Thursday, April 29, 2010
Here comes the sludge
Now it is estimated that 5,000 barrels a day are pouring out of the well in the Gulf of Mexico, not that 1,000 previously quoted. This NASA image from its Aqua satellite using its Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer shows the Louisiana coast on Tuesday.
Drill, baby, drill?
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Recapturing the suburbs
House and Senate Races in 2010
The whole House of Representatives and a third of Senate seats are on the ballot in 2010.
The 2010 election began to be discussed on Wednesday 5 November 2008. The media, politicians, everyone, it seemed, was looking ahead two years. Now it is a very hot topic.Some details of this story are quite fascinating, beginning with the degree to which the US is a suburban country.
Suburban districts now determine who holds the House, and usually the presidency as well. About half the country's population is now considered suburban, up from roughly a third in 1980. Two hundred and twenty of the 435 congressional districts are predominantly suburban, according to a 2005 study by Congressional Quarterly.
220 of 435 is 50.6%, or more than half. That shapes politics: a particular constituency is the majority of the electorate.
"If you can't win in the suburbs, you can't get to the majority. It's as simple as that," said Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the California Republican now in charge of recruiting challengers as part of his party's bid to retake the House. Currently, the Democrats have 254 House seats and a 37-seat majority.
But, what does that mean? Who are suburbanites?
The recent shift to Democrats has been fueled by a boom in suburban-dwelling immigrants and minorities, who tend to favor Democrats, and also by an influx of more liberal college-educated whites. Fairfax County is now home to six Fortune 500 companies, including General Dynamics and Gannett Corp. Nearly a third of its 1.2 million residents were born abroad.
Not the old stereotype of white Republican suburbanites; different demographics.
At bottom, the main issue for suburban voters tends to be one of competence and trustworthiness. "If you can make the case that the government is being incompetently managed, suburbanites put responsibility squarely on those in charge," said Robert Lang, who studies political demographics and suburban America at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. "And if the verdict goes against you, it can be damaging."
Democrats are suffering a loss of confidence, and the health care debacle is a large part of that: for a year they did not get it done, there was a smell about the process, and they lost the initiative. Yet the Republicans are the party of no. Whether that is enough to make electoral inroads remains to be seen.
Rep. Gerry Connolly, a liberal Democrat who won the seat by a wide margin in 2008, agrees—up to a point. "Seeing it go Republican again would be big," he said, before adding, "I don't expect that to happen."
Mr. Connolly remains deeply enmeshed in the minutiae of his district. During a recent drive, he made sure to note every playground, park, intersection, library and shopping mall he helped create while on the board of supervisors.
The 2010 election began to be discussed on Wednesday 5 November 2008. The media, politicians, everyone, it seemed, was looking ahead two years. Now it is a very hot topic.Some details of this story are quite fascinating, beginning with the degree to which the US is a suburban country.
Suburban districts now determine who holds the House, and usually the presidency as well. About half the country's population is now considered suburban, up from roughly a third in 1980. Two hundred and twenty of the 435 congressional districts are predominantly suburban, according to a 2005 study by Congressional Quarterly.
220 of 435 is 50.6%, or more than half. That shapes politics: a particular constituency is the majority of the electorate.
"If you can't win in the suburbs, you can't get to the majority. It's as simple as that," said Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the California Republican now in charge of recruiting challengers as part of his party's bid to retake the House. Currently, the Democrats have 254 House seats and a 37-seat majority.
But, what does that mean? Who are suburbanites?
The recent shift to Democrats has been fueled by a boom in suburban-dwelling immigrants and minorities, who tend to favor Democrats, and also by an influx of more liberal college-educated whites. Fairfax County is now home to six Fortune 500 companies, including General Dynamics and Gannett Corp. Nearly a third of its 1.2 million residents were born abroad.
Not the old stereotype of white Republican suburbanites; different demographics.
At bottom, the main issue for suburban voters tends to be one of competence and trustworthiness. "If you can make the case that the government is being incompetently managed, suburbanites put responsibility squarely on those in charge," said Robert Lang, who studies political demographics and suburban America at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. "And if the verdict goes against you, it can be damaging."
Democrats are suffering a loss of confidence, and the health care debacle is a large part of that: for a year they did not get it done, there was a smell about the process, and they lost the initiative. Yet the Republicans are the party of no. Whether that is enough to make electoral inroads remains to be seen.
Rep. Gerry Connolly, a liberal Democrat who won the seat by a wide margin in 2008, agrees—up to a point. "Seeing it go Republican again would be big," he said, before adding, "I don't expect that to happen."
Mr. Connolly remains deeply enmeshed in the minutiae of his district. During a recent drive, he made sure to note every playground, park, intersection, library and shopping mall he helped create while on the board of supervisors.
Immigration law boosts Arizona governor
Arizona has passed a bill authorizing police officers to stop any person the officer suspects of being an undocumented immigrant. It is causing quite an uproar. Univision news leads off its news telecasts with the story, and examines it thoroughly; Anglo news gets to it some time during the half hour. It's startling how different of a priority it is for the separate constituencies; well, not startling, truly, but it is a stark contrast.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's call to raise taxes threatened her political future, say political analysts, but her decision to crack down on illegal immigration could save it. Facing a yawning budget gap and anemic political support, Gov. Brewer stands to get a boost from her signing last week of an immigration enforcement bill ahead of this summer's Republican gubernatorial primary.
