Sunday, November 30, 2003
‘The object of both admiration and suspicion’: An interesting story on Tariq Ramadan, the barnstorming imam who seems to be preaching a different sort of moderate Islam throughout Europe. ... The fascinating thing -- if Ramadan is for real -- is how many religious, philosophical and intellectual hoops he has to jump through to preach this watered-down version of moderation. A toxic mix: A people who resist assimilation in a host continent that's ambivalent about assimilation.
‘Many liberals just want to punch its lights out’: Another great column from Tom Friedman that’s sure to be nick-picked from both the hard-core left and right. ... I think Friedman is holding out too much hope for the left to come to its senses over Iraq. Anyone who went to an anti-war rally last spring could see how hopelessly locked they were into a different time and a different reality. Their politics, with its ritualistic chants and protest ceremonies, are their religion -- and people don’t change their religions on a whim. ... In the U.S., the real substantive debate over Iraq is between moderate Dems, Republicans and Independents vs. the right of the Republican Party.
Update -- It was Mickey Kaus who first pronounced a variation of Friedman’s ‘We’ll take it from here’ theory of how Dems/the left could start scratching their way back into the debate over Iraq. (Scroll down to see Mickey’s ‘A baseball metaphor that scores!’ item.) But Dems won’t do it, though I suspect Hillary Clinton has an inkling of what needs to be done, thus partially explaining her admirable visits to Afghanistan and Iraq last week. ...
... Instapundit has more on the Hillary angle. Very interesting.
Update -- It was Mickey Kaus who first pronounced a variation of Friedman’s ‘We’ll take it from here’ theory of how Dems/the left could start scratching their way back into the debate over Iraq. (Scroll down to see Mickey’s ‘A baseball metaphor that scores!’ item.) But Dems won’t do it, though I suspect Hillary Clinton has an inkling of what needs to be done, thus partially explaining her admirable visits to Afghanistan and Iraq last week. ...
... Instapundit has more on the Hillary angle. Very interesting.
Saturday, November 29, 2003
A two-day late assessment of the Baghdad trip: Reader Steve from Arlington emailed to goad/ask my reaction to (and why I didn't blog on) the president's whirlwind trip to Iraq. OK, here it is: I was busy and I thought the secret trip was inspiring. The happy looks of appreciation on the faces of stunned GIs made it worth it. ... FYI: I think Hillary Clinton deserves credit, too, for visiting the troops. ... The cynics on both sides should give George and Hillary a break.
‘The antithesis of the 'McMansion': An interesting back-to-the-future home-building trend is apparently under way in the Washington area as builders discover an increasing demand for cozy Craftsman-style abodes. But there’s a hitch: Many still want the McMansion proportions. Well, at least it’s better than the faux-Italian Gothic and Kentucky Horse Farm monstrosities I see driving through the ‘burbs of Boston and in other parts of New England. ... Hope the Craftsman trend -- if it is a trend -- moves up here. The damage done to the character of many New England communities by God-awful McMansions has been awful. ... Near the Hub Blog parents’ home out in the Boston ‘burbs, there’s a new subdivision called ‘plantation’ something or other. In New England. Think about it. ...
‘The baseball gods delivered ...’: Theo does it. ... Headline on the NYPost’s back page: ‘Curt OKs Bosox deal; Yanks continue arms race.’ The Post story is a little more subdued than the paper's panic-mode coverage on Tuesday. ... The NYTimes is trying to calmly dismiss the story in its best oh-those-cute-Sox tone.
OK, so theYanks have been hit with a full dose of the new Sox ownership’s shock-and-awe strategy. Now my question: How much more does the 37-year-old Schilling have in him? Am I having Yawkey/Crazy Widow/Harrington era flashbacks?
OK, so theYanks have been hit with a full dose of the new Sox ownership’s shock-and-awe strategy. Now my question: How much more does the 37-year-old Schilling have in him? Am I having Yawkey/Crazy Widow/Harrington era flashbacks?
Friday, November 28, 2003
‘History Channeled’: A short while ago, Hub Blog blogged about local writer Bernard Cornwell, who’s gaining more attention these days for his Michael Shaara/Patrick O’Brian-like historic fiction novels. ... In a fit of excitement, I later suggested to the Herald book editor we should do a story on Cornwell -- and get ahead of the trend curve in fast-draw Herald fashion yada yada. Her response (proving once again you shouldn't suggest things you're not ready to volunteer for): "Why don’t you do it?" ... I was ensared in a classic work-place trap of my own making. But I did it, and it turned out to be fun. Here it is. ... If you’re interested, check out Cornwell’s web site. I recommend the following if you want to tackle his popular Sharpe series: Start with, oh, “Sharpe’s Revenge” and definitely end with “Sharpe’s Waterloo,” which is simply an awesome, non-stop war war war book. ... You can always backtrack to his earlier novels, as I have. ... His Grail Quest books are also a lot of fun. And, yes, there are plenty of torn bodices and arrow-spitted Frenchmen.
Thursday, November 27, 2003
What I have to be thankful for ...: I'll leave it up to Jim Behrle to list the reasons why. ... Scroll down past the Turkey chart for more, including what grandma and grandpa probably see in the afterlife and what A-Rod and Curt must be thinking about Sox fans in general. ... Speaking of the Sox, the Boston Dirt Dogs are happy poodles these days, though clearly nervous about the tenuousness of Theo's deal.
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
'The next two months aren't going to be pretty ...': Mickey is on Kerry's case. Fun stuff. As usual. ... Mickey also has some words on Paul K and Mr. P. See Beamster item below.
Et tu, Alex Beam?: Another weird column from the Beamster. While nominating Paul Krugman for a Pulitzer ('Mr. P'), Alex Beam proceeds to take swipes at Krugman (and bloggers) etc. With friends like these, who needs enemies? … John Farrell, who tipped me off to the piece, has his own take.
Update -- Rewrote the above blog item a bit after rereading Beam's column, which is funnier in its throttling of Krugman than originally appreciated. ... It's still a weird column, though.
Update -- Rewrote the above blog item a bit after rereading Beam's column, which is funnier in its throttling of Krugman than originally appreciated. ... It's still a weird column, though.
