Tuesday, April 22, 2003
‘No ‘credible evidence’ of a patronage problem’: Hub Blog was all excited when I read this Globe story with a lead that started out: ‘Responding to the clamor for government reform ...’ Of course, lawmakers are merely going through the court-reform motions, while increasing funding and maintaining their grip on the purse strings. Still, the House Dems’ court ‘concessions’ were mildly encouraging. Until I read this Herald story. Here’s the key passage: “House Ways and Means Chairman John H. Rogers said there is no ‘credible evidence’ of a patronage problem. ‘The governor seems to be playing on a myth,’ Rogers (D-Norwood) said.” ... I’m sure Howie Carr can provide more prosecutorial ‘credible evidence’ if you need it, John. For moi, this will always remain Exhibit A. ...
... Next up: Reform and/or abolishment of the Bechtal Turnpike Authority. Joan Vennochi makes a good case for it, without really making a specific case for it. Instead, she floats a really grand idea: Haul Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci and Jane Swift before a hearing, swear them in, and ask the big question about the Big Dig’s buried $14 billion sticker price: What did you know and when did you know it? ... We’ll turn Joan into a fire-breathing reformer yet! ...
Wayne Woodlief appears intrigued about an actual two-party system (pay to view).
... Next up: Reform and/or abolishment of the Bechtal Turnpike Authority. Joan Vennochi makes a good case for it, without really making a specific case for it. Instead, she floats a really grand idea: Haul Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci and Jane Swift before a hearing, swear them in, and ask the big question about the Big Dig’s buried $14 billion sticker price: What did you know and when did you know it? ... We’ll turn Joan into a fire-breathing reformer yet! ...
Wayne Woodlief appears intrigued about an actual two-party system (pay to view).
State property and the housing crisis: Not sure about rushing off to sell state land for $180 million and dumping funds into a flawed, bloated pension system. But I like the concept of using the land for housing. ... If you want to see smart and creative use of state land for housing, stroll on over to the Saltonstall building near City Hall. ... Personally, Hub Blog prefers the new Bowdoin Street townhouses over the more futuristic Cambridge Street designs. But it’s housing. On state land. On a puny tract of state land.
Why didn’t they do this sooner?: Amtrak is finally lowering the cost of the Acela Express in order to increase its ridership market share. Why they pegged Acela prices to the price of Boston-NYC shuttle flights, I don’t know. They should have been undercutting prices all along, not matching them. ...
While Amtrak tries to expand rail ridership, the obnoxious MBTA GM Mike Mulhern, carrying on the long tradition of the T’s bias against rail, is gloating over the Silver Line’s glorified bus service and figuring out ways to quash the masses’ bias for rail: “In some quarters, there's a real bias against bus service. ... Will we ever silence all the critics? I don't think so. But will we convince the vast majority of people that we're able to run a high-quality, bus rapid transit system? I think the answer to that is quite clear. We've almost doubled ridership (along Washington Street) in one year.” ... Need more proof about the T’s institutional bias against rail and for buses?
While Amtrak tries to expand rail ridership, the obnoxious MBTA GM Mike Mulhern, carrying on the long tradition of the T’s bias against rail, is gloating over the Silver Line’s glorified bus service and figuring out ways to quash the masses’ bias for rail: “In some quarters, there's a real bias against bus service. ... Will we ever silence all the critics? I don't think so. But will we convince the vast majority of people that we're able to run a high-quality, bus rapid transit system? I think the answer to that is quite clear. We've almost doubled ridership (along Washington Street) in one year.” ... Need more proof about the T’s institutional bias against rail and for buses?
‘I helped them in the battle’: Add Scott Bernard Nelson to the list of embeds who made tough life-or-death decisions during the war in Iraq. Nelson isn’t exactly taking the Jules Crittenden ‘Screw them’ attitude toward potential critics. But after the obligatory nod to armchair journalism ethicists, one can sense Nelson has few qualms about what he did. Nor should he. ...
The consensus seems to be that the embed system worked. And it did. Think of it this way: Would journalists (and readers and viewers) like to return to the Gulf War I days of spoon-fed briefings in tents and media centers?
The consensus seems to be that the embed system worked. And it did. Think of it this way: Would journalists (and readers and viewers) like to return to the Gulf War I days of spoon-fed briefings in tents and media centers?
Monday, April 21, 2003
Happy Patriots Day, New Englanders: Giving myself a light blogging break this weekend and perhaps through the rest of the week. Isn’t it glorious? Easter, Passover, Patriots Day, all on the same beautiful spring weekend? Hope you’re enjoying your weekend, too. The Patriots Day holiday, in particular, has such a distinct, non-commercial New England feel to it. A springtime version of Thanksgiving. Appreciated. Unspoiled. Simple. ...
But I do have one other blog item to unload today. Here it is below (and please read it, especially Brighton Reader’s fascinating and timely history lesson on stolen art). ...
