Skip to content

What we’re up against, part 2 of …

Friday, April 11, 2008

This is the most absurd anti-Democrat spin I’ve heard of to date:

Now they’re making up weird new rules as they go along. Here’s the money quote from the video:

And it’s just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, “Here, have some coffee,” you say, “Yes, thank you,” and, “Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?” You don’t just say, “No, I’ll take orange juice,” and then turn away and start shaking hands.

Who knew? Most likely, Chris Matthews didn’t know about that rule until it came out of his mouth.

This is all part of one media narrative. Obama is an elitist who can’t bowl and doesn’t know how to eat at a diner. He’s not like “us” media folks who understand Joe Lunchpail. (Pay no attention to our million dollar paychecks and summer homes in Nantucket.) It’s not just Chris Matthews, though he’s the leader of the pack on this meme. Gail Collins, at the New York Times, finds Obama “disturbingly Ivy League“. This “posh Ivy League elitist not man of the people” narrative, by the way, coexists comfortably with the Obama as radical America hater narrative. Do they contradict themselves? Very well, they contradict themselves.

Filed in Media, Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

Good eating at my alma mater

Thursday, April 10, 2008

The New York Times published two articles recently about the quality of the cuisine at my Alma Mater, Bowdoin College in Bruswick, ME. We alums have always known that Bowdoin was the best school in the country, but it has not always had the best food. Now it is at the top of both heaps.

You can read about the culinary delights to be had at the school here and here.

Justin Foster, a freshman from Memphis, was surprised at the variety and the quality he found at Bowdoin. “White spinach lasagna, eggplant parm, ratatouille, Honolulu tofu with rice and peppers, sweet potato fries,” he reeled off his favorite dishes, “and they make a really good rum cake, too. Vegans, vegetarians — the cooks make it easy for those students with that lifestyle, and I appreciate the food more, knowing they’re making a real effort to be green, to use organic food, to be environmentally friendly.”

[Dining Director Mary Lou] Kennedy said: “First, our cooks know how to cook. All of our soups are from scratch. We have Fair Trade coffee locally roasted. We have our own butcher who grinds the meat for our hamburgers, and 20 percent of our food budget is locally sourced.”

Bowdoin has two organic gardens, begun five years ago as a student project and now in the hands of a farm manager. Last year they supplied more than $20,000 of herbs and vegetables, with the surplus sold at an on-campus farmers’ market.

Both articles point out that the yearly bill to parents for this food is a number approximately equal to the entire cost of a Bowdoin education (tuition, room and board) in the prehistoric period when I attended the school. In any event, I am not jealous, nor do I begrudge my academic descendants their gourmet meals. In my day, the food built character, particularly at my financially strapped fraternity (it folded while I was there), where the cook developed a tuna fish sandwich featuring pourable tuna, made possible by the proportion of mayo to tuna in the recipe. The menu also featured such delicacies as Shepherd’s Pie (a great way to recycle) and an oft served meat identified as lamb, something no one was ever able to verify. Yes, the food built character. These kids have it far too easy:

The Web site www.collegeprowler.com, which has more than 180,000 visitors a month and publishes college guides, just named Bowdoin “School of the Year.”

“After the warm atmosphere and amazing faculty, students cited the food as their favorite thing about the college,” the site’s co-founder, Luke Skurman, said in an interview. “After I visited, I understood why.

“The dining halls post the students’ comment cards. One read, ‘Would it be possible for you to make pumpkin chocolate muffins?’ Underneath, the reply was, ‘Please expect to see them every Monday morning.’ ”

Is that any way to prepare these kids for the cold, hard world they are about to enter? They’ll expect a life full of pumpkin chocolate muffins, when they’re more likely to get pourable tuna.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Garry Wills on Lincoln and Obama

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Garry Wills is one of my favorite writers. In the most recent New York Review of Books he makes the case that the best comparison to Obama’s recent speech on race is to Lincoln’s Cooper Union Speech, not to JFK’s speech on religion or FDR’s First Inaugural. Wills points out that both men faced similar challenges:

The most damaging charge against each was an alleged connection with unpatriotic and potentially violent radicals. Lincoln’s Republican Party was accused of supporting abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison, who burned the Constitution, or John Brown, who took arms against United States troops, or those who rejected the Supreme Court because of its Dred Scott decision. Obama was suspected of Muslim associations and of following the teachings of an inflammatory preacher who damned the United States. How to face such charges? Each decided to address them openly in a prominent national venue, well before their parties’ nominating conventions—Lincoln at the Cooper Union in New York, Obama at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

The article must be read in full. Wills makes the point that both men successfully distanced themselves, in principled fashion, from the excesses of those with whom they were, in many ways, in fundamental agreement. Wills is too good a writer, and the points he makes are too nuanced to lend themselves to easy synopsis, but his concluding paragraphs make his overall point well:

Lincoln faced a greater challenge— the threat of national disintegration— and he had to make commensurately greater concessions, like granting the South its claim to constitutional protection of slavery. The extremist in his attic, John Brown, had not only spoken wild words but taken up weapons and killed men. Lincoln was under strong pressures to trash Brown, but he knew this would serve no useful purpose.

In his prose, Obama of necessity lagged far behind the resplendent Lincoln. But what is of lasting interest is their similar strategy for meeting the charge of extremism. Both argued against the politics of fear. Neither denied the darker aspects of our history, yet they held out hope for what Lincoln called here the better “lights of current experience”—what he would later call the “better angels of our nature.” Each looked for larger patterns under the surface bitternesses of their day. Each forged a moral position that rose above the occasions for their speaking.

Wouldn’t it be nice to once again have a president who can cope with complexity, both internally and in the way s/he communicates with the American people. Obama took the chance of treating the American people like intelligent people who could transcend sloganeering. It actually appears to have worked, at least partly. Maybe there really is hope.

Filed in Politics, Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

Jodi-out of the loop

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Only Jodi Rell, rumored to be the most popular governor in the nation, could get away with criticizing herself. Two days ago, the Democrats complained that they’d been kept in the dark about the rising cost of a railroad maintenance facility in New Haven. This seems fair on their part. It was, after all, officials in Rell’s administration that hid the rising costs from the legislators.

Never to be outdone, or on the wrong side of an issue, the governor now claims that she too is outraged by the actions of her own administration. Apparently, no one in her administration bothered to tell her about the $250 million in extra costs. More than likely they figured there was no need to go any higher than Lisa Moody. What a luxury for Rell, she even gets to attack her own administration as if she’s a passive bystander to events.

Did I say “as if”? That’s unfair to Jodi. She in fact is a passive bystander so she has a perfect right to act the part.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (1)

New Moveon Video

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suNqiAgE1kw[/youtube]

Filed in Iraq, Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

Revising and expanding my remarks

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Yesterday I mentioned that McCain might find it easier still to get away with the lies that he tells about Iraq if he could keep some basic stuff, like the difference between Shiite and Sunni straight. He put his ignorance on display when he confused Sunni and Shiite yet again in his questions to Bush’s puppet general.

But embedded it that exchange was a larger deception, one I am convinced is not the result of mere ignorance, but is part of a deliberate, if so far blessedly unsuccessful strategy, the object of which is to scare the American people into supporting this absurd war. McCain got the tame general to say that Al Qaeda in Iraq, be it Sunni or Shiite, was a major threat. He did not clarify what it threatened, but can we assume that it is allegedly a threat to our “goal” of a democratic Iraq.

McCain and his ilk have seized on this group for one reason and one reason only: the bogeyman effect. The group shares a name with Osama bin Laden’s group, so repeating that name is bound to ratchet up the twin emotions of fear and loathing. Never mind that it is a minor player in Iraq, never mind that it lacks support even among Sunnis. Ignore also the fact that its presence in Iraq has been vastly overstated or that it is probably the first group that will be crushed by whoever takes over after we leave.