Monday, November 24, 2003
‘Massachusetts has made a democratic decision …’: Mickey Kaus (scroll down) has some thoughts on the big Massachusetts decision on gay marriage. Mickey:
“Massachusetts had made a democratic decision -- it had decided to do nothing. The court is forcing the state's democracy to make a different decision, under the threat of having its action declared unconstitutional if its not the action the court likes.”
“Massachusetts had made a democratic decision -- it had decided to do nothing. The court is forcing the state's democracy to make a different decision, under the threat of having its action declared unconstitutional if its not the action the court likes.”
Sunday, November 23, 2003
More on gay marriages and ‘Forty years later ...’: Reader No. 1 writes in with comments on the two posts immediately below.
On gay marriages:
“I agree with you that the country would be very different today if the Civil Rights Act had been imposed by the US Supreme Court (very insightful)... and I think that the overreaching of the Mass Supreme Court has created a Wade-like problem ... But sorry, there are big big differences between how people accept the Civil Rights Act and Roe v. Wade. Abortion has proven controversial even when those who basically support abortion rights try to LEGISLATIVELY put some parameters on appalling procedures like partial-birth: the moral absolutist supporters of Roe won't stand for it. Anti-abortionists are not the only people 'obsessed with that controversial ruling.' The Civil Rights Act implies no harm to living beings. Abortion implies terminal harm to living beings whether you want to call them fetuses or unborn children. Legislative involvement in huge moral issues is critical to the function of a democracy, but let's not pretend that legislative acts will always end the debates.
Hub Blog’s response: One of the reasons why pro-abortionist extremists (and there are indeed pro-abortionist extremists) resist any legislative parameters is because there is NO legislative back-up to abortion rights. Am I wrong? We are still living in an age with NO federal law on the books granting women the right to abortion. It was short-circuited by judicial dictate, allowing so many politicians (and a certain political party) to speak out of both sides of their mouthes on the issue. ... Of course, many anti-abortionist lawmakers would suddenly switch sides, after much soul searching blah blah blah, and vote for the abortion rights if Roe was ever reversed. The majority of the people would demand it. The GOP would be cooked if it resisted. ...
On ‘Forty years later ...’:
“To answer your thoughtful question, yes, the shared experience of emotional intensity is what the anniversary of JFK's passing has all come down to, because it is what people can agree on most. In fact, it is one of the few political happenings in our modern fractured culture in which people can experience any common emotional intensity. Yesterday's self-involved Globe remembrances aside, this maybe isn't so bad. The alternative is to play the historian's game of ‘What Would Have Happened If...?’ which amounts to a Presidential Fantasy Baseball League of Do-Over with no satisfying resolution. Would Vietnam have ended sooner? How about the rapprochement with Cuba? The civil rights movement? And from the music/culture beat, would the Ed Sullivan Show have done so much for the Beatles? Which scenario seems more plausible: this or this?"
On gay marriages:
“I agree with you that the country would be very different today if the Civil Rights Act had been imposed by the US Supreme Court (very insightful)... and I think that the overreaching of the Mass Supreme Court has created a Wade-like problem ... But sorry, there are big big differences between how people accept the Civil Rights Act and Roe v. Wade. Abortion has proven controversial even when those who basically support abortion rights try to LEGISLATIVELY put some parameters on appalling procedures like partial-birth: the moral absolutist supporters of Roe won't stand for it. Anti-abortionists are not the only people 'obsessed with that controversial ruling.' The Civil Rights Act implies no harm to living beings. Abortion implies terminal harm to living beings whether you want to call them fetuses or unborn children. Legislative involvement in huge moral issues is critical to the function of a democracy, but let's not pretend that legislative acts will always end the debates.
Hub Blog’s response: One of the reasons why pro-abortionist extremists (and there are indeed pro-abortionist extremists) resist any legislative parameters is because there is NO legislative back-up to abortion rights. Am I wrong? We are still living in an age with NO federal law on the books granting women the right to abortion. It was short-circuited by judicial dictate, allowing so many politicians (and a certain political party) to speak out of both sides of their mouthes on the issue. ... Of course, many anti-abortionist lawmakers would suddenly switch sides, after much soul searching blah blah blah, and vote for the abortion rights if Roe was ever reversed. The majority of the people would demand it. The GOP would be cooked if it resisted. ...
On ‘Forty years later ...’:
“To answer your thoughtful question, yes, the shared experience of emotional intensity is what the anniversary of JFK's passing has all come down to, because it is what people can agree on most. In fact, it is one of the few political happenings in our modern fractured culture in which people can experience any common emotional intensity. Yesterday's self-involved Globe remembrances aside, this maybe isn't so bad. The alternative is to play the historian's game of ‘What Would Have Happened If...?’ which amounts to a Presidential Fantasy Baseball League of Do-Over with no satisfying resolution. Would Vietnam have ended sooner? How about the rapprochement with Cuba? The civil rights movement? And from the music/culture beat, would the Ed Sullivan Show have done so much for the Beatles? Which scenario seems more plausible: this or this?"
‘Same-sex Benefits get voters’ blessing; most OK gay marriage’: How close is the public to accepting gay civil unions and ultimately gay marriages? Very close, according to this new Herald poll. ... Let the democratic and legislative process work -- and the rights will be more firmly entrenched within society than any court-imposed decision. ... Finneran and Romney’s plan for a constitutional amendment is going no where with these numbers.
... Can you imagine how divided the country would be today if the U.S. Supreme Court, rather than chipping away at the edges of the Civil Rights issue, ordered passage of the Civil Rights Act? The fact is the act was passed, after difficult debate, by elected representatives and now there’s no, zero, nadda debate about how it was imposed. Its passage is a source of pride, not contention. ....
.... Which brings me to Jeff Jacoby, who flat out opposes gay marriage, somehow trying to connect the gay marriage debate to partial-birth abortion. .... My reaction too: Huh? ... (In case you don’t/didn’t notice, there’s a blatant inaccuracy in Jeff’s lede: “Many people welcome the ruling -- but many more don't.” .... Hmmmm. ‘Many more don’t?’ That’s not what the Globe’s own poll says. ...)