But I do have one other blog item to unload today. Here it is below (and please read it, especially Brighton Reader’s fascinating and timely history lesson on stolen art). ...
‘The Monument Men’ and a semi-correction correction: No, I’m not pulling a Jo Moore, i.e. dumping bad news on a weird day so nobody notices. But I do want to quickly point out a few things that recently came to my attention:
‘The Monument Men’:
The other day, Hub Blog blogged about a Herald editorial, which went after the critics of the U.S.’s failure to protect historic artifacts during the fall of Baghdad. I was (and remain) furious with the obnoxious assertion that we’re somehow uncivilized ruffians who deliberately allowed the tragic thefts. There was an elitist, cheap-shot nature to the harshest of criticism -- criticism that often and typically went well beyond justified lament. Still, I think we deserve some criticism for not anticipating the lootings and organized thefts. This article and then this article in the Globe show that the tragedy was far more widespread than originally believed. But Brighton Reader really put the tragedy into historical perspective for me. From Brighton Reader:
“The looting of Iraqi museums and libraries was awful, tragic and not unprecedented. Both the Globe and Herald editorials were simplistic. ...
“Preserving and recovering cultural artifacts is not new to the American military. During World War II, a special section of the US army was detailed to recover art stolen by the Nazis. All through the battles from Italy to the German surrender they worked to locate and protect paintings, sculpture and other important cultural artifacts. Known as the ‘Monument Men,’ they were not always successful, faced with hostility from commanders and with few resources, they persevered. Among the items recovered were the relics of Charlemagne, paintings by Caravaggio and sculpture by Michelangelo. One member of this operation, Walker Hancock, later designed the inauguration medal for his former commander, President Eisenhower. Hancock lived for many years on Cape Ann, where I met him and first learned about this largely unknown effort. A great book, ‘The Rape of Europa,’ describes the Nazi looting spree and the Allied recovery efforts.
“Given our ability to win wars in an incredibly short time, I think we are going to have to figure out how to get the countries where we fight functioning quickly. Basic police protection, emergency medical care, and yes, protecting the higher arts of civilization. It seems we can fight and win with fewer troops, but can we keep order, too?”
Wow. Interesting historical perspective.
‘A Semi-correction Correction’:
Also the other day, Hub Blog blogged on the Eason Jordan/CNN affair, bringing up the issue of whether Eason et gang didn’t report on the death of a Kuwaiti woman during the first Gulf War twelve years ago. In the postscript, I neglected to add this sentence to the paragraph from Eason’s original op-ed piece: “Then there were the events that were not unreported that nonetheless still haunt me.” My eyes just glazed over the double-negative “not unreported” and I wanted to cut quickly into the heart of the paragraph. So I omitted it. But a mistake is still a mistake, and I stand corrected and fall on the sword. I assume “not unreported” means just what it says: the event was reported. My apologies -- and my apologies to any and all who picked up this item on Hub Blog. I blew it. ... But, ah, why call it a ‘semi-correction correction’? Because A.) I won’t back down from my overall criticism of CNN’s behavior, 99 percent of which derives from other facts, and B.) I’m still scratching my head over “not unreported.” ...
... Have a great Patriots Day, New Englanders!
‘The Monument Men’:
The other day, Hub Blog blogged about a Herald editorial, which went after the critics of the U.S.’s failure to protect historic artifacts during the fall of Baghdad. I was (and remain) furious with the obnoxious assertion that we’re somehow uncivilized ruffians who deliberately allowed the tragic thefts. There was an elitist, cheap-shot nature to the harshest of criticism -- criticism that often and typically went well beyond justified lament. Still, I think we deserve some criticism for not anticipating the lootings and organized thefts. This article and then this article in the Globe show that the tragedy was far more widespread than originally believed. But Brighton Reader really put the tragedy into historical perspective for me. From Brighton Reader:
“The looting of Iraqi museums and libraries was awful, tragic and not unprecedented. Both the Globe and Herald editorials were simplistic. ...
“Preserving and recovering cultural artifacts is not new to the American military. During World War II, a special section of the US army was detailed to recover art stolen by the Nazis. All through the battles from Italy to the German surrender they worked to locate and protect paintings, sculpture and other important cultural artifacts. Known as the ‘Monument Men,’ they were not always successful, faced with hostility from commanders and with few resources, they persevered. Among the items recovered were the relics of Charlemagne, paintings by Caravaggio and sculpture by Michelangelo. One member of this operation, Walker Hancock, later designed the inauguration medal for his former commander, President Eisenhower. Hancock lived for many years on Cape Ann, where I met him and first learned about this largely unknown effort. A great book, ‘The Rape of Europa,’ describes the Nazi looting spree and the Allied recovery efforts.
