kerry, pay increase for troops in Iraq

Pamela Leavey at The Democratic Daily has been covering the fight by Democrats in Congress to get the 3.5% pay increase for U.S. troops in Iraq, and the $40/month increase in widows' benefits, that Pres. Bush is adamantly opposing:

On Saturday, I reported here that the “Bush Administration won’t approve a pay raise for our military.” The simple reasoning is of course, Republicans don’t really support the troops.

The piece I quoted Saturday from the Boston Globe noted that Kerry had sent a letter to Bush on Friday, saying that “he was “extremely disappointed” by the White House position on the pay raise, saying it stands “in direct contrast to the will of the American people who support all the efforts to support our troops.””

Today, Senator Kerry asked Bush to back off his plan to cut a proposed military pay raise. Kerry also asked Bush not to cut a proposed benefit for surviving spouses, which Congress and veterans groups say would help grieving families with a $40 month benefit to help cover expenses when a loved one is killed in action. Last week, the White House opposed both of those provisions in the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Bill.

Pamela posts the complete text of Kerry's letter to Bush, sent Friday, and notes:

Tomorrow, Senator John Kerry and House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel will hold a press conference to respond to President Bush’s opposition to a 3.5 percent military pay increase for American troops. The press conference will be held in the Senate T.V. and Radio Press Gallery at 11:30 am est.

Democrats Are Spineless Jellyfish

Technorati Tags: Democrats in Congress, Iraq supplemental, spineless jellyfish

If this is accurate (Steve Benen thinks it may not be), I'm sure it will do a world of good to raise the American people's opinion of Congress.

And yes, I'm being sarcastic.

Cross-posted at Shakesville.

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Military Recruiters in the Public Library

Technorati Tags: military recruiters, public libraries, freedom of speech,

How about this? It's okay for military recruiters to enter a public library and try to enlist people; but it's not okay for people using the public library to object to military recruitment in the public library:

Tim Coli served in the first Gulf War and now suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

On March 12, he and his wife, Yvette, went to the Stow-Munroe Falls Public Library in Ohio. At 37, she is a student at Kent State and needed to study for a biology test. Tim, 40, was reading some books.

Then they noticed two military recruiters trying to enlist someone in a nearby room, with a large glass window.

She decided to take action.

She took out some 3x5 cards and wrote messages to the man being recruited and then put them up on the window sill.

"Don't fall for it! Military recruiters lie," said one.

"It's not honorable to fight for a lying President," said another.

She says she cleared it all first.

"Before I put those cards up, I went to a volunteer and I asked her if it was OK if I put those cards up in the window, and she said she didn't have a problem with that but talk to someone who works there," Yvette says. "The next person said it was fine so long as there is no confrontation. And she said, 'Between you and I, I wish they weren't here, either.' "

The recruiters were none too happy with the cards.

One of them came out and asked Coil who put them up.

When she admitted she had, he asked for her name, which she didn't give him.

He told her that she and her husband couldn't put the cards up.

"My husband asked him if he was trying to keep us from using our freedom of speech," Coil says.

He didn't answer that, she says, but he did tell her again to stop.

He took the cards and went to find the library director.

In the meantime, Coil put some more card on the sill:

"Don't do it."

"My husband is a Gulf War Veteran. He can tell you the truth"

"To the military, you are cannon fodder."

"Recruiters: You're fighting for my freedom of speech, too!"

The library director, Doug Dotterer, told them that if they put up one more card, he was going to ask them to leave, Coil says. He told them they couldn't display things that were disturbing other people in the library. She told him that the Army had its brochures out on a nearby table, and they were disturbing her, she says.

"My husband said that the library was a public place and we are allowed our freedom of speech," Coil says. "The director said it was his library, and so we would have to follow his rules."

When he left, they knocked on the window and urged the man being recruited not to join up.

Soon the police arrived.

I am bloody sick and tired of these bloodsucker military recruiters press-ganging our young people into the military wherever they go. Public schools, universities, public libraries -- what's next, churches?

Cross-posted at Shakesville.

Learn To Get Along, Or Die

Technorati Tags: free speech, Muslims in Europe, multiculturalism, cultural relativism

Via Arts & Letters Daily, Ian Buruma urges fellow Europeans to make their peace with Europe's changing demographics:

Whether Europeans like it or not, Muslims are part of Europe. Many will not abandon their religion, so Europeans must learn to live with them and with Islam. Of course, this will be easier if Muslims come to believe that the system also works to their benefit. Liberal democracy and Islam are reconcilable. Indonesia’s current political transition from dictatorship to democracy, although no unqualified success, shows that this is achievable.

Even if all of Europe’s Muslims were Islamists – which is a far cry from reality – they could not threaten the Continent’s sovereignty and, by the same token, its laws and Enlightenment values. Of course, there are groups to which Islamism appeals. The children of immigrants, born in Europe, sense they are not fully accepted in the country where they grew up, but neither do they feel a special bond with their parent’s native country. Islamism, besides offering them an answer to the question why they do not feel happy with the way they live, gives them a sense of their self-worth and a great cause to die for.

In the end, the only thing that can truly damage European values is Europe’s response to its non-Muslim majority. Fear of Islam and of immigrants could lead to the adoption of non-liberal laws. By defending Enlightenment values in a dogmatic way Europeans will be the ones who undermine them.

Buruma also makes what should be an obvious point of common sense: Opposing laws that criminalize offensive speech does not mean one is required to be offensive:

Our laws prohibiting incitement to violence and insulting people for reasons of their religion are sufficient. Further constraints on freedom of speech – such as anti-blasphemy laws or, indeed, those laws that make Holocaust denial punishable – go too far.