Anyway, Hub Blog’s view on letting the democratic process work seems to mirror Jacoby’s view. But only on the surface. The difference is this: Roe v. Wade is still a contentious issue precisely because it was imposed by the courts. Even though poll after poll shows Americans favor the right to an abortion, anti-abortionists are still obsessed with that controversial ruling, holding out hope that what was imposed by the courts can be reversed by the courts via politicized judicial appointments. ... I think it was the pro-abortion Justice Ginsberg who expressed reservations about the Roe ruling, for the issue would be mute now if the democratic process had been allowed to play out. ...
Finally, here’s a free political tip for Democrats:
How much of the GOP’s support -- and donation base -- is composed of hard-core anti-abortionists who are still upset about Roe and who still think it can be reversed? ... Here’s the free tip: Make sure elected representatives are involved in shaping gay rights/marriage legislation, otherwise the issue will become a lightening rod for fanatics for decades to come. ... If I were a GOP consultant, I’d be praying for a court-imposed solution, for purely political reasons.... That’s also why I think Tom Reilly gets it: A court-imposed solution is bad politics for Dems.
... Can you imagine how divided the country would be today if the U.S. Supreme Court, rather than chipping away at the edges of the Civil Rights issue, ordered passage of the Civil Rights Act? The fact is the act was passed, after difficult debate, by elected representatives and now there’s no, zero, nadda debate about how it was imposed. Its passage is a source of pride, not contention. ....
.... Which brings me to Jeff Jacoby, who flat out opposes gay marriage, somehow trying to connect the gay marriage debate to partial-birth abortion. .... My reaction too: Huh? ... (In case you don’t/didn’t notice, there’s a blatant inaccuracy in Jeff’s lede: “Many people welcome the ruling -- but many more don't.” .... Hmmmm. ‘Many more don’t?’ That’s not what the Globe’s own poll says. ...)
Anyway, Hub Blog’s view on letting the democratic process work seems to mirror Jacoby’s view. But only on the surface. The difference is this: Roe v. Wade is still a contentious issue precisely because it was imposed by the courts. Even though poll after poll shows Americans favor the right to an abortion, anti-abortionists are still obsessed with that controversial ruling, holding out hope that what was imposed by the courts can be reversed by the courts via politicized judicial appointments. ... I think it was the pro-abortion Justice Ginsberg who expressed reservations about the Roe ruling, for the issue would be mute now if the democratic process had been allowed to play out. ...
Finally, here’s a free political tip for Democrats:
How much of the GOP’s support -- and donation base -- is composed of hard-core anti-abortionists who are still upset about Roe and who still think it can be reversed? ... Here’s the free tip: Make sure elected representatives are involved in shaping gay rights/marriage legislation, otherwise the issue will become a lightening rod for fanatics for decades to come. ... If I were a GOP consultant, I’d be praying for a court-imposed solution, for purely political reasons.... That’s also why I think Tom Reilly gets it: A court-imposed solution is bad politics for Dems.
Saturday, November 22, 2003
Forty years later, Part II ...: Immediately after writing the blog item below (and freeing up the phone line), I got a call from a Hub Blog brother inviting me to join him and his three children (ages 3 to 6) to go to the JFK Library and Museum in Boston to commemorate the anniversary. Never been there. Couldn't resist. The intent: To instill in the children a love for history. How could I resist? It was wonderful. The kids fidgeted throughout the intro documentary (really aimed at adults), but they loved the exhibits on Caroline's dolls, pony, the Moon shots, PT-109, the Ireland trip, the fact we share a name (Fitzgerald -- but no relationship) and ... and they fell silent and mesmerized at the Nov. 22, 1963 exhibit. They were very sad. ... “Why are the drums beating, daddy?” ... I felt sad, too. ... So I can sympathize with those who went through, full force, Nov. 22, 1963. But I still ask: Has the anniversary's historical significance really come down to relating the shared experience of emotional intensity?
FYI: There was a film clip, from the early 1950s, in which JFK was asked why the people of the Middle East hated us. ... His answer was erudite, succinct, thoughtful, with no punches pulled either way. My brother and I exchanged Nothing Ever Changes glances at both the question and answer. ... And, oh, Kennedy made no mention of Israel. He pretty much put the blame on colonialism, suck-up Communists, poverty and dictatorship. Sounds right to me. ...
FYI: There was a film clip, from the early 1950s, in which JFK was asked why the people of the Middle East hated us. ... His answer was erudite, succinct, thoughtful, with no punches pulled either way. My brother and I exchanged Nothing Ever Changes glances at both the question and answer. ... And, oh, Kennedy made no mention of Israel. He pretty much put the blame on colonialism, suck-up Communists, poverty and dictatorship. Sounds right to me. ...
Forty years later ... : Oh, Coz. ... Actually, this WaPo article about Dallas probably captures the mood of the country -- as opposed to the mood of the aging Baby Boomer editors hyping the anniversary -- better than most other articles. The young simply don't have the same attachments and feelings toward JFK and the anniversary. And newspapers wonder why they're losing readership among the young. ... It may not be up for long, but check out today's Globe op-ed page -- Howard Zinn and John Kenneth Galbraith and John Updike (11 dinosaurs in all). All remembering where they were when they heard the news, etc. It's all about them and their feelings. Is that what JFK's legacy has come down to?
'Separate-but-equal,' BS: Notice how professional activists (in stories in the Herald and Globe) are so quick to suggest they're the rightful heirs of the Civil Rights Movement, borrowing/ stealing lines from the Brown-Topeka decision, positioning themselves in the dreadful modern category of official victimhood. ... The fact is the gay rights movement has little to do with the Civil Rights Movement. The last time I checked, there were no recent cases of snarling German Shepherds biting at the legs of gay protesters or firemen shooting water hoses at unarmed gay protesters or governors blocking the path of gays trying to enter a Massachusetts college with an escort of National Guardsmen. There is a difference between the right to drink at the same Little Rock water fountain and the right to marry on a Berkshire hilltop. ... The comparisons are silly -- and obnoxious. The fact is, the gay leadership today is powerful, affluent, influential -- and firmly imbedded within the establishment. ... Different times require different tactics -- and temperaments. ...