“Given our ability to win wars in an incredibly short time, I think we are going to have to figure out how to get the countries where we fight functioning quickly. Basic police protection, emergency medical care, and yes, protecting the higher arts of civilization. It seems we can fight and win with fewer troops, but can we keep order, too?”
Wow. Interesting historical perspective.
‘A Semi-correction Correction’:
Also the other day, Hub Blog blogged on the Eason Jordan/CNN affair, bringing up the issue of whether Eason et gang didn’t report on the death of a Kuwaiti woman during the first Gulf War twelve years ago. In the postscript, I neglected to add this sentence to the paragraph from Eason’s original op-ed piece: “Then there were the events that were not unreported that nonetheless still haunt me.” My eyes just glazed over the double-negative “not unreported” and I wanted to cut quickly into the heart of the paragraph. So I omitted it. But a mistake is still a mistake, and I stand corrected and fall on the sword. I assume “not unreported” means just what it says: the event was reported. My apologies -- and my apologies to any and all who picked up this item on Hub Blog. I blew it. ... But, ah, why call it a ‘semi-correction correction’? Because A.) I won’t back down from my overall criticism of CNN’s behavior, 99 percent of which derives from other facts, and B.) I’m still scratching my head over “not unreported.” ...
... Have a great Patriots Day, New Englanders!
Saturday, April 19, 2003
‘The seeds are being sown now’: I love this. Reform and a two-party system. ... Can’t believe Mitt was/is honestly thinking of signing the pay-raise bill. If he does sign it, it’s game, set, match point, Finneran. Mitt will have lost all credibility, most of his support, and any emotional leverage with voters to carry on the reform fight after this budget cycle. ... Do you hear it? Members of the Progressive Hack Alliance are ‘emboldened’ by recent poll numbers showing the public will favor tax increases to soften the blow of budget cuts. Where’s the news here? Hub Blog favors the same thing. The catch is to force lawmakers to accept reforms into the packages -- some of which will soften the blow of both service cuts and tax increases. ... Notice how anti-reformers (hacks) and/or luke-warm supporters of reform ('progressives') never want to soften the blow of tax increases. Oh, they tut-tut, reforms won't 'solve' the budget crisis or they're 'too small in savings.' etc. etc. ... The Progressive Hack Alliance: It exists.
Michael Widmer, God of Impartiality, speaks: “While the fiscal crisis is requiring painful spending cuts across all of state government, it also provides a singular opportunity to curb longstanding spending abuses and eliminate inefficiencies that have been tolerated in more prosperous times. In the urgency of crisis, state leaders have the rare chance to overcome the always loud but usually narrow-based political resistance to eliminating the favored treatment, special deals, and wasteful protectionism that government tends to accumulate over the years.” ...
‘A major reform of yet another Beacon Hill sacred cow’: Just another ‘small saving’ that will lessen the blow of both service cuts and tax increases. ... Herald’s conclusion: “And who said a fiscal crisis was a bad thing?”
Our reputation as a civilized people, restored: So it was a well-planned inside heist, complete with sophisticated glass cutters, knowledge of fake and real antiquities, museum catalogs, keys to vaults, indications the ‘looting’ started weeks before the Americans were in Baghdad and even before the war started, the likely role of ‘outsiders’ etc. ... Herald takes a swipe at the Blame America First Club and the Globe. ... Reread the column by Paul Zimansky and Elizabeth C. Stone contained in this post. Notice how much time they spend attacking the U.S. and how “American forces deliberately engineered that breakdown without having allocated adequate resources to put something in its place.” ... Deliberately engineered that breakdown. Pathetic. They’ll never admit they were wrong. Not even partially wrong.
Mother Nature is sending us a signal: Ah, the $1.2 billion Silver Line. The most expensive bus line in history.
Friday, April 18, 2003
Borrowing to get out of debt: No major philosophical objections to this borrowing plan. The timing is tricky, though. Not sure if Wall Street will go along with it at this time. ... No matter what happens on the borrowing front (say it’s $500 million for the next fiscal year), it still leaves a $2.5 billion hole in the budget. No reforms, no borrowing?
‘Is that a breeze of reform?’: Yes, it’s a breeze. But only a breeze. ... More ‘concessions’ from Dems. The more the merrier. But lots, lots more are required to make us truly merry and to justify a tax increase. There’s still: the Pacheco bill, bumping rights, court reform, the Quinn bill, Billy, the Bechtal Turnpike Authority, pension shenanigans, a Rutan anti-patronage executive order if Mitt would ever sign one, pay raises to deep six, agencies to be eliminated and/or consolidated, shady land deals, democracy in the House, the Governor’s Council, no-bid consulting contracts, nepotism, tort reform, etc. etc. ... Sorry, the MDC, health-services consolidation, Medicaid cuts are not enough. They don’t go to the heart of how Beacon Hill operates. Not even close. They’re bones.