It is sufficient for McCain that he can use the term “Al Qaeda”, implicitly reinforcing the discredited connection between Iraq and Osama bin Laden. Since this is McCain, his inability to separate Shiite from Sunni garners whatever negative media attention he might get. The fact that he, along with Petreaus, Bush and the usual cast of crazies (including St. Joe) are pumping up a fringe group, gets no media attention at all. The importance of Al Qaeda in Iraq is one of those articles of faith which cannot be questioned, like the oft repeated but untrue assertion that the world is better off without Saddam in Iraq. Constant repetition doesn’t make something true, but it can make it truthy, and that’s all that matters.

Filed in Iraq, Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

Michael Ware reacts to Petreaus testimony

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Michael Ware tells the truth on television:

One must wonder why they can’t find guys with brains like that to put in front of the camera on a day to day basis, instead of brain dead people like Blitzer. Or does the comfortable life inside the Beltway cause brain death in formerly intelligent people?

Ware is right. Obama wasn’t bad, but the truth is that all of these people are engaged in an elaborate Kabuki show. Petreaus pretends to be telling the truth, knowing full well that all the Senators know he’s lying. They pretend to take him at his word. They make ritual obeisance to his uniform (How far we have travelled from the founder’s suspicion of a standing army). They ask questions they know he will not fully answer. He gives them answers that he knows they know are misleading, incomplete and disingenuous. After it’s done they all shake hands and smile.

Interesting note: the clip goes on to shows a teaser about John Hagee, the McCain loving bigot. I’d be interested to see the whole thing.

Filed in Iraq | | Comments (0)

Another Lieberman Lie exposed

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Joe Lieberman is a man of integrity. Just ask anyone, as long as the person you are asking is Joe Lieberman. He’ll tell you.

He would never, for instance, accuse anyone of something on the basis of exactly no evidence, would he? Well, as we all know, he would, as long as that person is a Democrat, and now we have proof positive from the Justice Department (you can rely on this evidence, they didn’t want to release it) that he did just that.

Congrats to the Stamford Advocate for not forgetting this story:

A federal investigation has concluded that U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s 2006 re-election campaign was to blame for the crash of its Web site the day before Connecticut’s heated Aug. 8 Democratic primary.

The FBI office in New Haven found no evidence supporting the Lieberman campaign’s allegations that supporters of primary challenger Ned Lamont of Greenwich were to blame for the Web site crash.

Lieberman, who was fighting for his political life against the anti-Iraq war candidate Lamont, implied that joe2006.com was hacked by Lamont supporters.

Actually, he didn’t “imply” anything. He out and out accused Ned or his supporters of hacking his site. They correctly replied that his site sucked and it was his own fault.

The Advocate had to wait a year for its FOIA request to be honored. Could it be that the Justice Department didn’t want to embarass “Democrat” Joe?

Speaking of Joe, it’s good to know that the voters of Connecticut have buyer’s remorse big time. If they could have a do over, Ned Lamont would be our senator.

Now, if only the Senate Democrats would get a little religion. I have a dinner riding on this, but I still hate to win my bet. Harry Reid has said that Joe will keep his seniority and chairmanships, no matter how much he betrays “his” caucus.

Filed in Lieberman | | Comments (0)

Keeping the players straight

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

According to an email I received today from Howard Dean (we go way back, he emails me almost every day) John McCain once again mixed up Shiites and Sunnis, proving once again that he is as much of an expert on the region as George Bush or Bill Kristol, who more than once told us, before the war, that there was little chance that these groups would have at one another.

On at least one of the occasions McCain messed up, he caught himself, sort of (see the first link above), but he needn’t have bothered. McCain has made a habit of confusing Sunnis and Shiites, along with spouting other blather about Iraq (such as his absurd claim that it was Sadr that backed down recently), but he gets a free pass for his “gaffes” from a press corps that would crucify either Clinton or Obama for saying the same things. This cuts two ways for McCain. He is fully aware that he is immune from the need to be either consistent or honest, so he doesn’t stay on his toes. So far he’s paid no price for his stupidity, but he really can’t afford to get lazy. You never know. The Democrats might get a clue and start coordinating their message.