... Where am I going with this as a supporter of the right of gays to marry? Give the legislative, democratic process a chance to work out. Is that too much to ask? That the people -- a majority of whom already support gay marriage -- have a say in crafting this momentous decision? The gay rights movement has accomplished more in 30 years than African Americans achieved in 300 years. A little perspective -- and a little more patience -- is needed. ...
P.S. -- There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind Tom Reilly is running for governor. Taking on Billy. Offering up this marriage compromise. He gets the notion that occasionally hip-checking the Hack/Progressive Alliance is necessary to win over suburban Independents. Shannon never got it.
'Separate-but-equal,' BS: Notice how professional activists (in stories in the Herald and Globe) are so quick to suggest they're the rightful heirs of the Civil Rights Movement, borrowing/ stealing lines from the Brown-Topeka decision, positioning themselves in the dreadful modern category of official victimhood. ... The fact is the gay rights movement has little to do with the Civil Rights Movement. The last time I checked, there were no recent cases of snarling German Shepherds biting at the legs of gay protesters or firemen shooting water hoses at unarmed gay protesters or governors blocking the path of gays trying to enter a Massachusetts college with an escort of National Guardsmen. There is a difference between the right to drink at the same Little Rock water fountain and the right to marry on a Berkshire hilltop. ... The comparisons are silly -- and obnoxious. The fact is, the gay leadership today is powerful, affluent, influential -- and firmly imbedded within the establishment. ... Different times require different tactics -- and temperaments. ...
... Where am I going with this as a supporter of the right of gays to marry? Give the legislative, democratic process a chance to work out. Is that too much to ask? That the people -- a majority of whom already support gay marriage -- have a say in crafting this momentous decision? The gay rights movement has accomplished more in 30 years than African Americans achieved in 300 years. A little perspective -- and a little more patience -- is needed. ...
P.S. -- There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind Tom Reilly is running for governor. Taking on Billy. Offering up this marriage compromise. He gets the notion that occasionally hip-checking the Hack/Progressive Alliance is necessary to win over suburban Independents. Shannon never got it.
Friday, November 21, 2003
‘It is a four-to-three decision ...’: I was beginning to think I was all alone in worrying about the implications of a court-imposed ruling on gay marriage -- even though I support the right of gays to marry. Glad to see I’m not alone. Scot Lehigh has a very smart column on the issue -- and some smart quotes from Attorney General Thomas Reilly. From Reilly:
"It is a four-to-three decision, which all the more cries out for legislative action. ... We don't make social policy in such profound ways through a four-to-three decision of the court rather than through the actions of the people's elected representatives."
Prediction: If the legislature passes a gay civil-union bill (and the court accepts it), gay marriage will be inevitably approved down the road -- by the people’s elected representatives -- after people see that gay marriage is NOT a threat to civilization as we know it. ... The thing that still amazes me is that a majority of people, in some polls, were in favor of gay marriage before the court intervened. This wasn’t a case of a stubborn majority of people opposing, say, equal rights for blacks in the South during the 1950s and early 1960s. The was a case of a growing majority favoring equal rights for gays. And, still, the court felt compelled to short-circuit the legislative, democratic process. ... Maybe I’m being too hard on the court. Maybe they deliberately slipped in a civil-union loophole as an evolutionary way to nudge the process along.
"It is a four-to-three decision, which all the more cries out for legislative action. ... We don't make social policy in such profound ways through a four-to-three decision of the court rather than through the actions of the people's elected representatives."
Prediction: If the legislature passes a gay civil-union bill (and the court accepts it), gay marriage will be inevitably approved down the road -- by the people’s elected representatives -- after people see that gay marriage is NOT a threat to civilization as we know it. ... The thing that still amazes me is that a majority of people, in some polls, were in favor of gay marriage before the court intervened. This wasn’t a case of a stubborn majority of people opposing, say, equal rights for blacks in the South during the 1950s and early 1960s. The was a case of a growing majority favoring equal rights for gays. And, still, the court felt compelled to short-circuit the legislative, democratic process. ... Maybe I’m being too hard on the court. Maybe they deliberately slipped in a civil-union loophole as an evolutionary way to nudge the process along.
Thursday, November 20, 2003
‘It will require a policy lobotomy by the Bush team’: Tom Friedman has some interesting thoughts on shoring up friendships abroad. But the Bushies have backed themselves into an argumentative corner on most of these matters and are not the types to change. Let’s hope I’m wrong.
'They do': Been busy over at the Herald and haven't had time to post on the big 'They do' story, i.e. the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision on gay marriage rights. ... Two minds: I'm ecstatic and depressed. Ecstatic because the decision is philosophically right. Depressed because, on a gut instinct level, I feel there were some headline-hunting, I'm-making-history judges who subverted the democratic, legislative process just as it was about to work. The overwhelming evidence shows that Americans (and the good citizens of the Commonwealth) were moving toward acceptance of gay rights -- and gay marriages. Poll after poll showed this, despite the two-steps-forward/one-step-back gyrations of the polls. We were moving ahead. The court jumped into the middle of this debate/process/evolution, as if it couldn't resist claiming credit for itself, as if it couldn't, for egotistical reasons, let the drama play out. It had to be the star of the show. ... Now we're going to be arguing for years if this was rammed down our throats via the courts. This is one of those issues where I feel like a true moderate conservative (hurray for the decision -- the moderate side) but shudder at how it was achieved (yet more judicial overreaching -- the conservative side.) ...
All that said, I hope -- though I'm not counting to ten with a plastic bag over my head -- that lawmakers act in a reasonable way. Hub Blog will give double bonus points if they find a way to make the decision legal and acceptable -- while humiliating the pompous bozos on the court majority.
All that said, I hope -- though I'm not counting to ten with a plastic bag over my head -- that lawmakers act in a reasonable way. Hub Blog will give double bonus points if they find a way to make the decision legal and acceptable -- while humiliating the pompous bozos on the court majority.
Sunday, November 16, 2003
‘The often extravagant ravings of anti-American hatred’: Just finished Jean-Francois Revel’s 'Anti-Americanism’ broadside against infantile anti-Americanism. From his concluding chapter:
“The often extravagant ravings of anti-American hatred, the media imputations -- sometimes the product of incompetence, sometimes of mythomania -- the opinionated ill will that puts the United States in an unfavorable light at every turn, can only confirm for Americans the uselessness of consultations. The result is the exact opposite of what is sought. The fallacies of the anti-American bias encourage American unilateralism.”