Update -- The Herald is doing a jig over the possible/probable demise of the MDC. Personally, I'll believe it when I see it. The MDC has been pronounced dead before. The Herald rightly adds: "As Finneran and Rogers put the final touches on their budget blueprint, they should make room for more reform. The times demand it."
Update -- The Herald is doing a jig over the possible/probable demise of the MDC. Personally, I'll believe it when I see it. The MDC has been pronounced dead before. The Herald rightly adds: "As Finneran and Rogers put the final touches on their budget blueprint, they should make room for more reform. The times demand it."
Playing proxy footsie with Al Qaeda?: The Christian Science Monitor is rummaging through the trash -- in a good sort of way -- and coming up with documents in Baghdad that show an African terrorist group with links to Al Qaeda was in frequent contact with Iraqi ‘chargé d'affaires’ in ... in Nairobi, Kenya. Wasn’t an embassy blown up there? ... The links between Iraq, Al Qaeda and the group, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) of Uganda, are tenuous, as the CSM report notes, though some ADF forces did apparently train in Osama’s camps in Afghanistan. ...
Fighting a war you can’t win: Ever wonder what it was like to be an Iraqi soldier and commander fighting the Americans? Scott Peterson and Peter Ford have the scoop in interviews with top Iraqi officers. ... It’s almost sad. No, it is sad. Profoundly sad. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds died from Allied air attacks. ... Saddam’s Stalin-Hitler-like vision of himself as a great commander led to blunders of incredible magnitude. ... The psy-ops campaign had mixed result: The leaflets were all scooped up by Ba’athist fanatics, but the faxes and e-mails to commanders had a "big impact.”
Red light ... green light! Red light ... green light!: It’s starting to sound like a kids game. Doug Foy dumps on commuter rails in general, suggesting they contribute to sprawl, turning on its head the conventional wisdom that commuter rails help alleviate one of the major problems of already existing sprawl: Traffic congestion. ... Then Mitt goes to the South Shore yesterday and says the Greenbush line isn’t dead. Well, sort of not. Maybe. He’ll have to check the back of his envelope. ... Oh, we’ve only spent $100 million so far on Greenbush. ... Suggested compromise: A.) push ahead with Greenbush. B.) put Fall River-New Bedford on the deep back burner C.) insist Doug starts focusing on the real cause of sprawl: Z-O-N-I-N-G.
Jim Kelly, he’s back: He sure doesn't sound like he’s mellowed. ... I can’t figure out this line: ‘A 244,000-square-foot vacant Cambridge Street parcel is valued at $54.8 million.’ What are they talking about? What vacant parcel? Does anyone have an idea? ...
Thursday, April 17, 2003
Michael Kelly’s last column: It’s over at The Atlantic, via Instapundit. We’re going to miss this guy.
'The moon will run crimson with the blood of the Boston infidels ...': You got to read this. Jim Caple has former Iraqi information minister Mohammad Saeed Al-Sahhaf calling a Yankees-Red Sox game from Yankee Stadium. ...
Thanks to John Farrell for the email link. You made my day, John.
Thanks to John Farrell for the email link. You made my day, John.
‘Protesters should pay for their illegal actions’: Reader Rich sends this note in about an earlier post on street protesters:
“I respectfully have to disagree with your statement ‘We all know the idea to charge protesters to protest is wrong.’ ... As I understand it, the bill would tag anybody (not just protesters) with a fine for blocking traffic. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that. The courts have long recognized that 'time, manner, place' restrictions on speech are valid (i.e. content-neutral restrictions). There's no 1st Amendment right to sit outside someone's house with a bullhorn at 2:00am. Similarly, I see no 1A right to block traffic on public ways. The 'protesters' should pay for their illegal actions. They want it both ways -- (and unfortunately you're buying into their act in this case) -- they want to be seen as committing civil disobedience but they want to escape all the consequences of their actions. It doesn't work that way.”
Hub Blog’s response: Respectfully disagree. Here’s why: Besides Tom Keane’s astute point about the correlation between marches and cleaner streets, I’m beginning to think they should be encouraged, begged, required and even paid to protest for another obvious reason, to wit: Whenever protesters put on their Mardi Gras outfits and hold ‘die ins’ and shout ‘Hey! Ho! ...,’ they become distracted from serious argument, they embarrass serious thinkers on their side trying to engage in serious argument, their elitist costumes and antics alienate everyone else, support for their causes invariably sinks -- and the rest of us win! ... Personally, Hub Blog thinks we should establish a secret slush fund to bribe ANSWER into protesting on behalf of Tommy and the Trav. Extra bonus bribes if they can do ‘die ins’ in front of Mitt’s office, hold anti-reform rallies outside for the cameras, block traffic etc. ... A winning strategy!