But this doesn’t mean that we should not weigh our words with care. We should distinguish carefully between different kinds of Islam, and not confuse violent revolutionary movements with mere religious orthodoxy. Insulting Muslims simply on the basis of their faith is foolish and counterproductive, as is the increasingly popular notion that we must make sweeping pronouncements as to the superiority of “our culture.” For such dogmatism undermines scepticism, the questioning of all views, including one’s own, which was and is the fundamental feature of the Enlightenment.

The trouble today is that Enlightenment values are sometimes used in a very dogmatic way against Muslims. They have become in fact a form of nationalism – “our values” have been set against “their values.” The reason for defending Enlightenment values is that they are based on good ideas, and not because they are “our culture.” To confuse culture and politics in this way is to fall into the same trap as the multiculturalists.

And it has serious consequences. If we antagonize Europe’s Muslims enough we will push more people into joining the Islamist revolution. We must do everything to encourage Europe’s Muslim to become assimilated in European societies. It is our only hope.

Cross-posted at Shakesville.

Litbloggers Versus Book Reviewers

Technorati Tags: book blogs, litblogs, literary blogs, book reviews

The latest wrinkle in the ongoing battle between bloggers and print journalists, apparently, is litblogs versus traditional book reviewers:

When members of the National Book Critics Circle recently picketed the Atlanta Journal-Constitution — protesting the elimination of its book review editor — a war of words broke out between book reviewers and literary bloggers.

The quarrel, which got surprisingly nasty, spilled into newspapers, magazines and blogs, amid concerns over recent cutbacks at other big-city newspaper book reviews, including the Los Angeles Times. The boom in books-related blogging, it seemed, was a slap in the face to more seasoned literary voices as they watched their own outlets shrink.
[...]
"If you were an author, would you want your book reviewed in the Washington Post and the New York Review of Books, or on a web site written by someone who uses the moniker NovelGobbler or Biogafriend?" Michael Dirda, a Pulitzer Prize-winning book critic, wrote in the Washington Post. "The book review section … remains the forum where new titles are taken seriously as works of art and argument, and not merely as opportunities for shallow grandstanding and overblown ranting."

Lit-blogger Edward Champion fired back, ridiculing the notion that only printed book reviews matter: "It's okay for the lit blogosphere to exist as a version of your Mom's book club — it's okay for us to talk books and authors and compare notes on favorites, as long as we keep our place," snapped the San Francisco writer, who runs the Return of the Reluctant website. "Have you got that? We must not think for a minute that we contribute anything beyond serving as accessories to the real literary discussions…. We should buy books but not dare to offer well thought opinions on them."

The accusations flew back and forth. But now there is a growing sense that enough is enough — and that the friction between old and new book media obscures the fact that the two are in bed together now, for better or worse. Often the same people who churn out literary blogs are reviewing books for mainstream reviews. (Champion, for example, has a review appearing in this week's Los Angeles Times Book Review.)

Many believe there's a healthy synergy between the two. Maud Newton, who runs one of the more respected literary blogs (maudnewton.com), was puzzled by the idea that the two are somehow competing. "When bloggers disagree with or agree with an article about books in the mainstream press, it drives traffic to the newspaper," she said. The cutbacks at newspaper book reviews are unfortunate, but hardly the fault of bloggers.

"This was truly a false dichotomy," Mark Savas, who runs the L.A.-based blog the Elegant Variation, said by phone. "The two sides needn't be in opposition, certainly not at this time. There is a vast ecosystem of information about books out there, and all of it needs our support."

Sounds about right to me. Maybe I'll add a litblog section to my blogroll.

Via Arts & Letters Daily.

Fun Times at Pee-wee's Playhouse

Technorati Tags: Pee-wee Herman, Paul Reubens

Mustang Bobby, posting at Shakesville, points us to a retrospective on the career of Paul Reubens, aka (even better known as) Pee-wee Herman:

IN the 1985 movie “Pee-wee’s Big Adventure,” the title character turns to a friend and murmurs darkly, “There are a lot of things about me, things you wouldn’t understand, things you couldn’t understand, things you shouldn’t understand.”

At the time those words seemed perversely at odds with the twee entertainer conceived by Paul Reubens, an actor so fused with Pee-wee Herman that he is enshrined in the popular imagination as an emblem of innocence — the sunny jester in white loafers and a red bow tie.

In retrospect, though, Pee-wee’s cautionary words had a prescient ring. More than 15 years have passed since Mr. Reuben’s arrest in 1991 on charges of indecent exposure, an episode that put an abrupt end to “Pee-wee’s Playhouse,” the manically subversive Saturday-morning children’s television series introduced in 1986 on CBS.

Pee-wee’s signature staccato laugh, dancing eyebrows and drainpipe pants were packed away in mothballs, while Paul Reubens the actor continued to work, drawing raves for performances like that of a wily dope-dealing hairdresser in the 2001 movie “Blow.”

I loved Pee-wee's Playhouse. At the time it was on, I was married and had a small child. My ex and I watched it faithfully every week; our mutual love for the show bonded us together. I will forever associate Pee-wee Herman with that time in my life.

Bloggers

Metabloggers and Aggregators

Media Blogs

Media Moguls

The Free Press

Watchdogs and Advocates

Reference and Tech Stuff

Feeds and Syndicators

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Friday, May 25, 2007

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Monday, May 21, 2007

Sunday, May 20, 2007

My Online Bookstore

Contributors

A penny for my thoughts?

Liberty Street

Blog Archive