Note: Revel does not favor unilateralism, per se. He wants Europe to have more clout in world affairs. He’s not a believer in Pax America, the new ideology touted by some in reaction to anti-Americanism. (Remember Hub Blog’s axiom: Bush and Chirac, they deserve each other.) But Revel is so right to point out how Europeans have made themselves irrelevant -- and unworthy of true clout -- because too many of their views are based on crude stereotypes of America, tired clichés, contradictory rhetoric and actions, etc. etc. ...
Note II: Reading Revel, I was once again reminded of William Shirer’s ‘Collapse of the Third Republic.’ Revel attributes about, oh, 70 percent of French anti-Americanism to remnants of hard-core Leftism. The anti-Americanism of the Right can be traced all the way back to the Bourbon Restoration of the 1840s, he notes. Shirer’s book was intriguing because he delves so deeply into how the French right, even up to 1940, was still infected with reactionary monarchism and contempt for liberal democracy.
Update -11.17.03 -- Collin May over at Innocents Abroad writes about another French intellectual, Nicolas Baverez, who’s not too happy with the current French government. Interesting passage from May on French politics in general:
“Ever since the French Revolution, France has alternated between political extremes of revolutionary fervor and nationalist reaction. ... While the United States has prospered under one constitution for over two hundred years, France has gone through five republics, two empires, a restoration and a constitutional monarchy, not to mention foreign occupation and the Vichy regime.” ... May's blog via Instapundit.
Update II -- More on anti-Americanism, this time from Norway. .... Also via Instapundit.
“The often extravagant ravings of anti-American hatred, the media imputations -- sometimes the product of incompetence, sometimes of mythomania -- the opinionated ill will that puts the United States in an unfavorable light at every turn, can only confirm for Americans the uselessness of consultations. The result is the exact opposite of what is sought. The fallacies of the anti-American bias encourage American unilateralism.”
Note: Revel does not favor unilateralism, per se. He wants Europe to have more clout in world affairs. He’s not a believer in Pax America, the new ideology touted by some in reaction to anti-Americanism. (Remember Hub Blog’s axiom: Bush and Chirac, they deserve each other.) But Revel is so right to point out how Europeans have made themselves irrelevant -- and unworthy of true clout -- because too many of their views are based on crude stereotypes of America, tired clichés, contradictory rhetoric and actions, etc. etc. ...
Note II: Reading Revel, I was once again reminded of William Shirer’s ‘Collapse of the Third Republic.’ Revel attributes about, oh, 70 percent of French anti-Americanism to remnants of hard-core Leftism. The anti-Americanism of the Right can be traced all the way back to the Bourbon Restoration of the 1840s, he notes. Shirer’s book was intriguing because he delves so deeply into how the French right, even up to 1940, was still infected with reactionary monarchism and contempt for liberal democracy.
Update -11.17.03 -- Collin May over at Innocents Abroad writes about another French intellectual, Nicolas Baverez, who’s not too happy with the current French government. Interesting passage from May on French politics in general:
“Ever since the French Revolution, France has alternated between political extremes of revolutionary fervor and nationalist reaction. ... While the United States has prospered under one constitution for over two hundred years, France has gone through five republics, two empires, a restoration and a constitutional monarchy, not to mention foreign occupation and the Vichy regime.” ... May's blog via Instapundit.
Update II -- More on anti-Americanism, this time from Norway. .... Also via Instapundit.
Saturday, November 15, 2003
‘He can't handle people who disagree with him’: Does David Brooks really believe in the fictitious speech he thinks a Democrat should give? If so, he has the same visceral dislike of George Bush and Howard Dean that I have. ... But, wait, oh, I forgot. Bush is Churchill. Dean is just a country doctor from Vermont. My mistakes. And David’s.
Update -- Reader No. 1 writes in:
"(Brooks) is a fabulous writer, a huge gain for the Times. But he got it majorly wrong today as only a tried and true Washingtonian. If Americans wanted a candidate who would end this 'war at home' of incivility, the Dem frontrunner would be one of the members of The World's Greatest Debating Society and Private Club, aka the US Senate... we would have elected Howard Baker or Bob Dole, not Ronald Reagan... Al Gore and not Bill Clinton.
"Suburban educated NPR listeners who live in million dollar homes may not like the 'tone' of Washington debate but they sure like divided government. Or have the national election results of the last 25 years just been an amazing coincidence?
"David, stick to Red and Blue America and leave the gridlock worries to David Broder."
Update -- Reader No. 1 writes in:
"(Brooks) is a fabulous writer, a huge gain for the Times. But he got it majorly wrong today as only a tried and true Washingtonian. If Americans wanted a candidate who would end this 'war at home' of incivility, the Dem frontrunner would be one of the members of The World's Greatest Debating Society and Private Club, aka the US Senate... we would have elected Howard Baker or Bob Dole, not Ronald Reagan... Al Gore and not Bill Clinton.
"Suburban educated NPR listeners who live in million dollar homes may not like the 'tone' of Washington debate but they sure like divided government. Or have the national election results of the last 25 years just been an amazing coincidence?
"David, stick to Red and Blue America and leave the gridlock worries to David Broder."
Friday, November 14, 2003
‘The best thing the West has done for Africa since independence’: This is, from Hub Blog’s perspective, the most exciting and encouraging story I’ve read in a long time. The U.S. African Growth and Opportunity Act is starting to crank out thousands of private-sector jobs in Africa, prompting one African president to say (as paraphrased by the NYT) that it’s the “best thing the West has done for Africa since independence.” ...
The pride the Africans feel is palpable. This is BIG if it gains momentum. And it will, assuming Congress extends AGOA and the WTO doesn't foul things up. .... "Made in Uganda." We’ll probably be hearing much, much more of this in coming years and decades. ... The story is also important because, ironically, it’s a form of outsourcing from Asia, not to Asia. That will cause it’s own economic and political problems in those countries. But the important thing is: Africa’s potential for private development is now in the historic early stages of finally taking off. ...