“I respectfully have to disagree with your statement ‘We all know the idea to charge protesters to protest is wrong.’ ... As I understand it, the bill would tag anybody (not just protesters) with a fine for blocking traffic. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that. The courts have long recognized that 'time, manner, place' restrictions on speech are valid (i.e. content-neutral restrictions). There's no 1st Amendment right to sit outside someone's house with a bullhorn at 2:00am. Similarly, I see no 1A right to block traffic on public ways. The 'protesters' should pay for their illegal actions. They want it both ways -- (and unfortunately you're buying into their act in this case) -- they want to be seen as committing civil disobedience but they want to escape all the consequences of their actions. It doesn't work that way.”
Hub Blog’s response: Respectfully disagree. Here’s why: Besides Tom Keane’s astute point about the correlation between marches and cleaner streets, I’m beginning to think they should be encouraged, begged, required and even paid to protest for another obvious reason, to wit: Whenever protesters put on their Mardi Gras outfits and hold ‘die ins’ and shout ‘Hey! Ho! ...,’ they become distracted from serious argument, they embarrass serious thinkers on their side trying to engage in serious argument, their elitist costumes and antics alienate everyone else, support for their causes invariably sinks -- and the rest of us win! ... Personally, Hub Blog thinks we should establish a secret slush fund to bribe ANSWER into protesting on behalf of Tommy and the Trav. Extra bonus bribes if they can do ‘die ins’ in front of Mitt’s office, hold anti-reform rallies outside for the cameras, block traffic etc. ... A winning strategy!
Scene 2, Act IV -- Throw reform bones at plebeians: The reform ‘concessions’ the House is now offering up are part of the script: Cut services until people beg for taxes, throw in a couple reform bones to keep the howling masses happy. Superb acting, guys. Bravo! ...
... Mitt better veto Tommy’s pay-raise scam if he wants to extract more concessions -- and maintain his reputation as a reformer. Here are the three best arguments I’ve seen for taking on Tommy, especially now that he’s offering up ‘concessions,’ perhaps calculating the ‘concessions’ will lull Mitt into being a nice guy about the pay raises. From the Globe:
“First, Romney has earned the label of reformer. But all his proposals for government reorganization will look pale if he winks at so blatant a power grab.
“Second, Romney must indeed work with the Legislature and its leadership, but he must also show he is a player. If he lies down on this fight, he can expect to be steamrolled by the legislators all year.
“Third, he might win. The 50 votes opposed to Finneran's proposal were tantalizingly close to enough to sustain a veto. If the same people voted, only one vote would need to change.”
This line needs repeating: “If he lies down on this fight, he can expect to be steamrolled by the legislators all year.” ... And steamrolled by angry voters, too. ... From the MetroWest Daily News: “ ... the Legislature seems intent on rejecting Romney's reforms, not improving on them. In the last two weeks, task forces appointed by House Speaker Thomas Finneran have recommended against restructuring public higher education, closing under-utilized district courts, reforming the inequitable system of funding court budgets and making state employees pay more for health insurance.”
... Mitt better veto Tommy’s pay-raise scam if he wants to extract more concessions -- and maintain his reputation as a reformer. Here are the three best arguments I’ve seen for taking on Tommy, especially now that he’s offering up ‘concessions,’ perhaps calculating the ‘concessions’ will lull Mitt into being a nice guy about the pay raises. From the Globe:
“First, Romney has earned the label of reformer. But all his proposals for government reorganization will look pale if he winks at so blatant a power grab.
“Second, Romney must indeed work with the Legislature and its leadership, but he must also show he is a player. If he lies down on this fight, he can expect to be steamrolled by the legislators all year.
“Third, he might win. The 50 votes opposed to Finneran's proposal were tantalizingly close to enough to sustain a veto. If the same people voted, only one vote would need to change.”
This line needs repeating: “If he lies down on this fight, he can expect to be steamrolled by the legislators all year.” ... And steamrolled by angry voters, too. ... From the MetroWest Daily News: “ ... the Legislature seems intent on rejecting Romney's reforms, not improving on them. In the last two weeks, task forces appointed by House Speaker Thomas Finneran have recommended against restructuring public higher education, closing under-utilized district courts, reforming the inequitable system of funding court budgets and making state employees pay more for health insurance.”
‘Let Greenbush roll, save South Shore’: The Herald is coming out against the administration’s decision to kill off the Greenbush line (no mention of the New Bedford-Fall River line, though). Good points are raised: 1.) Greenbush won’t cause sprawl -- as Doug Foy seems to be saying about all commuter rail lines -- because the South Shore is already densely built up. 2.) Killing Greenbush will only encourage rail opponents to litigate and drive up costs on other projects. ...
Speaking of litigation, MBTA general manager Matthew H. Mulhern is practically inviting opposition to restoring trolley service along the Arborway in Jamaica Plain: ''If the MBTA was faced with overwhelming opposition to the project in the very community it was meant to be servicing, we'd have to take a step back.'' ... The good old MBTA. Deep down, you just know they hate rail and love those Silver Line buses.