Watching a news program a couple of nights ago, or so, I saw Gover Norquist make this point. Norquist is an anti-tax actuivist, and is also on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association and the American Conservative Union. Not my type of guy, but he does make an interesting point abou the Governor. As for the rest of the Arizonans supporting this crazy scheme, I can only wonder if they truly believe that this law will work. There is a lot of anger, on both sides. Authorizing police to act as immigration agents is a dubious enterprise.
Concern about spiraling violence related to drug and human smuggling has escalated to public outrage after the death of a rancher near the U.S.-Mexico border. Polls showed Arizona voters overwhelmingly in favor of the measure, which makes illegal immigration a state crime.
The escalating violence inside of Mexico has spilled over the border on occassion. Who was responsible for that death is still an open question.
Even critics of the law said the governor's support made political sense. "Not signing it would have been political suicide," said Linda Brown, executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network, a civil-rights group. At a news conference Friday, the governor said, "We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels." She blamed the federal government for ignoring Arizona's border-related troubles.
The federal government has not dealt with the border issues properly because it is such a polarizing issue. But ignoring it does not work.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has signaled his desire to push federal legislation this year to overhaul the immigration system, including a provision paving the way to legalize millions of undocumented workers That measure is popular with Hispanic voters, who make up 15% of the electorate in Mr. Reid's home state of Nevada, where he is embroiled in a difficult re-election bid. Hispanics make up growing shares of the vote in other states with big races this year, including Colorado and Florida.
Senator Reid needs votes.
Mr. Obama, who last week called senators to build support for the federal bill, appears to welcome the debate. But the federal bill's prospects are unclear. A similar measure failed in 2007 amid opposition from conservatives, who criticized the legalization as unfair amnesty. The chief sponsor of that measure, Arizona Sen. John McCain, facing a primary challenge from the right, came out this year in support of the state measure signed by Ms. Brewer and hasn't played a role in the Senate negotiations.
Classic McCain: flip, flop.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's call to raise taxes threatened her political future, say political analysts, but her decision to crack down on illegal immigration could save it. Facing a yawning budget gap and anemic political support, Gov. Brewer stands to get a boost from her signing last week of an immigration enforcement bill ahead of this summer's Republican gubernatorial primary.
Watching a news program a couple of nights ago, or so, I saw Gover Norquist make this point. Norquist is an anti-tax actuivist, and is also on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association and the American Conservative Union. Not my type of guy, but he does make an interesting point abou the Governor. As for the rest of the Arizonans supporting this crazy scheme, I can only wonder if they truly believe that this law will work. There is a lot of anger, on both sides. Authorizing police to act as immigration agents is a dubious enterprise.
Concern about spiraling violence related to drug and human smuggling has escalated to public outrage after the death of a rancher near the U.S.-Mexico border. Polls showed Arizona voters overwhelmingly in favor of the measure, which makes illegal immigration a state crime.
The escalating violence inside of Mexico has spilled over the border on occassion. Who was responsible for that death is still an open question.
Even critics of the law said the governor's support made political sense. "Not signing it would have been political suicide," said Linda Brown, executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network, a civil-rights group. At a news conference Friday, the governor said, "We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels." She blamed the federal government for ignoring Arizona's border-related troubles.
The federal government has not dealt with the border issues properly because it is such a polarizing issue. But ignoring it does not work.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has signaled his desire to push federal legislation this year to overhaul the immigration system, including a provision paving the way to legalize millions of undocumented workers That measure is popular with Hispanic voters, who make up 15% of the electorate in Mr. Reid's home state of Nevada, where he is embroiled in a difficult re-election bid. Hispanics make up growing shares of the vote in other states with big races this year, including Colorado and Florida.
Senator Reid needs votes.
Mr. Obama, who last week called senators to build support for the federal bill, appears to welcome the debate. But the federal bill's prospects are unclear. A similar measure failed in 2007 amid opposition from conservatives, who criticized the legalization as unfair amnesty. The chief sponsor of that measure, Arizona Sen. John McCain, facing a primary challenge from the right, came out this year in support of the state measure signed by Ms. Brewer and hasn't played a role in the Senate negotiations.
Classic McCain: flip, flop.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Level playing field?
President Obama mentioned a recent Supreme Court decision that, he asserted, would allow corporate special interests to flood the election landscape with their money. Now, legislation has been proposed to counter that.
The proposed legislation, meant to address a recent Supreme Court decision that eased the rules on political television advertisements, would require groups that run campaign attack ads to disclose the names of the businesses, labor unions and other groups that fund the efforts.
However, that provision cuts both ways: the "left" is opposed, for its own special reasons, or, rather, reason: the money it gets.
advocacy groups on the left, such as the Sierra Club environmentalist group and the Alliance for Justice, a coalition of liberal organizations, are lobbying to weaken the central element of the proposed bill. They worry that it could hurt their ability to raise money.
Dilemma.
The liberal groups, along with conservative and business organizations, are concerned that wealthy individuals and entities wouldn't donate to their organizations if their names had to be disclosed. "It's a significant issue," said David Willett, a spokesman for the Sierra Club. He said that the environmental group was working to change the legislation. It was too soon, he added, to say whether or not the Sierra Club would oppose the bill. Abby Levine, deputy director of advocacy programs at the Alliance for Justice, said the group shared the Sierra Club's concerns.
Wealth should not be able to hide behind anonymity as it seeks to influence policy and elections.