... Of course, America won’t get credit for it in some quarters, but who cares what NGOs and anti-globo types think? They'll obviously use the 'sweat shop' argument as way to undermine it, and labor hardshihp and strife are inevitable. But once enough Africans get a taste of private-sector prosperity, there's no turning back. ...
The pride the Africans feel is palpable. This is BIG if it gains momentum. And it will, assuming Congress extends AGOA and the WTO doesn't foul things up. .... "Made in Uganda." We’ll probably be hearing much, much more of this in coming years and decades. ... The story is also important because, ironically, it’s a form of outsourcing from Asia, not to Asia. That will cause it’s own economic and political problems in those countries. But the important thing is: Africa’s potential for private development is now in the historic early stages of finally taking off. ...
... Of course, America won’t get credit for it in some quarters, but who cares what NGOs and anti-globo types think? They'll obviously use the 'sweat shop' argument as way to undermine it, and labor hardshihp and strife are inevitable. But once enough Africans get a taste of private-sector prosperity, there's no turning back. ...
‘The duality of Iraq’: Reader BK sends in this article by Fouad Ajami, who confirms both the pessimistic and optimistic views of the professional arguers on how things are going in Iraq. He ends the article: “May our sacrifices in that land not be in vain.”. ... Ajami, who wants us to succeed, sounds like he’s a coin flipper on our chances of success.
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Mickey's counter Grady Little strategy for Dems: Hub Blog was wondering when Mickey Kaus would stomp on Kerry's vital parts in light of recent events. But he doesn't. ... Instead he's concocted an intriguing baseball metaphor involving George Bush and Grady Little. ... Note: some Kausfiles readers are quick to point out it's really John Kerry who should play the pooped Pedro in the seventh inning. The obvious counter analogy from the Bush camp: Maybe Bush is Joe Torre. ... But who would play the flying Don Zimmer? Andrew Card? He's too young. Not Rumsfeld. Must give it more thought.
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
'Let's get rid of this guy,' Part II: Reader No. 1 responds to the Part I post about Eurotopia-U.S. relations just below. From Reader No. 1:
"Ignatieff sounds about right. My whole problem with the 'needless damage to America' argument goes back to the Robert Kagan thesis: US and Europe are in completely different places and all of the cajoling, handholding, sweet words from the US won't convince the 'old European' powers (other than UK and occasionally Spain and Italy) that they have to face up to the reality of evil in the world.
"I do believe that the handholding/cajoling/sweet words would cause Europeans to think slightly better of us as people (they love Clinton for his outreach) but it would have no impact on EU defense policy... Clinton was great with the therapeutics, not great with the bottom line (eg rooting out terrorists when he had a chance). My conclusion is that the leaders in the Bush adminstration didn't want to waste time playing the diplomatic charade (other than Powell who sorta had to) because they knew it wasn't going to lead anywhere. They were right that it wasn't going to lead France and Germany into the Coalition Of The Willing (a central and fradulent tenet of many anti-war arguments)...
"Kagan ended his book hoping for understanding between the 2 different camps (EU and US) of their respective views of the world. That still seems like a lot to hope for."
Hub Blog's response: Good points. But I still insist/'hope' people like Kagan are right about the 'hoping for understanding' part. My whole premise is that the Bushies have stopped caring about that hope. That's where he's losing a lot of us -- and I, for one, feel alienated from this presidency as a result. Mickey Kaus was right about the administration reaching out to people seemingly out of their orbit. (Of course, frothing Bush-backing conservatives will kick me in the teeth and accuse me of idealism -- while praising the president's Democracy in the Middle East Idealism as, well, a sign of idealism. ... )
Update - 11.13.03 -- The brilliant 'Bring 'em on' bragging seems to be bearing fruit, alas. (Via CSM warblog.)
"Ignatieff sounds about right. My whole problem with the 'needless damage to America' argument goes back to the Robert Kagan thesis: US and Europe are in completely different places and all of the cajoling, handholding, sweet words from the US won't convince the 'old European' powers (other than UK and occasionally Spain and Italy) that they have to face up to the reality of evil in the world.
"I do believe that the handholding/cajoling/sweet words would cause Europeans to think slightly better of us as people (they love Clinton for his outreach) but it would have no impact on EU defense policy... Clinton was great with the therapeutics, not great with the bottom line (eg rooting out terrorists when he had a chance). My conclusion is that the leaders in the Bush adminstration didn't want to waste time playing the diplomatic charade (other than Powell who sorta had to) because they knew it wasn't going to lead anywhere. They were right that it wasn't going to lead France and Germany into the Coalition Of The Willing (a central and fradulent tenet of many anti-war arguments)...
"Kagan ended his book hoping for understanding between the 2 different camps (EU and US) of their respective views of the world. That still seems like a lot to hope for."
Hub Blog's response: Good points. But I still insist/'hope' people like Kagan are right about the 'hoping for understanding' part. My whole premise is that the Bushies have stopped caring about that hope. That's where he's losing a lot of us -- and I, for one, feel alienated from this presidency as a result. Mickey Kaus was right about the administration reaching out to people seemingly out of their orbit. (Of course, frothing Bush-backing conservatives will kick me in the teeth and accuse me of idealism -- while praising the president's Democracy in the Middle East Idealism as, well, a sign of idealism. ... )
Update - 11.13.03 -- The brilliant 'Bring 'em on' bragging seems to be bearing fruit, alas. (Via CSM warblog.)
Does Harvard have too much money?: More evidence rolls in that Harvard is rolling in dough. ... What the hell is a 'House gym'? Don't know, but Harvard is throwing $20,000 at each one -- like dropping twenty-dollar bills in each panhandler's cup. ... It took lovable Tufts about, oh, two generations to get Cousens Gym upgraded. I can absolutely assure you there were no 'House gym' grants before and during construction.
FYI: It's a well-known fact Harvard is afraid to play the Jumbos in football. A fact!
FYI: It's a well-known fact Harvard is afraid to play the Jumbos in football. A fact!
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
You know ...: There’s a part of me who wonders if Kerry’s campaign really is back on track. These are either professional political rats abandoning ship or professional political staff abandoning ship. There’s a sublime difference. ...
