Skip to content

How I spent my Saturday

Sunday, December 30, 2007

I went a whole day yesterday without turning on my computer. My family and I, along with my sisters and their kids, went to New York to see a play and drop a ton of money on a couple of restaurants. Unfortunately, my brother in law was not with us, so I have no one to cajole into writing a review of the play, which he most likely would have panned anyway, had he seen it.

We went to Is He Dead?, a farce written by Mark Twain in 1898. It was an extremely silly play, the premise of which is that Jean-François Millet (a then deceased French artist) had faked his own death increase the value of his paintings. In order to collect the cash, he posed as his own sister, appropriately cross-dressed. Needless to say, at the time the French were not amused. The play was never performed during Twain’s lifetime, though the original plan was for simultaneous openings in New York and London.

The Times, to whose review I have linked above, gave the play a generally favorable review. I’m easily satisfied. It has some good laughs, and I think most people left the play smiling. The actors played it just right, right down to the Snidely Whiplash-like bad guy, complete with all black suit, black hat and sinister mustache.

Filed in The Arts | | Comments (1)

Say what?

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Per usual, the South Carolina Republican primary promises to be nasty. Latest case in point is a bogus holiday card purportedly sent by Mitt Romney that brings to light some of the doctrines of the Mormons that some Christians might call heretical, while the rest of us would just call them delusional. Be that as it may, I got a kick out of this:

Such a mailing isn’t surprising for South Carolina politics, a state known for political mudslinging and backdoor maneuvering.

Those tactics backfire, said Warren Tompkins, a political consultant who ran George Bush’s 2000 campaign in South Carolina and now is Romney’s top consultant in the state. “Anything this outrageous and childish and nonsensical would have a significant fallout on whoever did it and on whose behalf it was done,” Tompkins said.

Wouldn’t that be the same Warren Tompkins who ran the campaign in South Carolina that anonymously smeared John McCain by spreading a rumour that he had fathered a black child? As Tompkins must know, that smear worked all too well. McCain’s substantial lead melted like snow on a warm spring day and Tompkins, with considerable help from the invisible hands of Karl Rove, gave us the gift of George Bush.

It’s great to see Republicans forming their own circular firing squad. One must wonder, however, why the reporter in this instance let Tompkins’ statement go unchallenged.

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (4)

I demand a column in the New York Times

Friday, December 28, 2007

The newspaper of record is about to hire Bill Kristol to regularly ooze political poison on its op-ed page..

Is it too much to ask that the Times at least try to hire people who know what they’re talking about? Here, I set Maureen Dowd to the side, as her columns are all really about herself. Kristol has a proven track record of being wrong almost all the time. For this he is rewarded with near constant exposure in the mass media. With the exception of Steven Colbert, no one has ever called him on his dismal record. Now he is given the most coveted journalistic real estate in the land.

I would be willing to bet that if you stacked my predictions or observations against his, you would find that I have been right more often than he. And I only do this part time, sandwiched in between too many hours of honest work and too few hours of sleep. I realize that I am merely the son of a working stiff, instead of the son of a famous neocon who was also always wrong, but fair is fair. We people who are right most of the time deserve equal time. No, I take that back. We deserve more than equal time. Krugman and Herbert are not enough. The Times needs me, and I could use the cash.

Seriously, the Times appears to be a bit confused in its journalistic obligations. There is no obligation to balance truth with error. I have no objection to presenting a wide range of viewpoints, but is there any justification for giving a forum to a warmonger who is always, consistently, invariably, totally, absolutely, downright, flat, out-and-out, perfectly, plainly, thoroughly, unequivocally, unqualifiedly, unrelievedly, unreservedly wrong?

Filed in Media | | Comments (1)

Drinking Liberally in Mystic, Take 2

Friday, December 28, 2007

So far, response to our announcement about the inaugural meeting of the Southeastern Connecticut chapter of Drinking Liberally has been good. It looks like we may have a pretty good crowd.

Both Representative Betsy Ritter and State Senator Andy Maynard are going to try to make it. Andy suggests that we make predictions on the caucus results, which might be sort of fun. For that matter, if we have enough people, we can hold a caucus of our own. It would be interesting to see where people are on the various Democratic candidates.