The proposed legislation, meant to address a recent Supreme Court decision that eased the rules on political television advertisements, would require groups that run campaign attack ads to disclose the names of the businesses, labor unions and other groups that fund the efforts.
However, that provision cuts both ways: the "left" is opposed, for its own special reasons, or, rather, reason: the money it gets.
advocacy groups on the left, such as the Sierra Club environmentalist group and the Alliance for Justice, a coalition of liberal organizations, are lobbying to weaken the central element of the proposed bill. They worry that it could hurt their ability to raise money.
Dilemma.
The liberal groups, along with conservative and business organizations, are concerned that wealthy individuals and entities wouldn't donate to their organizations if their names had to be disclosed. "It's a significant issue," said David Willett, a spokesman for the Sierra Club. He said that the environmental group was working to change the legislation. It was too soon, he added, to say whether or not the Sierra Club would oppose the bill. Abby Levine, deputy director of advocacy programs at the Alliance for Justice, said the group shared the Sierra Club's concerns.
Wealth should not be able to hide behind anonymity as it seeks to influence policy and elections.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
LIberal?
Gary Wills reviewing David Remnick's The Bridge, discusses Barack Obama: Later, when he taught at the University of Chicago Law School, he won the respect of conservative professors there, including Richard Posner — “especially,” as Posner tells Remnick, “after one of my clerks, who had worked with him at The Harvard Law Review, told me that he wasn’t even all that liberal.” llustration by Joon Mo Kang;
photograph by Pete Souza
Barack Obama in 2004.
photograph by Pete Souza
Barack Obama in 2004.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Wisconsin National Day of Prayer Is Ruled Unconstitutional
A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional Thursday, saying the government cannot call for religious action.
Congress established the day in 1952 and in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the day for presidents to issue proclamations asking Americans to pray.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group of atheists and agnostics, filed a lawsuit against the federal government in 2008, arguing the day violated the separation of church and state.
President Barack Obama's administration has countered that the statute simply acknowledges the role of religion in the U.S.
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb said her order didn't block any prayer day until after appeals in the case are exhausted. White House spokesman Matt Lehrich said that the ruling therefore didn't prevent Mr. Obama from issuing a Day of Prayer proclamation in May and that the president will do so.
—Associated Press
A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional Thursday, saying the government cannot call for religious action.
Congress established the day in 1952 and in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the day for presidents to issue proclamations asking Americans to pray.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group of atheists and agnostics, filed a lawsuit against the federal government in 2008, arguing the day violated the separation of church and state.
President Barack Obama's administration has countered that the statute simply acknowledges the role of religion in the U.S.
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb said her order didn't block any prayer day until after appeals in the case are exhausted. White House spokesman Matt Lehrich said that the ruling therefore didn't prevent Mr. Obama from issuing a Day of Prayer proclamation in May and that the president will do so.
—Associated Press
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
U.K. election turns to U.S. for Style
Politics makes strange bedfellows is a truism, a cliché, and also true; to wit: The candidates are even bringing in American handlers to help prepare. Mr. Cameron has hired Squier Knapp Dunn Communications—a Washington-based Democratic-leaning political consultancy. Mr. Brown will limber up through role play—a common feature of U.S. debate prep. Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's former press secretary, will play Mr. Cameron.
The move comes at a moment when the U.S. and the U.K. are casting envious glances at each other when it comes to political debate. In the U.S., there is a groundswell to mimic PMQs and reinject reality into a political process that is tightly stage managed; in Britain, it is about adding civil debate to a political arena that habitually operates in full-on attack mode.
There is a picture of PM Brown speaking in Parliament during Questions, and a graphic showing 3 pairs of opponents: Gladstone and Disraeli, Callaghan and Thatcher, and Hague and Blair. The first two have barbed wit.
"If Gladstone fell into the Thames, that would be a misfortune; an dif anybody pulled him out, that I suppose would be a calamity." Victorian-era PM Benjamin Disraeli on being asked the difference between a misfortune and a calamity.
"After being called a "one-man band" by Laboutr leader James Callaghan, then-opposition leader Margaret Thatcher returned, "Is that not one more man than the government have got?"
The move comes at a moment when the U.S. and the U.K. are casting envious glances at each other when it comes to political debate. In the U.S., there is a groundswell to mimic PMQs and reinject reality into a political process that is tightly stage managed; in Britain, it is about adding civil debate to a political arena that habitually operates in full-on attack mode.
There is a picture of PM Brown speaking in Parliament during Questions, and a graphic showing 3 pairs of opponents: Gladstone and Disraeli, Callaghan and Thatcher, and Hague and Blair. The first two have barbed wit.
"If Gladstone fell into the Thames, that would be a misfortune; an dif anybody pulled him out, that I suppose would be a calamity." Victorian-era PM Benjamin Disraeli on being asked the difference between a misfortune and a calamity.
"After being called a "one-man band" by Laboutr leader James Callaghan, then-opposition leader Margaret Thatcher returned, "Is that not one more man than the government have got?"
Thursday, April 8, 2010
I am not a crook, er, maverick
In her brilliant Op-Ed column today, Gail Collins nails several points; one is Senator McCain's trying to rewrite his own political biography, telling Newsweek: “I never considered myself a maverick.” For now the Senator is in a political fight to win the nomination of the Arizona Republican party, being challenged on his right by a wingnut.
