Patrick,
Thank you for the clarification.
Regarding the decision to invade, I feel a bit like Charlie Brown, lying flat on my back after Lucy has pulled away the football. I've never trusted George W. Bush's judgement, but with something as verifiable as the existence of WMD's, I expected them to be on display after the invasion. The support of centrists and liberals like John Kerry for the war resolution was premised on a potential threat to Americans, and not a crusade for democracy.
I did "swallow" the Bush Administration's contention that the inspection process would never go anywhere, and that the only way to get rid of the WMD's was to proceed with military force. I assumed they had access to secret information, and that after the invasion was complete, they would be able to present their evidence. Bob Woodward is apparently reporting that Tenet said it was a "slam/dunk" that they'd be able to find the stuff.
In hindsight, we should have allowed the inspection process to go forward. This would have demonstrated that there were no WMD's, and that the war was not necessary.
It turns out that Bush is much more radical than I imagined. His crusade to remake Iraq reminds me of the Jacobins who tried to remake French society from the ground up. Conservatives like Edmund Burke criticized the revolutionaries for taking on too much at once. In the Burkean sense, Bush is a radical rather than a conservative.
You seem to see many moderates as sell-outs, more concerned about bourgeois respectability than in making the world better. However, it's my impression that radicals are more concerned about their position appearing to be correct in the abstract, rather than in achieving concrete results which help people.
I see moderates as being pragmatists who focused on results, and even willing to compromise on "principles" As Deng Xiao Ping said, "It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice" It's the radicals who leave a trail of destruction trying to realize their abstract ideas.
They won't like a gas tax either, but they may be persuadable if they know the gas tax
1. Pays down the deficit, or
2. Is offset by tax reductions elsewhere - let's say in the payroll tax.
The main liberal objection to a gas tax is that it may hurt low-income people who can only afford used cars that are gas guzzlers. My response is that the gas tax should proceed, and low-income workers should be compensated through an expansion of the earned income tax credit.
It won't be easy to convince Americans they need to conserve oil, but it could be done, with presidential leadership. Amazingly enough, William Clay Ford, Jr., the head of Ford Motor Company, has endorsed a gas tax.
I don't think the public will be very receptive to a huge foreign aid program for Arab countries, particularly after the uprising that's going on today.
Rather, we should defund the Wahabis by raising auto fuel consumption standards, and increasing the gas tax.
One of the ads Bush is running in the Northeast ridicules Kerry for supporting a gas tax in the past. As if sucking up too much oil wasn't relevant to our tragic engagement with the Persian Gulf states.
Kip and Lydia,
I didn't mean to ignore you. I was writing my post at the same time as you were.
Kip--aside from patronizing this fine blog, please stop by Centerfield sometime, where we think of centrists as the "silent plurality"
Lydia,
See above post. I think attacks on LGF by Indymedia supporters are comparable to freeper attacks.
I agree that the right can sometimes get away with more outrageousness than the left. It's not entirely symmetric. I think it's because the right's outrageousness usually goes along the grain of national patriotic instincts, while left outrageousness goes against the grain. Also, liberals are probably "nicer" than conservatives overall, and lack the killer instinct to really do in the other side.
Dan,
I'm sure what set off that dream is that I'd been to the eye doctor, and I'm now of age to have to choose a pair of "progressive lenses" i.e. bifocals without a line.
Patrick,
There's no self-congratulations in the "let's face it." If continuing the baseball analogy, Kos is a AAA-er called up to the show, then I'm playing single A ball. My point is that Kos has been caught up in shifting standards, and can no longer get away with things that anonymous nobodies like myself can.
With regard my comment on partisanship, you misinterpret me if you think my aim is to mute criticism of Bush. In fact, despite being an Independent, I was a member of the Draft Clark movement, and even held signs for Clark in the cold of New Hampshire primary day. I won't vote for Bush, and I'll probably vote for Kerry, though it's possible I'll just sit the election out if I become thoroughly disgusted with the "partisanship."