Update: Scot Lehigh thinks it's the latter. So much for getting back on track. ... Hmmmm. Am I the only one who thinks Kerry, long known for his admiration for (and self-comparisons to) John Kennedy, might be going a little overboard by making his candidacy a virtual subsidiary of Teddy Inc.? The new campaign hires may or may not be good tactical moves. I haven't a clue. But you gotta wonder how's it's going to strategically play in other parts of the country where the mere mention of Teddy's name sends people frothing. Just wondering.
‘Let’s get rid of this guy’: Michael Ignatieff, of Harvard’s JFK School of Gov’t, was clearly the most impressive panelist this afternoon at a big BU-hosted conference on U.S.-European relations, which Hub Blog attended as part of an aborted story (which is a long story). ... George Soros, another panelist, was an idiot, even though he’s obviously the trendy lefty capitalist of the moment -- and had the crowd behind him. Soros spoke out of both sides of his mouth at every step. He should have dominated the panel, considering the crowd. He didn’t. Overrated. Except for his money. ... Max Boot, another panelist, was an unbearable and robotic bore, spouting not a single line I haven’t already read twenty million times over at Andrew Sullivan, who has original thoughts. Boot is an intellectual leader of the neo-conservative/Pax America movement? It’s a movement in deeper trouble than I thought. ... Ken Adelman had some funny quips, but didn’t overly impress. ... But Ignatieff, well, here was a guy who almost seemed embarrassed by the Crossfire-type format that inadvertently developed at the conference. A genuine liberal who has stuck to his guns about the need to go into Iraq (post-Mission Accomplished disasters and all), Ignatieff is the type of moderate liberal Mickey Kaus once said Bush should have been reaching out to all along. ... Ignatieff, who was mini-profiled (once again with the link) in the Herald this morning, has a new novel out. But some quotes from the story:
"The part of the left's opposition to the war that I just didn't respect, frankly, was they were so opposed to Bush and the use of force that they actually were prepared to leave Saddam in power. And when it came to it I thought: ‘Let's get rid of this guy.’ ''
And:
"I'm a U.N. guy, but let's not fetishize the U.N. ... The U.N. did not authorize Kosovo, which I thought was a completely justified operation. It sat on its hands over Bosnia.”
At the BU conference, Ignatieff said there’s ample justification for America’s “cold contempt” for Europe’s non-action in Bosnia -- and Iraq. But he also said the Bush administration, which has been schizoid about the U.N., should bite the bullet and make the U.N. better by reforming it -- with a chief reform being putting India on the Security Council. He was terrific.
Update: Scot Lehigh thinks it's the latter. So much for getting back on track. ... Hmmmm. Am I the only one who thinks Kerry, long known for his admiration for (and self-comparisons to) John Kennedy, might be going a little overboard by making his candidacy a virtual subsidiary of Teddy Inc.? The new campaign hires may or may not be good tactical moves. I haven't a clue. But you gotta wonder how's it's going to strategically play in other parts of the country where the mere mention of Teddy's name sends people frothing. Just wondering.
‘Let’s get rid of this guy’: Michael Ignatieff, of Harvard’s JFK School of Gov’t, was clearly the most impressive panelist this afternoon at a big BU-hosted conference on U.S.-European relations, which Hub Blog attended as part of an aborted story (which is a long story). ... George Soros, another panelist, was an idiot, even though he’s obviously the trendy lefty capitalist of the moment -- and had the crowd behind him. Soros spoke out of both sides of his mouth at every step. He should have dominated the panel, considering the crowd. He didn’t. Overrated. Except for his money. ... Max Boot, another panelist, was an unbearable and robotic bore, spouting not a single line I haven’t already read twenty million times over at Andrew Sullivan, who has original thoughts. Boot is an intellectual leader of the neo-conservative/Pax America movement? It’s a movement in deeper trouble than I thought. ... Ken Adelman had some funny quips, but didn’t overly impress. ... But Ignatieff, well, here was a guy who almost seemed embarrassed by the Crossfire-type format that inadvertently developed at the conference. A genuine liberal who has stuck to his guns about the need to go into Iraq (post-Mission Accomplished disasters and all), Ignatieff is the type of moderate liberal Mickey Kaus once said Bush should have been reaching out to all along. ... Ignatieff, who was mini-profiled (once again with the link) in the Herald this morning, has a new novel out. But some quotes from the story:
"The part of the left's opposition to the war that I just didn't respect, frankly, was they were so opposed to Bush and the use of force that they actually were prepared to leave Saddam in power. And when it came to it I thought: ‘Let's get rid of this guy.’ ''
And:
"I'm a U.N. guy, but let's not fetishize the U.N. ... The U.N. did not authorize Kosovo, which I thought was a completely justified operation. It sat on its hands over Bosnia.”
At the BU conference, Ignatieff said there’s ample justification for America’s “cold contempt” for Europe’s non-action in Bosnia -- and Iraq. But he also said the Bush administration, which has been schizoid about the U.N., should bite the bullet and make the U.N. better by reforming it -- with a chief reform being putting India on the Security Council. He was terrific.
‘Reflections on Remembrance Day’: Reader No. 1 sends in Mark Steyn's reflections on Remembrance Day in Canada and Europe. It’s depressing. They sound more and more like the ‘30s generation every day. ...
Hub Blog is now reading Jean-Francois Revel’s ‘Anti-Americanism.’ It’s simply awesome -- a relentless slash-and-burn attack on the antics and assumptions of the European media and intellectual elite. Their obsession with America -- both left and right -- is blinding and complete. ... One of Revel's main points: Eurotopia is doomed to second-power status as long as its warped views about the United States are so obviously off -- and willfully so.
Hub Blog is now reading Jean-Francois Revel’s ‘Anti-Americanism.’ It’s simply awesome -- a relentless slash-and-burn attack on the antics and assumptions of the European media and intellectual elite. Their obsession with America -- both left and right -- is blinding and complete. ... One of Revel's main points: Eurotopia is doomed to second-power status as long as its warped views about the United States are so obviously off -- and willfully so.