Collins continues: And if McCain wants to re-imagine the 2008 presidential campaign, he is free to give it a try. Although if you are planning to deny that you ever thought of yourself as a maverick, it would be better not to have subtitled one of your memoirs “The Education of an American Maverick.”
Indeed, the book is entitled Worth the Fighting For: The Education of an American Maverick, and the Heroes Who Inspired Him.
That second cover, from Amamzon.com, to the right of young Mac's mug reads: The education of an American Maverick and the Heroes who inspired him. Touché.
Collins continues: And if McCain wants to re-imagine the 2008 presidential campaign, he is free to give it a try. Although if you are planning to deny that you ever thought of yourself as a maverick, it would be better not to have subtitled one of your memoirs “The Education of an American Maverick.”
Indeed, the book is entitled Worth the Fighting For: The Education of an American Maverick, and the Heroes Who Inspired Him.
That second cover, from Amamzon.com, to the right of young Mac's mug reads: The education of an American Maverick and the Heroes who inspired him. Touché.
A Confederacy of Dunces
In her Op-Ed column today, Gail Collins nails it; it being putting fools out on display.
April is the cruelest month. Or, if you live in Virginia, Confederate History Month. The state is buzzing over Gov. Bob McDonnell’s proclamation urging citizens to spend the month recalling Virginia’s days as a member of the Confederate States of America. Although since McDonnell had previously turned April over to child abuse prevention, organ donation and financial literacy, perhaps it was O.K. to just pick your favorite.
The original Confederate History proclamation was a miracle of obfuscation. It did not even mention slavery. On Wednesday, the governor apologized for that and said that slavery “has left a stain on the soul of this state and nation.”
People, what’s our bottom line here. The governor of Virginia has decided to bring slavery into his overview of the history of the Confederacy. Good news, or is this setting the bar a wee bit too low? Maybe we had better be grateful for small favors. It’s been a tough time lately for those of us who take social studies seriously.
History took a hit in Texas, where the state Board of Education tried to demote Thomas Jefferson, presumably because of his enthusiasm for separation of church and state. This week, John McCain rewrote his own political biography, telling Newsweek: “I never considered myself a maverick.” And on the geography front, Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia took time during a recent Congressional hearing to express his concern that stationing additional Marines on Guam would make the island “so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.”
This jerk is in Congress? Why not. In his website he explains: “I wasn’t suggesting that the island of Guam would literally tip over,” said Johnson. “The subtle humor of this obviously metaphorical reference to a ship capsizing illustrated my concern about the impact of the planned military buildup on this small tropical island." O, I see.
Obviously, all these developments are not equally problematic. The admiral being questioned somberly assured Johnson that the military does not anticipate any island-toppling. And if McCain wants to re-imagine the 2008 presidential campaign, he is free to give it a try. Although if you are planning to deny that you ever thought of yourself as a maverick, it would be better not to have subtitled one of your memoirs “The Education of an American Maverick.”
The love affair with all things Confederate is way more worrisome. Once again, it’s in to talk secession. The Republican attorneys general are lining up to try to nullify the health care bill.
“Many issues of the Civil War are still being debated today,” said Brag Bowling of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which led the push to get that proclamation in Virginia. That seems extremely depressing, as if we were Serbs stewing about what the Turks did at the Plain of Blackbirds in 1389.
By whom are these issues being discussed? And with what degree of maturity and accuracy?
Actually, a national discussion of Civil War history sounds fine — as long as we could start by agreeing that the whole leaving-the-union thing was a terrible idea. In the proclamations, it generally sounds as if everything went swimmingly until the part where the South lost and grudgingly rejoined the country.
Some Sothrens just don't remember that We Won.
Virginia has been making big leaps lately in the category of general craziness. We all remember the Legislature’s heroic work in passing a bill to protect Virginia citizens from having microchips planted in their bodies against their will. And that the sponsor said he was concerned the chips could be a “mark of the beast” that would be used by the Antichrist at the end of days.
How did I miss that one?
Confederate History Month was promoted by former Gov. George Allen, who was fond of Confederate flag-décor and suffered from a sense of history so imperfect that he did not discover his mother was half-Jewish until he was 54. Allen’s proclamation celebrated the Civil War as “a four-year struggle for independence, sovereign rights and local government control,” with such cheer that you would really think the fight was all about zoning.
What a putz he was, the son of Richard Nixon's favourite football coach, who was recorded on video calling an Indian macaqueand thereby jettisoning his own political future.
Allen’s Democratic successors took a pass on celebrating Confederate history, while the Republicans followed his lead with differing degrees of enthusiasm. McDonnell, like Allen, seems to have a rather shaky grasp of the principles of intellectual inquiry. During last year’s campaign, reporters discovered that the master’s thesis he wrote at 34 denounced working women and feminists. McDonnell waved it off, saying that his work was “simply an academic exercise” that “clearly does not reflect my views.”
When he came up with his original proclamation this week, many people wanted to know why McDonnell didn’t say anything at all about slavery. “I wasn’t focused on that,” he explained. No, for McDonnell, Confederate History Month was all about “tourism,” so much so that slavery slipped under the carpet. This was also a theme in Georgia when the State Senate recently passed a bill to dedicate April to remembering the Confederacy. “It’s for education and to help benefit tourism in the state,” said Bowling.
What?
Have you ever noticed that tourism has been the excuse for more dreadful developments in modern history than anything but Twitter? Cheese museums. Highways to nowhere. Confederate History Month.