For those who didn’t see my prior post on this, we are trying to organize a Drink Liberally chapter in this area. First meeting is at 6:30 PM on Thursday, January 3rd, at the Harp and Hound Pub, Pearl Street, Mystic. All are invited, as long as they are willing to drink, and they’re liberal.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Choosing evil, the Republican way

Friday, December 28, 2007

Much is being made in the blogosphere today about the article in this morning’s Times in which we learn that Rudy tried to help Purdue Pharma stave off federal prosecution for misleading pretty much everyone about the dangers of Oxycontin. The tale is sordid, and apparently not unique. As one blogster noted (I can’t remember which), Rudy was in the business of selling his reputation, and only criminals needed to buy. Why anyone with sense would have bought into that reputation is another matter, but not the subject of this piece.

Rather, we must consider the following. Osama bin Laden gave Rudy the world’s best going away present. Had the attack never taken place, Rudy would have been a mildly successful, albeit widely loathed ex-Mayor of New York, a “liberal” by Republican standards with no political future. The attack transformed him into a national hero. Besides giving his reputation an unearned boost, it put him in the position to rake in huge amounts of money for basically doing nothing. I, for one, would have no problem contenting myself with the income generated by giving “motivational” speeches at $100,000.00 a pop, though I admit actually interacting with the kind of people who would pay that much to hear anyone talk nonsense would be a bit of a drag.

Here’s my point (I think I have one). Given this gift from heaven, at the expense of 3,000 lives, most people, I like to think, would either turn to doing some good with their lives or at least avoid doing evil. Giuliani, it appears, decided to specialize in doing evil. Covering up for a drug company distributing an addictive drug is evil. Nor is this an anomaly. Steve Benen, writing at Political Animal, points out.

For those keeping score at home, the list of controversial clients, none of which Giuliani is willing to acknowledge publicly, is getting pretty long. There’s the Hank Asher controversy, the business relationship with a Qataran emir accused of sheltering dangerous terrorists (including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), and the Hong Kong organized crime figure with reported ties to North Korea, among others.

My question is: why? What is it about Republicans that drives these already rich people into lives of evil, when they could do good and still be richer than anyone has a right to be? Is it genetic? Is it on the DSM somewhere? I mean, how much money did Rudy need? After all, his kids are already through college and they hate him anyway.

Lest I be accused of being naive, there are people who have taken undeserved financial windfalls and turned them to good purposes. Bill Clinton comes to mind. He gets people to pony up large sums to hear him talk, but he uses the money and his prestige to fight AIDS and stuff like that. He’s making big bucks, keeping plenty of them, but putting the rest, along with his reputation and standing, to good use. Why would anyone in a similar situation choose the Dark Side?

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

Does George like to watch?

Thursday, December 27, 2007

If I suggested to you that George Bush was the type of little boy who liked to pull the wings off flies, or torture little animals, would you disagree? Most likely not. He has about him the air of the coward who takes a special delight in inflicting pain on those weaker than himself. If such a person can’t be in on the action, he or she might certainly get some vicarious thrills by watching. There are, after all, many kinds of pornography. So it comes as no surprise that George may have spent some time watching those famous tapes (the ones he knew nothing about):

Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer, believes the scandal could reach deep into the White House. “The CIA and Jose Rodriguez look bad, but he’s probably the least culpable person in the process. He didn’t wake up one day and decide, ‘I’m going to destroy these tapes.’ He checked with a lot of people and eventually he is going to get his say.”
…

“It looks increasingly as though the decision was made by the White House,” said Johnson. He believes it is “highly likely” that Bush saw one of the videos, as he was interested in Zubaydah’s case and received frequent updates on his interrogation from George Tenet, the CIA director at the time.

Bush had no real job related reason to watch those tapes, but it seems more than probable that he would get a kick out of watching, all the while knowing that it was all his doing, if only by remote control. What a feeling of power for the former little bully. It’s a chilling thought, really, to imagine the President of the United States sitting in the Oval Office, getting his rocks off watching another human being be tortured. Makes you pine for the day when the President got his Oval Office kicks a little differently.

Filed in Bush, Iraq | | Comments (0)

Drinking Liberally in Mystic

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Alright, here’s the announcement you’ve all been waiting for! The organizational meeting of the Southeastern Connecticut Chapter of Drinking Liberally (that’s a provisional name, by the way) will take place on January 3rd at 6:30 PM at the Harp & Hound Pub on Pearl Street in Mystic.