More specifically, what I dislike is the "argument culture" as Deborah Tannen refers to it, where people hype their stories, and shade the truth to make their side look better. I admired Richard Clarke's forthright testimony, as was amused like most people when he confessed to "spinning" as a normal part of his job in the White House.
But since you dislike "beating around the bush" I'll say something more provocative. I don't like what LGF did to Nathan Newman, but I don't like what has been done to LGF as well. Do you know that a hoax news item appeared on Indymedia some months ago that Charles, the creator of LGF, has been picked up by local police on a charge of child molestation? That is the dirtiest trick I've yet seen so far in blog wars. He is currently under attack by people who are contact his host claiming LGF is a neo-Nazi site, and should be shut down. LGF may be extreme, but it's extremely pro-Likud--hardly neo-Nazi.
I do read LGF from time to time, and sometimes post comments, though I may be attacked as a troll there because I'm not in sync. The reason I do read LGF is because Charles digs up items of outrageous anti-semitism (not just anti-Zionism) that should become better known. If there was a more moderate site that provides the same service, I would very much like to know about it.
Rivka,
Never heard of Kathleen Parker.
If Bill O'Reilly advocates nuking Fallujah, he should lose advertisers.
Let me introduce myself. I am a political independent who contributes to the Centrist Coalition's blog, Centerfield. I am also a science fiction writer, which is why I visit this blog.
On Centerfield, we often comment on how vicious the partisanship is on both sides of the blog political spectrum. The right typically calls the left traitorous. The left calls the right either stupid or evil. Either way, it's nasty to be on the receiving end.
I recently had a dream where I wore a pair of eyeglasses in which the right lens was round, and the left lens square. What I interpret it to mean is that the left and the right interpret the world through different lenses, and both believe they are good and right.
With regard to the comments that Kos made, imagine if any politician running for office said them. It would provoke outrage. And if some right-wing politician like Rep. Ernest Istook started talking about nuking Fallujah, he would be roundly criticized within his own party, if only for damage-control reasons.
Let's face it. The blogs are the minor leagues of journalism. Kos was being called up to the "Show" and was judged by major league rules. He made what could be charitably called a rookie mistake.
$260K is enough to spin a negative story about his motives to those with the will to believe it.
But realistically, if he was hoping to get rich, writing a book was not the way to go. As a senior executive with an entree into the Bush Administration, Clarke could rake in six figure sums from defense contractors, and maybe collect stock options, like Dick Cheney after he left government. Now, he has one book, a one-time payout, but his name is dirt to those with budget authority in Washington.
I'm watching Clarke testify right now, and I think he's gonna be a star.
His testimony is reminding me of Ollie North's -- in a good way. As some may recall, Iran-Contra was looking very bad for Reagan. Then North, whom nobody had ever heard of, testified and it stopped the momentum of the Democrats inquiry. (North got into some legal trouble later, but that's a separate issue)
Clarke is extremely impressive. He knows his shit, in precise detail. Hawks like myself who are not Bush-suckups can tell that.
This is not a question of privilege.
Perhaps I have a chip on my shoulder because I'm from Jersey, but I believe it's precisely because New Jersey commuters were impacted that the decline was allowed to go on as long as it did. Being voiceless within the City's political process, the harassment of tens of thousands of commuters from Jersey simply didn't count.
It is reasonable to displace such businesses to areas of low-residency and low-foot traffic. In Boston, in fact, the old Combat Zone is gone, and the porno businesses have been dispersed to locations off highways. People who want it can still get porn, and those who don't need not get harassed.
Those with nostalgia for the porn and sleaze of Times Square are mostly Manhattanites who could go there by choice.
As a former commuter from New Jersey, I would echo Elayne. When the bus dropped you off at the Port Authority bus station, you had no option but to walk through a gauntlet of open drug dealing and solicitation. I witnessed two separate cases of men dashing through traffic to escape pursuers. I found that unnerving as a 6 foot tall male. I think women would find it more intimidating.
A red light district off to the side, where people only need go there by choice, is not unreasonable. It ought not straddle a major communter artery.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 12 |
Total: 12 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Rick Heller:
Show all comments by Rick Heller.