April 8, 2010 - Op-Ed Columnist
A Confederacy of Dunces
By GAIL COLLINS
April is the cruelest month. Or, if you live in Virginia, Confederate History Month. The state is buzzing over Gov. Bob McDonnell’s proclamation urging citizens to spend the month recalling Virginia’s days as a member of the Confederate States of America. Although since McDonnell had previously turned April over to child abuse prevention, organ donation and financial literacy, perhaps it was O.K. to just pick your favorite.
The original Confederate History proclamation was a miracle of obfuscation. It did not even mention slavery. On Wednesday, the governor apologized for that and said that slavery “has left a stain on the soul of this state and nation.”
People, what’s our bottom line here. The governor of Virginia has decided to bring slavery into his overview of the history of the Confederacy. Good news, or is this setting the bar a wee bit too low? Maybe we had better be grateful for small favors. It’s been a tough time lately for those of us who take social studies seriously.
History took a hit in Texas, where the state Board of Education tried to demote Thomas Jefferson, presumably because of his enthusiasm for separation of church and state. This week, John McCain rewrote his own political biography, telling Newsweek: “I never considered myself a maverick.” And on the geography front, Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia took time during a recent Congressional hearing to express his concern that stationing additional Marines on Guam would make the island “so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.”
This jerk is in Congress? Why not. In his website he explains: “I wasn’t suggesting that the island of Guam would literally tip over,” said Johnson. “The subtle humor of this obviously metaphorical reference to a ship capsizing illustrated my concern about the impact of the planned military buildup on this small tropical island." O, I see.
Obviously, all these developments are not equally problematic. The admiral being questioned somberly assured Johnson that the military does not anticipate any island-toppling. And if McCain wants to re-imagine the 2008 presidential campaign, he is free to give it a try. Although if you are planning to deny that you ever thought of yourself as a maverick, it would be better not to have subtitled one of your memoirs “The Education of an American Maverick.”The love affair with all things Confederate is way more worrisome. Once again, it’s in to talk secession. The Republican attorneys general are lining up to try to nullify the health care bill.
“Many issues of the Civil War are still being debated today,” said Brag Bowling of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which led the push to get that proclamation in Virginia. That seems extremely depressing, as if we were Serbs stewing about what the Turks did at the Plain of Blackbirds in 1389.
By whom are these issues being discussed? And with what degree of maturity and accuracy?
Actually, a national discussion of Civil War history sounds fine — as long as we could start by agreeing that the whole leaving-the-union thing was a terrible idea. In the proclamations, it generally sounds as if everything went swimmingly until the part where the South lost and grudgingly rejoined the country.
Some Sothrens just don't remember that We Won.
Virginia has been making big leaps lately in the category of general craziness. We all remember the Legislature’s heroic work in passing a bill to protect Virginia citizens from having microchips planted in their bodies against their will. And that the sponsor said he was concerned the chips could be a “mark of the beast” that would be used by the Antichrist at the end of days.
How did I miss that one?
Confederate History Month was promoted by former Gov. George Allen, who was fond of Confederate flag-décor and suffered from a sense of history so imperfect that he did not discover his mother was half-Jewish until he was 54. Allen’s proclamation celebrated the Civil War as “a four-year struggle for independence, sovereign rights and local government control,” with such cheer that you would really think the fight was all about zoning.
What a putz he was, the son of Richard Nixon's favourite football coach, who was recorded on video calling an Indian macaqueand thereby jettisoning his own political future.
Allen’s Democratic successors took a pass on celebrating Confederate history, while the Republicans followed his lead with differing degrees of enthusiasm. McDonnell, like Allen, seems to have a rather shaky grasp of the principles of intellectual inquiry. During last year’s campaign, reporters discovered that the master’s thesis he wrote at 34 denounced working women and feminists. McDonnell waved it off, saying that his work was “simply an academic exercise” that “clearly does not reflect my views.”
When he came up with his original proclamation this week, many people wanted to know why McDonnell didn’t say anything at all about slavery. “I wasn’t focused on that,” he explained. No, for McDonnell, Confederate History Month was all about “tourism,” so much so that slavery slipped under the carpet. This was also a theme in Georgia when the State Senate recently passed a bill to dedicate April to remembering the Confederacy. “It’s for education and to help benefit tourism in the state,” said Bowling.
What?
Have you ever noticed that tourism has been the excuse for more dreadful developments in modern history than anything but Twitter? Cheese museums. Highways to nowhere. Confederate History Month.
April 8, 2010 - Op-Ed Columnist
A Confederacy of Dunces
By GAIL COLLINS
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Like Watergate, on a shoestring
U.S. household wealth that evaporated during the financial crisis: $15 trillion.
Write-downs at the world's largest banks: $4 trillion.
Stock market value destroyed as measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average: $2.3 trillion.
The price the nation is paying to understand what caused the whole mess: priceless, right?
Actually, just $8 million.
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, headed by former California state Treasurer Phil Angelides, may have a broad mandate to investigate the causes of the financial collapse of 2008, but it has a small budget and short time frame.
The bipartisan commission and its 50-person staff has to come up with its report by mid-December.
"Not to whine or complain," Mr. Angelides said in a discussion hosted by The Wall Street Journal's editorial board Thursday, "But the Lehman examiner had a $38 million budget and 15 months to complete his report on one company."