Reader No Nickname responds:
“I have to jump in on the article about putting the trolley back in JP. This is a nice idea that simply won't work in that space. The gist of the project is to replace the former Green line that ran down S. Huntington and Centre St. in JP (not the Arborway as the article suggests). The first problem is that this area is already within walking distance (b/w 4 - 6 blocks of the Orange Line) of the T, and how many people will really want to take the a 15-20 stop Green Line train downtown over
the 8-10 stop Orange Line. Plus the admittedly unspectacular, but serviceable 39 bus already serves that route. (So people who want mass transit in the area already have it.)
“The second problem is that Centre Street is already too congested. ... Trolleys will occupy the entire available driving lane, blocking traffic and be blocked by traffic. I defy anyone to drive this route at 5 PM on a weekday and explain how the trolley will solve any problems.
“Lastly, in an age of scarce budgetary funds, does it really make sense to spend tens of millions of dollars on a project that will only provide incremental improvements in transit service for a neighborhood that already has subway access and multiple T bus routes?”
Hub Blog’s response: OK. You got me. Concede the argument for the sake of argument. Don't know JP as well as you. I’m just angry in general about all the rail setbacks in recent days, weeks and months. Particularly the Greenbush fiasco. ... And there is a MBTA bias against rail and for buses.
Speaking of litigation, MBTA general manager Matthew H. Mulhern is practically inviting opposition to restoring trolley service along the Arborway in Jamaica Plain: ''If the MBTA was faced with overwhelming opposition to the project in the very community it was meant to be servicing, we'd have to take a step back.'' ... The good old MBTA. Deep down, you just know they hate rail and love those Silver Line buses.
Reader No Nickname responds:
“I have to jump in on the article about putting the trolley back in JP. This is a nice idea that simply won't work in that space. The gist of the project is to replace the former Green line that ran down S. Huntington and Centre St. in JP (not the Arborway as the article suggests). The first problem is that this area is already within walking distance (b/w 4 - 6 blocks of the Orange Line) of the T, and how many people will really want to take the a 15-20 stop Green Line train downtown over
the 8-10 stop Orange Line. Plus the admittedly unspectacular, but serviceable 39 bus already serves that route. (So people who want mass transit in the area already have it.)
“The second problem is that Centre Street is already too congested. ... Trolleys will occupy the entire available driving lane, blocking traffic and be blocked by traffic. I defy anyone to drive this route at 5 PM on a weekday and explain how the trolley will solve any problems.
“Lastly, in an age of scarce budgetary funds, does it really make sense to spend tens of millions of dollars on a project that will only provide incremental improvements in transit service for a neighborhood that already has subway access and multiple T bus routes?”
Hub Blog’s response: OK. You got me. Concede the argument for the sake of argument. Don't know JP as well as you. I’m just angry in general about all the rail setbacks in recent days, weeks and months. Particularly the Greenbush fiasco. ... And there is a MBTA bias against rail and for buses.
MCAS criticism hits a new low, Part II: Joan Vennochi on the great Snow Day Essay Controversy. ....%$#$@*&)B&6)T ... ^%$B7*&TV)*& ...*YbB(*&^&BVYyt65#@bv8!UCR ... Sorry. That was my head banging against the keyboard again. ... P.S.: Thank God they didn’t ask kids what their favorite candy was. We’d have people lecturing us about how some kids can’t afford candy and how there’s a Type B Diabetes epidemic among children today.
Jeff, Dante and Ellen on the CNN scandal: Jeff Jacoby is on this issue. So is Dante Chinni. And so is Ellen Goodman. Overall thought on all three: They make good points: past coverage of the PLO (Jeff), off-the-record journalism rules (Dante), coverage of wars in general (Ellen). ... But they all seem to miss the important, salient point: CNN knew people were being killed and tortured for their association with -- and inaction by -- a specific media company seeking access. ... Doesn’t this cross some sort of unique journalistic line? ... Sadly, all three op-eds veer away from this point and drift into tangential pet-peeve arguments about journalism in general.
The ‘wizard’ is revealed: I knew about Billy using the endowment fund as his personal Defense Fund. Didn’t know that public tax dollars are used to prop up the endowment fund.
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
Morphing into a neoconservative, Part II: Reader John on Syria:
“ ... Definitely. I think a little note to these guys that we could smart-bomb one or two of their more obvious training camps might get the message across.”
Hub Blog’s anti-ideological ideological response: We’re there. Deal with the reality on the ground, not some Bob Kuttner lament about how we got there. Syria is a problem. ... If the French can be ‘pragmatic,’ so can we.
“ ... Definitely. I think a little note to these guys that we could smart-bomb one or two of their more obvious training camps might get the message across.”
Hub Blog’s anti-ideological ideological response: We’re there. Deal with the reality on the ground, not some Bob Kuttner lament about how we got there. Syria is a problem. ... If the French can be ‘pragmatic,’ so can we.