We’re hoping enough people will show up to warrant making this a monthly event. The point is just to meet, socialize and have fun. Mark your calendar!

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (2)

For Mac fans only

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

I discovered a nifty little program today, so I thought I’d pass this on to any of you folks who use Macs.

By way of background, I do most of my web browsing using an RSS feeder. I find that I can read through the blogs and news sites that I visit with a reader much more quickly than with a browser. I have been using a great program called Newsfire, but today I found a better one, and it’s absolutely free. In addition to having all of the features of my former reader, this one allows for tabbed browsing in the viewer panel, so if an article in the feed links to a web article you don’t have to read it in your browser.

It’s called Vienna, and you can read about and download it here.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Bi-partisanship, Lieberman style and pundit approved

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Ever notice how Saint Joe’s bipartisanship only seems to flow in one direction?

Apropos of my previous post, this is the type of bi-partisanship of which the beltway establishment is so enamored.

If Tom Allen has any sense he’ll hang Joe around Sue Collin’s neck.

One further point, while we’re on the subject of our sainted Senator. Does Saint Joe really believe this:

“I’m disappointed to become such a target from liberal Democrats,” he said. “Sometimes in our politics today, partisanship overcomes friendship, and that’s a value that I don’t respect.”

Let’s put aside his enormous friendship for Chris Dodd, whom, thank God, he has refused to endorse. We’ll also overlook the bad grammar. Does he really think that anyone should continue to back him while he takes positions with which he disagrees, out of friendship? The problem we have in Connecticut right now is that we have a Senator who is there only because some Democrats really believed they should sacrifice what principles they had out of a misguided sense of loyalty to the guy who is now stabbing them in the back. Does he really believe we should support someone who we believe is leading the country into a disaster, and would, if he could, bring it into another war, out of friendship?

Filed in Lieberman | | Comments (0)

Partisanship

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

In a column on Slate (Progressives to Arms), Paul Krugman makes what has become, for him, a familiar argument:

Here’s a thought for progressives: Bush isn’t the problem. And the next president should not try to be the anti-Bush.

No, I haven’t lost my mind. I’m not saying that we should look kindly on the Worst President Ever; we’ll all breathe a sigh of relief when he leaves office 405 days, 2 hours, and 46 minutes from now. (Yes, a friend gave me one of those Bush countdown clocks.) Nor am I suggesting that we should forgive and forget; I very much hope that the next president will open the records and let the full story of the Bush era’s outrages be told.

But Bush will soon be gone. What progressives should be focused on now is taking on the political movement that brought Bush to power. In short, what we need right now isn’t Bush bashing—what we need is partisanship.

Unfortunately, partisanship is a bad word for what Krugman is talking about, though there may not be better one.

Partisanship connotes an attachment to party or faction for it’s own sake. I think that Krugman is preaching aggressive advocacy of a set of principles that are common to liberals or progressives (pick your term). There’s nothing wrong with compromise, but there’s something very wrong with the idea, so endemic among the punditocracy, that compromise is inherently good, and that truth is always to be found midway between the extremes within which they themselves choose to limit our discourse. That sort of thinking is especially corrosive when the allowable extreme in one direction is much farther from the actual “center” than the other “extreme”. The opinion makers have cooperated in a process that has steadily moved the rhetorical mid-point rightward, even while the actual opinions of the electorate have drifted left. They are not wholly to blame for this. The Republican party has been aggressive in promoting the interests of the plutocrats and the Democrats have only timidly pushed back. The empty headed pundits have in many cases followed the path of least resistance.

The Republican party is now in decline, not because its tactics have been unsuccessful, but because its policies have proven so disastrous in practice that even the electorate, pounded as it is with propaganda, has seen through the party for what it is. In fact, a great argument can be made that the Republicans flourished for a while in spite of public disapproval of their policies, because they at least appeared to stand for something, rather than nothing.

So I think Krugman is teaching forceful advocacy of the progressive agenda and the need to recognize that we get what we want by pushing hard for it, and not defaulting for some elusive mid ground that keeps slipping ever rightward. That means our candidates must clearly advocate progressive positions now, so they can claim a mandate if they win, and it means we must be prepared to fight for every inch of ground.

Filed in Politics | | Comments (1)