Mr. Angelides and Vice Chairman Bill Thomas, a Republican former congressman, weren't exactly beating their chests about uncovering a bombshell.
"I believe we are doing a pretty decent job," Mr. Thomas said. "We are only looking at the tip of the iceberg."
Modeled after the commission that investigated the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the financial commission was set up by Congress with six members appointed by Democrats and four appointed by Republicans. (The 9/11 commission consisted of five Democrats and five Republicans, and had a budget of $15 million.) Mr. Angelides, a Democrat, said the goal is to have unanimous approval of the report by the time it is released. So far, there have been no big squabbles along partisan lines, he said.
Messrs. Angelides and Thomas agreed that, after interviewing about 200 people, the most surprising observation is how little bankers and regulators knew about the long-term consequences of their financial products. "Or they knew what would happen and they failed to act," Mr. Angelides said.
The commission can subpoena regulators and bankers, but hasn't used that power. "We've come close to the edge" in terms of issuing a subpoena, Mr. Thomas said. They also are relying on the increasing number of books that have been written about the crisis or people in the process of writing books.
Next up before the committee on Wednesday and Thursday is a session on subprime lending starring former Citigroup CEO Charles Prince and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
When asked whether the commission would be digging into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's role into the subprime-lending calamity, Mr. Angelides said, "We are going to scrub them hard."
Will Goldman Sachs Group, whose CEO Mr. Angelides likened to a used-car salesman at the commission's first hearing in January, be making another appearance? On this, Mr. Angelides kept us in suspense.
By MICHAEL CORKERY
* DEAL JOURNAL
* APRIL 1, 2010, 8:31 P.M. ET
Breaking Insight From WSJ.com
Like Watergate, On a Shoestring
Panel Will Try to Explain Global Financial Crisis On an $8 Million Budget
Write-downs at the world's largest banks: $4 trillion.
Stock market value destroyed as measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average: $2.3 trillion.
The price the nation is paying to understand what caused the whole mess: priceless, right?
Actually, just $8 million.
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, headed by former California state Treasurer Phil Angelides, may have a broad mandate to investigate the causes of the financial collapse of 2008, but it has a small budget and short time frame.
The bipartisan commission and its 50-person staff has to come up with its report by mid-December.
"Not to whine or complain," Mr. Angelides said in a discussion hosted by The Wall Street Journal's editorial board Thursday, "But the Lehman examiner had a $38 million budget and 15 months to complete his report on one company."
Mr. Angelides and Vice Chairman Bill Thomas, a Republican former congressman, weren't exactly beating their chests about uncovering a bombshell.
"I believe we are doing a pretty decent job," Mr. Thomas said. "We are only looking at the tip of the iceberg."
Modeled after the commission that investigated the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the financial commission was set up by Congress with six members appointed by Democrats and four appointed by Republicans. (The 9/11 commission consisted of five Democrats and five Republicans, and had a budget of $15 million.) Mr. Angelides, a Democrat, said the goal is to have unanimous approval of the report by the time it is released. So far, there have been no big squabbles along partisan lines, he said.
Messrs. Angelides and Thomas agreed that, after interviewing about 200 people, the most surprising observation is how little bankers and regulators knew about the long-term consequences of their financial products. "Or they knew what would happen and they failed to act," Mr. Angelides said.
The commission can subpoena regulators and bankers, but hasn't used that power. "We've come close to the edge" in terms of issuing a subpoena, Mr. Thomas said. They also are relying on the increasing number of books that have been written about the crisis or people in the process of writing books.
Next up before the committee on Wednesday and Thursday is a session on subprime lending starring former Citigroup CEO Charles Prince and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
When asked whether the commission would be digging into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's role into the subprime-lending calamity, Mr. Angelides said, "We are going to scrub them hard."
Will Goldman Sachs Group, whose CEO Mr. Angelides likened to a used-car salesman at the commission's first hearing in January, be making another appearance? On this, Mr. Angelides kept us in suspense.
By MICHAEL CORKERY
* DEAL JOURNAL
* APRIL 1, 2010, 8:31 P.M. ET
Breaking Insight From WSJ.com
Like Watergate, On a Shoestring
Panel Will Try to Explain Global Financial Crisis On an $8 Million Budget
Hu to visit
Andy Rothman, a former U.S. diplomat who is now a strategist for the brokerage CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets in Shanghai, said the announced visit "almost guarantees" that the White House has decided against officially pressing the issue.
That seems interesting: a former diplomat now a strategist.
"There is a possibility that the U.S. won't label China a currency manipulator as a return for China's compromise on the Iran issue, plus President Hu's visit to Washington for the nuclear security summit," said Shi Yinhong, a professor of international relations at Renmin University in Beijing. "I think it would be best for the U.S. Treasury not to name China a currency manipulator, as otherwise China will see another surge of anti-American sentiment among the public."
A second story, on the relationship between China and Iran, contains an interesting quote:
Guo Xiangang, a foreign-policy analyst at the China Institute of International Studies, said he doesn't think China's position is changing. Rather, he suggests U.S. officials are trying to demonstrate progress on Iran for political reasons. U.S. President Barack Obama "needs to raise his domestic profile," said Mr. Guo, whose institute is affiliated with the government. "He has gotten a lot of criticism from people saying he is too soft on Iran...So these statements that China is moving closer are for a domestic audience."
The relationship between Iran and China is extensive, and China has not supported calls for strong sanctions against Iran.
