Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/002497.php on line 106

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/002497.php on line 106
November 22, 2005
World O'Blog

Avedon Carol posted And The Truth Will Set You Free...

It's a pretty darned good entry but I take exception to the assumption that it's the Left's responsibility to response to every spin-machine production from the Right (and, for that matter, vice-versa). Why in the heck doesn't the media offer a little balance in their stories?

Why do Democrats have to say over and over and Ruth Ginsberg is not a die-hard liberal of any kind? Why couldn't any of those media stories have offered a casual, straight-faced paragraph or two pointing out the actual facts to the contrary?

When it's a matter of policy that's under debate, the MSM should report from both sides. When it's a matter of printing things that are factually inaccurate, the MSM just...not. Or at least print the facts the contradict whatever it is.

But in essence, she's right. If the Democratic so-called Leadership doesn't know what the Real World cares about, reading a few blogs would provide them with a valuable education.

From Prometheus 6, The White House decision process, explained at last

Ahistoricality had a post that was all about linking back to things I'd linked to so I'm linking back to that post because somewhere in my brain that created a pleasing sort of pointless circularity. But I totally appreciate the links.

Over at Republic of T, there's a post I still haven't had time to read closely enough. What's Your Platform?

November 22, 1963 I've seen quite a number of stories about today's anniversary. I don't think it's so much that a lot of years have passed as it is that there's too much going on today to take a day off to commemorate the death of one man, no matter how tragic the assassination of a sitting President might be.

While you're over at Josh Marshall's place, don't miss the news that, unable to smear Murtha out of existence any other way, the Right has decided he needs to be criminally investigated for...wait for it...ethics fraud!

He also gives house room to a nutcase Republican reader. Who seems, I should add, very rational in his own way. I say "nutcase" because...well...he seems to exemplify what "Republican" is all about these days. And I don't like it.

The idea that only a "wimp" politician allows himself to be "pushed around" by members of his party? It seems that on the Right, your party members are supposed to follow you, rather than you representing them.

The idea that it's vitally important in politics to be perceived as a dangerous enemy? Rather than bipartisanship, working out solutions that provide the best answers for the most people, and, you know, not burning bridges because your ass is going to be out of power one day soon?

In truth, it illustrates just how deeply the politics of attack, divide, and oppress have stained the fabric of the USofA's conservatism.

Billmon, over at the Whiskey Bar, seems to have turned to tequila...to eating the worm, in fact. I can't think of any reason except insanity for why he's be urging us to send Negroponte (Negroponte!) anywhere but jail. As is amply illustrated by Billmon's post, which cites some of Negroponte's (good god!) efforts on behalf of spreading peace, light, and democracy for a previous Rightwing Republican Administration.

Former official Rick Chidester, who served under Negroponte, says he was ordered to remove all mention of torture and executions from the draft of his 1982 report on the human rights situation in Honduras.

P.S. For an interesting glimpse into the waybackmachine, see these short bios on prominent rightwingers in '01. Although there's a whole roster of Wanted profiles, one thing really jumped out at me, scanning down the page.

"developing futuristic weapons to counter new types of threats emerging in the post-Soviet world."

Are we ever going to be able to view the world through any lens except the "post-Soviet world" one? Can we get over it, turn loose of our childhood traumas, and move on?

P.S. That came from the profile of Gordan England, Bush's choice for Secretary of the Navy. A man, I might add, with no "actual" military experience (how un-u-sual for the Bush Administration!) who was going to have to rely upon his corporate engineering background to do his job.

Even the General finally broke down under the accumulated weight of Republican transgressions.

And me? I'm tired, discouraged, and behind on today's chore list.

Posted by AnneZook at 01:01 PM


The holidays make me the same way.

Posted by: Lab Kat at November 22, 2005 03:13 PM

Maybe we'll confuse the spambots, anyway....

Posted by: Ahistoricality at November 22, 2005 06:12 PM

I don't get depressed because of holidays. I quite like them.

But the news...now that has the power to completely depress me.

Posted by: Anne at November 23, 2005 09:32 AM

Gordon England is the choice (and currently acting) Deputy Secretary of Defense. He was (and still is until the Senate confirms his replacement) Secretary of the Navy.

He was brought in during the early days of the Administration along with the other Secretaries of the Military Departments for his business experience. This trend to have corporate folks (although the Sec Army at the time came from business, he was also a retired Army Brigadier General) reflected the Bush "MBA" mentality and the Rumsfeld belief the Pentagon needed to bring the best of private sector practices to the Department of Defense.

I'm always amused by the posturing on both the right and left about "military experience." There is good reason why the law requires the Secretary of Defense to have 10 years removal from military service. Yes, there is a benefit to a certain percentage of executive and legislative branch having prior military experience. However, there is also a benefit to a percentage not having such service. Both sides bring advantages as well as disadvantages from their perspectives and baggage. Civilian control of the military did not come with a disclaimer of "prior experience" required. Can we get over the fact Clinton and Cheney got deferments?

As for England, whether you agree with his decisions or not, it is nice to have someone actually interesting in running the bureaucracy as opposed to thinking of only grand visions for the world or how the Pentagon can be function as both the Department of Defense and State.

As for the "post-Soviet Union" world - what's the alternative? Post-Cold War? Pre China near peer competitor world? Neo-Wilsonian era? US hegemonic era? I suppose we'll get over the term when see how this Administration's grand strategy plays out (According to John Gaddis, the Bush strategy is the most fundamental reshaping of American grand strategy since 1947). Given we passed in the 90s on how to deal with the reality of American sole superpower status, I do not find it surprising folks still revert back to terms such as "post-Soviet world."

Posted by: Col Steve at November 23, 2005 09:37 AM