So, if only for forms sake, McCain might want to bone up a little on the region. So far as the Sunni-Shiite thing goes, he might start with a little mnemonic my wife taught me. Saddam was a Sunni, so remember him as Sunny Saddam. Then, when you’re trying to remember who’s who, think of Sunny Saddam, and your there. It does get tougher from there, but it’s still pretty easy if you remember some very basic history.

Case in point: McCain can’t remember whether Al Qaeda is Shiite or Sunni. Well, first start with Sunny Saddam. Now you know who the Sunnis are, they’re the Saddamites. Step two: Recall that Al Qaeda are terrorists. Now, just remember that Saddam was not harboring terrorists, and boom, you’ve got it, Al Qaeda must be Sunnis. And they are. This works for me every time and it could work for McCain. If he kept those basic facts straight he’d have even an easier time getting away with the lies he’s telling about the progress of the war itself. As it is, even given the obsequious press that he gets, someone may notice that he doesn’t have the basic stuff down. And it’s not that hard, after all. Even lying Joe Lieberman can remember this stuff.

I note that at the link above, there is a quote from the McCain campaign to the effect that McCain stumbled during his questioning and then corrected himself. In fact, if you watch the video, also at the link, you’ll see that it is just as likely that he wasn’t sure who Al Qaeda was, so he figured he’d cover his bets. Here’s the exchange:

MCCAIN: Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?

PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago.

MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi’ites overall?

PETREAUS: No.

MCCAIN: Or Sunnis or anybody else.

He didn’t correct himself. He still wasn’t sure. The “or anybody else” gives that away. He was just barely smart enough to figure that his first statement might have been wrong, so if he added the second he could sufficiently confuse the issue.

Filed in Media, Presidential Politics, The Real McCain | | Comments (0)

More nonsense from the Senate

Monday, April 7, 2008

“There are two things you will never wish to watch: the making of sausage and the making of legislation.”

The above has apparently been variously attributed, but no matter who said it, it was a base canard against all the honorable sausage makers out there.

I commented before on the Senate’s foreclosure prevention bill, which contains an absurd tax break for homebuilders. Apparently, that is not the only bit of mischief our lawmakers have put into this bill. Dean Baker points with approval to this editorial in the Washington Post, which exposes yet another piece of idiocy in the bill:

We refer to a $7,000 tax credit (payable over two years) to anyone who purchases a foreclosed home within a year of the proposal’s enactment. Supposedly, this would help clear the nation’s swollen inventory of repossessed properties, thus propping up home prices more generally. Here’s the catch. For lenders as well as borrowers, foreclosure is an expensive hassle. If at all possible, most banks would rather avoid repossessing a house, which they must then try to resell. But, by making it cheaper to buy a foreclosed house than a comparable unforeclosed property, the tax credit makes it more feasible to sell one. The cost and hassle — for the lender — of foreclosure go down, and the benefits go up. Other things being equal, lenders would be that much more likely to foreclose — rather than to help homeowners stay in their houses on modified terms.

I haven’t read the bill, and my inherent laziness prevents me from doing so, but if it applies to persons buying at foreclosure sales, such as we have here in Connecticut, it would allow the banks, who often bid in their own foreclosure sales, to pocket the tax break.

By the way, the Post also has something to say about the tax break I mentioned on Thursday:

Perhaps the only provision that’s more objectionable is the bill’s $6 billion tax break for money-losing home builders — who threatened not to give any more campaign money when they got shut out of the economic stimulus bill in February.

Those homebuilders withholding their contributions are likely not the guys who build one or two spec houses a year. They are the giant developers, who made big bucks in an unholy alliance with the subprime people.

I would like to think that provisions like this are the price the Democrats must pay for getting sufficient votes to pass an otherwise needed bill, but even I am not that much of a true believer.

Filed in Economics | | Comments (0)