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator came to Beijing for talks amid signs of headway in the U.S.-led effort to secure backing for sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear program. Saeed Jalili arrived Thursday in the Chinese capital for his second official visit in two years. He was scheduled to meet with State Councilor Dai Bingguo and Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi before holding a news conference in Beijing late Friday.
China has some leverage on Iran, if only by virtue of not kowtowing to the US line.
But the talks come amid signs that Beijing may be easing its resistance to a fresh round of United Nations sanctions against Iran. On Wednesday, China participated in a conference call with the four other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany—known as the "P-5 plus 1"—to discuss a possible sanctions resolution. China in that call reaffirmed a commitment it made in a similar call last week to negotiations on the text of a possible resolution.
Why Germany is not a permanent member of the UN Security Council is a question without a good answer. WW2 is long over, and it is past time for realigning the global diplomatic schema.
Mr. Jalili is the latest diplomat to visit China to solicit its backing, underscoring how the Iran dispute has strengthened Beijing's international clout. In February, Israel sent officials to persuade Beijing of Iran's weapons ambitions; visitors in March included top China officials from the U.S. State Department and National Security Council, as well as U.K. Foreign Secretary David Miliband.
China is the second strongest country in the world, after the US.
China and Iran have extensive ties, particularly in the energy sector. China is the world's second-biggest oil consumer after the U.S., and last year overtook Japan as Iran's top crude-oil buyer. Iran accounts for about 8% of China's oil imports.
... last week's conference call marked China's first participation since mid-January in such a meeting about Iran with the other permanent Security Council members and Germany. It came after the U.S. backed away from pursuing several tough measures—including efforts aimed at choking off Iran's access to international banking services and capital markets and restricting its national air-cargo and shipping lines—to win support from China and Russia for a new sanctions resolution, people familiar with the situation said last week. Several analysts say the China-Iran relationship is shifting somewhat, in ways that could erode Beijing's sense of obligation to Tehran.
China is building a big presence in neighboring Iraq, where Chinese oil companies have signed a string of deals that could overshadow the Iranian supply in a few years. In the first two months of the year, China imported nearly 40% less oil from Iran than it did during the same period last year, and bought more oil from other countries. Monthly figures can be misleading, but Chinese oil companies have been struggling in Iran amid Tehran's unattractive commercial terms and sanctions that make it difficult to get parts for complex projects.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Obama Betrays the Left Again
As if he owes them anything. He has to govern for all Americans. Lefties and righties just don't get it. Still.
Obama Betrays the Left Again. Eric Alterman. March 31, 2010 | 10:41pm
The left is raging about the president’s new plan to jump-start offshore drilling. Eric Alterman on why liberals just don’t get who they’re dealing with.
The first person quoted in John Broder’s New York Times story on President Obama’s decision, announced Wednesday, to start drilling for oil and gas, beginning in 2012, along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska was Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. His statement read: “Drilling our coasts will doing nothing to lower gas prices or create energy independence. It will only jeopardize beaches, marine life, and coastal tourist economies, all so the oil industry can make a short-term profit.” Actually, that the Sierra Club opposes offshore drilling is not exactly news. If the Sierra Club liked a plan to drill offshore for oil and gas, now that would be news!
Like his decision to double down on the war in Afghanistan, together with his embrace of nuclear power, Obama is reminding doctrinaire liberals and progressives that while he likes them just fine, and hopes they like him too, he is not one of them; not when it’s politically inconvenient anyway. Liberals were all set to paint Obama as “their Reagan.” But this is deeply misguided. Yes, deep down he’s a liberal, but an intensely pragmatic one. As David Remnick demonstrates in his masterful new biography, The Bridge, Obama is unlikely to hold on to deeply ideological views with a goal of reordering American politics from top to bottom. He prefers to take what’s on the table.
So if the Sierra Club is unhappy, that’s OK with Obama. So too the environmental group Oceana. (“We’re appalled that the president is unleashing a wholesale assault on the ocean”) or Environment America (“It makes no sense to threaten our beaches, wildlife, and tourism industry with spills and other drilling disasters when we’re about to unleash the real solutions to oil dependence—cleaner cars and cleaner fuels."). Let alone Greenpeace (“Is this President Obama's clean energy plan or Palin's drill baby drill campaign?").
Amazing how pissed off doctrinaire liberals such as these bozos and doctrinaire right-wingers sich as the WSK bozo Henninger bothare at the same President for the same thing. He must be doing something right (er, correct).
Much more interesting to Obama is a plan that splits Republicans and leaves them wondering what to do next. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), sensing a trap, wanted to know if “the administration [would] actually take concrete steps to finish the studies, approve the necessary permits, and open these areas for production?” His counterpart in the House, John Boehner (R-OH) was having none of it, and played to perfection the “Dr. No” role in which Obama undoubtedly sought to cast him.
"At the same time the White House makes today’s announcement,” Boehner complained, “the Environmental Protection Agency is plotting a new massive job-killer that the American people can’t afford: a cascade of new EPA regulations that will punish every American who dares to flip on a light switch, drive a car, or buy an American product. Americans simply don’t want this backdoor national energy tax that will drive up energy and manufacturing costs and destroy jobs in our states and local communities." (He forgot to mention the new Obama regulations on frogs, vermin, pestilence, and the death of Republicans’ first born.)