A Reform-O-Meter for post-Saddam Iraq and Beacon Hill: Reader BK has a splendid, splendid idea! From Reader BK:
"Which will come sooner -- an independent Iraqi Authority (notice, I didn't say complete constitutional governement with nationwide elections, just an independent, reforming authority made up of Iraqis), or the reforms that Romney is proposing to Hub Blog's beloved and favorite state legislature?
"Hub Blog should devise a running Reform-O-Meter to keep track of this comparison -- a board that both Hub Blog and Hub Blog's many readers can submit their odds to on a daily or weekly basis."
Hub Blog's response: I shall accept the challenge. Do readers have any suggestions on how to set up a Reform-O-Meter? Any and all ideas welcome.
"Which will come sooner -- an independent Iraqi Authority (notice, I didn't say complete constitutional governement with nationwide elections, just an independent, reforming authority made up of Iraqis), or the reforms that Romney is proposing to Hub Blog's beloved and favorite state legislature?
"Hub Blog should devise a running Reform-O-Meter to keep track of this comparison -- a board that both Hub Blog and Hub Blog's many readers can submit their odds to on a daily or weekly basis."
Hub Blog's response: I shall accept the challenge. Do readers have any suggestions on how to set up a Reform-O-Meter? Any and all ideas welcome.
Strange days indeed, most peculiar, mama: The trend evidence keeps piling up: A Concord dad taking out a contract on the wife, a Boston University professor found floating in the Charles River, a Harvard grad student stabs and kills an 18-year-old cook, MGH doctor murdered at work, suburban girl attacked while walking home, etc. ... Eerie events are unfolding in suburbia, academia and combos of the two. ... Hub Blog was going to post something on this mysterious trend, but Eileen McNamara took the dive first. ... Court TV should open a bureau here. On average, our murders and unsolved mysteries aren’t as sensational as the grisly fodder routinely coming out of LA, but we seem to have an irresistible Upstairs Downstairs component that LA lacks.
'That's not to say the protests were worthless’: OK. We all know the idea to charge protesters to protest is wrong, unfortunately. But what is it about the professional antiwar lefties that instills such a visceral contempt for them? I think it has something to do with their immature snootiness. ...
... Tom Keane has his own theories about the antiwar protesters and movement. But he has a surprising conclusion: "That's not to say the protests were worthless. Two weeks ago, in anticipation of Boston's demonstration, the city towed cars and, seeing an opportunity, also cleaned the streets of sand and salt left over from the winter. Mine was one of those streets. So from a purely selfish perspective, a good march at the beginning of every spring would be welcome." ... Hmmmmmm. "Dear ANSWER: How about a march down Anderson Street, ending at the White Hen on Cambridge Street? Thank you. Sincerely, Hub Blog."
... Tom Keane has his own theories about the antiwar protesters and movement. But he has a surprising conclusion: "That's not to say the protests were worthless. Two weeks ago, in anticipation of Boston's demonstration, the city towed cars and, seeing an opportunity, also cleaned the streets of sand and salt left over from the winter. Mine was one of those streets. So from a purely selfish perspective, a good march at the beginning of every spring would be welcome." ... Hmmmmmm. "Dear ANSWER: How about a march down Anderson Street, ending at the White Hen on Cambridge Street? Thank you. Sincerely, Hub Blog."
‘Veto the pay raise, fight for reform’: Veto it, Mitt. Finneran has declared war on you. Declare war back.
MCAS criticism hits a new low: Fourth-graders will have to retake their MCAS tests because of this controversial essay subject: "Write a story about a snow day off from school that you remember.'' ... %$#43t88vch8821y5886^$v765%4088bv&^&%0pp([yf ... Sorry. That was my head banging into my keyboard.
We’ve lost the war, lost the peace, lost our enlightened reputation: Yes, it’s true. Paul Zimansky and Elizabeth C. Stone cover the ‘stain on our reputation as enlightened and civilized people’ angle. ... Robert Kuttner rehashes the ‘Rumsfeld's war-on-the-cheap’ and ‘squandered’ angle. ...
... Scot Lehigh must be taking lessons from Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf because Scot sees things so differently: “The joyous celebrations that broke out in Iraqi cities, the dancing and the chanting, the victory signs, the thumbs up and the thank-yous, the handshakes and the hugs and the horn-honking, the cheers and the chanting, the sheer exuberant delight of a people finally free to express themselves, have given the lie to that claim more vividly than words ever could.” ... Scot, Scot. It’s over. We lost. We’ve squandered everything. ... And Richard Hottelet, stop writing about how the “US has no better ambassadors than the GIs when their instinctive amiable generosity is given free rein.” ... It’s over, Rich. Gone. Squandered.