‘All of a sudden, John Kerry starts swinging’?: Alex Beam hasn’t given up on John Kerry. Sounds like the early conventional wisdom of many Bostonians -- including Hub Blog -- who remember the Weld-Kerry Senate showdown, when Kerry, his seemingly underestimated back against the wall, came out swinging and won. But the more I think of the comparison, the more it sounds stale. Weld was a bored governor. Dean is a hungry ex-governor. Weld went along with and kept the gentlemen’s agreement on spending caps. Dean went along with and then broke a similar agreement. Weld’s Dean Martin-like persona reflected the washed-up tone of a campaign going through the motions. Dean’s non-Dean Martin-like persona reflects an energized campaign playing to win. ... For that and other reasons, I’m increasingly tempted to make side bets on: Gephardt. ... The newly redesigned John Ellis.blogspot is anticipating the concession speeches.
Remember that seemingly whacky idea out of the Pentagon to create a quasi-futures market on possible terrorists attacks? Well, taking the same logic and applying it to the presidential race, the GOP money-markets tend to be betting on Dean.
Remember that seemingly whacky idea out of the Pentagon to create a quasi-futures market on possible terrorists attacks? Well, taking the same logic and applying it to the presidential race, the GOP money-markets tend to be betting on Dean.
Monday, November 10, 2003
John Kerry’s supercool meltdown: Kerry fires his campaign manager. But, nah, it can't have much to do with his convoluted-message gene, right? Here’s the latest forthcoming flip-flop.
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Yes, but did Herr Hitler have a Viking Stove? Part II: More on that famed pre-Martha Stewart home decorator. ... Via Andrew Sullivan. ... Part I is below.
Update -- Nearly 60 percent of Europeans think Israel is the largest threat to peace in the world. They must be reading those back copies of Homes and Gardens. ... Via Boston-based CSM's weblog.
Update -- Nearly 60 percent of Europeans think Israel is the largest threat to peace in the world. They must be reading those back copies of Homes and Gardens. ... Via Boston-based CSM's weblog.
Monday, November 03, 2003
‘This generally dull, stultifying, suffocating homogeneity of thought’: More on the French ‘intellectual’ elite and a possible backlash among those who are slowly realizing something has gone haywire in paradise.
Sunday, November 02, 2003
‘By the way, Boston ...’: Charlotte thinks it has a big dick. The only problem is that it doesn’t have a soul. ... Have you ever been to Charlotte? Don’t bother. Whatever charm it once had was flattened and paved in the name of big-dick bragging rights. ...
... If you do have to go to Charlotte on non-big-dick business, here’s what the tourist guide will say: “Over there is the home where Jefferson Davis surrendered the Confederacy. But we tore it down so we could have big-dick bragging rights. Over there is a once beautiful and charming Southern antebellum neighborhood. But we tore it down for big-dick bragging rights. Over there is ...”
... Picture a well-swept Route 9, and you have Charlotte. ...
Of course, Boston has its own big-dick wannabes. They’re usually the types who spew NYC v. Boston inferiority. But as Hub Blog has said before and will say again: Boston is to New York what Edinburgh is to London. They’re two different cities. But I’ll take the comparison to Edinburgh any day. ...
Charlotte? Think Frankfurt, five days after it was fire-bombed. By its own air force.
... If you do have to go to Charlotte on non-big-dick business, here’s what the tourist guide will say: “Over there is the home where Jefferson Davis surrendered the Confederacy. But we tore it down so we could have big-dick bragging rights. Over there is a once beautiful and charming Southern antebellum neighborhood. But we tore it down for big-dick bragging rights. Over there is ...”
... Picture a well-swept Route 9, and you have Charlotte. ...
Of course, Boston has its own big-dick wannabes. They’re usually the types who spew NYC v. Boston inferiority. But as Hub Blog has said before and will say again: Boston is to New York what Edinburgh is to London. They’re two different cities. But I’ll take the comparison to Edinburgh any day. ...
Charlotte? Think Frankfurt, five days after it was fire-bombed. By its own air force.
‘Her unshakeable image as a Beacon Hill insider’: A year after Mitt’s election, they’re still asking: How did he do it? Or more accurately: How did Dems blow it? The editor of CommonWealth magazine thinks his mag has stumbled upon some truths: changing demographics and Shannon’s ‘unshakeable image as a Beacon Hill insider.’ ... Picture Hub Blog slapping his forehead and exclaiming, ‘Why didn’t I think of that?’ ... Sorry, but CommonWealth is about a year late on its analysis. Check out all the immediate post-election items from a year ago, from Margery Eagan to Scot Lehigh. I loved Margery’s debunking of the gender issue:
“It (Shannon’s loss) was about another nightmare vision: of Beacon Hill turned to Baghdad, of a totalitarian, tax-crazed regime. It was about Democrats behaving badly, the kind of pervasive, holier-than-thou, non-Democrats-are-evil arrogance we saw in rhetoric here (if you voted against bilingual education, you're an immigrant-hater) and in Minnesota. Remember the memorial service-turned-rally for late Sen. Paul Wellstone?”
“It (Shannon’s loss) was about another nightmare vision: of Beacon Hill turned to Baghdad, of a totalitarian, tax-crazed regime. It was about Democrats behaving badly, the kind of pervasive, holier-than-thou, non-Democrats-are-evil arrogance we saw in rhetoric here (if you voted against bilingual education, you're an immigrant-hater) and in Minnesota. Remember the memorial service-turned-rally for late Sen. Paul Wellstone?”
Yes, but did Herr Hitler have a Viking stove?: Nifty little piece about the controversy over Homes & Gardens’ 1938 puff piece on Hitler’s vacation spread -- and its obnoxious attempt today to quash Internet coverage of it via bogus copyright claims. Harvard University’s Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies has the cover illustration and text. ... The amazing thing: The puff piece was written a mere 10 months before the outbreak of WWII. More proof the Under-the-Tuscan-Sun types have always lived in a false universe -- and raked in money by promoting a false universe. ... Damn it! One of these days Hub Blog is gonna get that aircraft-carrier kitchen island!
Update -- Many magazines/newspapers botched the pre-war analysis of Hitler. Many also obviously botched the post-war coverage of the occupation. Interesting.
Update -- Many magazines/newspapers botched the pre-war analysis of Hitler. Many also obviously botched the post-war coverage of the occupation. Interesting.