McConnell might be right. This could be a trap. As the Times explains, “the Interior Department will spend several years conducting geologic and environmental studies along the rest of the southern and central Atlantic seaboard. If a tract is deemed suitable for development, it is listed for sale in a competitive bidding system. The next lease sales—if any are authorized by the Interior Department—would not be held before 2012.” In the meantime, Senate Democrats can define the debate in a way that works best for them. Right now the administration’s “cap and trade plan,” inadequate and corporate friendly as it is, is deader than Jimmy Hoffa. If this jump-starts that bill by peeling off a few oil-and-gas sensitive conservative Democrats and possibly even a Republican or two (Lisa Murkowski looks like a maybe), then Obama might be able to create the conditions for a deal to revive it—particularly if Republicans start to grow nervous about their “No, No Nanette” electoral strategy going into the fall. (Obama has repeatedly said that lifting the ban would always be considered part of an overall energy and conservation strategy.) And if not, well, the permits are four years away and Obama and the Democrats can at least claim to have defanged the issue of rising gas prices going into November.
But if that’s the plan, then why pre-empt with a concession? Where’s the strategy of giving away something and getting nothing? With no hope of challenging Obama from the left, liberals are, once again, left with unenviable choice of trusting that Obama has figured out something they haven’t and has a plan for how to get it.
In other words, “Hope.”
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
Obama Betrays the Left Again. Eric Alterman. March 31, 2010 | 10:41pm
The left is raging about the president’s new plan to jump-start offshore drilling. Eric Alterman on why liberals just don’t get who they’re dealing with.
The first person quoted in John Broder’s New York Times story on President Obama’s decision, announced Wednesday, to start drilling for oil and gas, beginning in 2012, along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska was Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. His statement read: “Drilling our coasts will doing nothing to lower gas prices or create energy independence. It will only jeopardize beaches, marine life, and coastal tourist economies, all so the oil industry can make a short-term profit.” Actually, that the Sierra Club opposes offshore drilling is not exactly news. If the Sierra Club liked a plan to drill offshore for oil and gas, now that would be news!
Like his decision to double down on the war in Afghanistan, together with his embrace of nuclear power, Obama is reminding doctrinaire liberals and progressives that while he likes them just fine, and hopes they like him too, he is not one of them; not when it’s politically inconvenient anyway. Liberals were all set to paint Obama as “their Reagan.” But this is deeply misguided. Yes, deep down he’s a liberal, but an intensely pragmatic one. As David Remnick demonstrates in his masterful new biography, The Bridge, Obama is unlikely to hold on to deeply ideological views with a goal of reordering American politics from top to bottom. He prefers to take what’s on the table.
So if the Sierra Club is unhappy, that’s OK with Obama. So too the environmental group Oceana. (“We’re appalled that the president is unleashing a wholesale assault on the ocean”) or Environment America (“It makes no sense to threaten our beaches, wildlife, and tourism industry with spills and other drilling disasters when we’re about to unleash the real solutions to oil dependence—cleaner cars and cleaner fuels."). Let alone Greenpeace (“Is this President Obama's clean energy plan or Palin's drill baby drill campaign?").
Amazing how pissed off doctrinaire liberals such as these bozos and doctrinaire right-wingers sich as the WSK bozo Henninger bothare at the same President for the same thing. He must be doing something right (er, correct).
Much more interesting to Obama is a plan that splits Republicans and leaves them wondering what to do next. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), sensing a trap, wanted to know if “the administration [would] actually take concrete steps to finish the studies, approve the necessary permits, and open these areas for production?” His counterpart in the House, John Boehner (R-OH) was having none of it, and played to perfection the “Dr. No” role in which Obama undoubtedly sought to cast him.
"At the same time the White House makes today’s announcement,” Boehner complained, “the Environmental Protection Agency is plotting a new massive job-killer that the American people can’t afford: a cascade of new EPA regulations that will punish every American who dares to flip on a light switch, drive a car, or buy an American product. Americans simply don’t want this backdoor national energy tax that will drive up energy and manufacturing costs and destroy jobs in our states and local communities." (He forgot to mention the new Obama regulations on frogs, vermin, pestilence, and the death of Republicans’ first born.)
McConnell might be right. This could be a trap. As the Times explains, “the Interior Department will spend several years conducting geologic and environmental studies along the rest of the southern and central Atlantic seaboard. If a tract is deemed suitable for development, it is listed for sale in a competitive bidding system. The next lease sales—if any are authorized by the Interior Department—would not be held before 2012.” In the meantime, Senate Democrats can define the debate in a way that works best for them. Right now the administration’s “cap and trade plan,” inadequate and corporate friendly as it is, is deader than Jimmy Hoffa. If this jump-starts that bill by peeling off a few oil-and-gas sensitive conservative Democrats and possibly even a Republican or two (Lisa Murkowski looks like a maybe), then Obama might be able to create the conditions for a deal to revive it—particularly if Republicans start to grow nervous about their “No, No Nanette” electoral strategy going into the fall. (Obama has repeatedly said that lifting the ban would always be considered part of an overall energy and conservation strategy.) And if not, well, the permits are four years away and Obama and the Democrats can at least claim to have defanged the issue of rising gas prices going into November.
But if that’s the plan, then why pre-empt with a concession? Where’s the strategy of giving away something and getting nothing? With no hope of challenging Obama from the left, liberals are, once again, left with unenviable choice of trusting that Obama has figured out something they haven’t and has a plan for how to get it.
In other words, “Hope.”
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