... Scot Lehigh must be taking lessons from Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf because Scot sees things so differently: “The joyous celebrations that broke out in Iraqi cities, the dancing and the chanting, the victory signs, the thumbs up and the thank-yous, the handshakes and the hugs and the horn-honking, the cheers and the chanting, the sheer exuberant delight of a people finally free to express themselves, have given the lie to that claim more vividly than words ever could.” ... Scot, Scot. It’s over. We lost. We’ve squandered everything. ... And Richard Hottelet, stop writing about how the “US has no better ambassadors than the GIs when their instinctive amiable generosity is given free rein.” ... It’s over, Rich. Gone. Squandered.
‘Every country had better take note’: The Russian Army seems impressed with our victory. Darn it. Meant to say ‘squandered endeavor.’ ...Anyway, says one Russian: "The Americans have rewritten the (military) textbook, and every country had better take note." ...
Does that mean Syria should take note? Hub Blog must be morphing into a neoconservative, for I found this Christian Science Monitor editorial on Syria both realistic and appealing: “...If Arab suicide bombers are entering Iraq through Syria to strike at US forces, then Damascus must realize it is a party to an act of war.” ... Exactly. Not saying we should go to war. But we’re there in Iraq -- and if Syria (or Iran) seriously think they can get away with killing GIs with truck bombs etc., as they did in Lebanon in the ‘80s, they can and should be crushed. ... The Globe also has an editorial on Syria, rightly asserting we need to rebuild Iraq first while keeping a wary eye on Syria, but the editorial is a little to limp for me. ... Again, I must be morphing into a neoconservative, but you gotta deal with the realities you’re up against. Syria is a nasty reality.
Does that mean Syria should take note? Hub Blog must be morphing into a neoconservative, for I found this Christian Science Monitor editorial on Syria both realistic and appealing: “...If Arab suicide bombers are entering Iraq through Syria to strike at US forces, then Damascus must realize it is a party to an act of war.” ... Exactly. Not saying we should go to war. But we’re there in Iraq -- and if Syria (or Iran) seriously think they can get away with killing GIs with truck bombs etc., as they did in Lebanon in the ‘80s, they can and should be crushed. ... The Globe also has an editorial on Syria, rightly asserting we need to rebuild Iraq first while keeping a wary eye on Syria, but the editorial is a little to limp for me. ... Again, I must be morphing into a neoconservative, but you gotta deal with the realities you’re up against. Syria is a nasty reality.
‘This is my favorite phase of the war’: Jules Crittenden may have returned home, but Globe emeds Brian MacQuarrie and David Filipov are still reporting away. MacQuarrie’s story is great, following the GI ‘ghost chasers’ as they check out the latest horror reports and evidence about Saddam’s reign of terror. Says one officer: “This is my favorite phase of the war.” The officer is obviously a history buff. And so is MacQuarrie for riding along. ... Reading the ‘ghost chasers’ story, I couldn’t help but think of David Remnick’s “Lenin’s Tomb.”
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Eason Jordan defends CNN in letter to Dan Kennedy: Eason Jordan has written a long letter to Dan Kennedy, defending CNN's actions. I was so infuriated reading the letter, I was set to fisk the damn thing. But Dan does a great job demolishing Jordan's arguments at the end. No need for a fisking. Eason just doesn't get it.
Postscript: Read the paragraph below from Jordan's original NYT op-ed. See if you notice anything. Here's the paragraph:
"A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for 'crimes,' one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home."
Notice it? See the word 'Kuwaiti'? See the words 'occupying her country'? Did this happen in Kuwait? A different country. Kuwait was liberated 12 years ago. Jordan couldn't tell this story until now? Never mind the danger Iraqi employees, sources and family members faced by having any association with CNN in Iraq. We're talking about Kuwait. ... They sold their souls for access.
Postscript: Read the paragraph below from Jordan's original NYT op-ed. See if you notice anything. Here's the paragraph:
"A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for 'crimes,' one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home."
Notice it? See the word 'Kuwaiti'? See the words 'occupying her country'? Did this happen in Kuwait? A different country. Kuwait was liberated 12 years ago. Jordan couldn't tell this story until now? Never mind the danger Iraqi employees, sources and family members faced by having any association with CNN in Iraq. We're talking about Kuwait. ... They sold their souls for access.
'Wave the white flag on mass transit's future': Continue to get emails on my post about the cancellation/postponement of the Greenbush and New Bedford Fall River commuter rails, in addition to this morning's post from Brighton Reader. Not only is it a bad decision, but Foy's logic is flat-out anti-commuter rail, under any circumstances. Anyway, a sampling from Savin Hill:
"Could not agree more with you regarding cancellation of the Greenbush line and the general mass transit mess in Mass. To throw away this idea now is to wave the white flag on mass transit's future for ... well, probably decades. You correctly tie the issue to a type of effette snobbery of all things suburban emanating from the earthy-crunchy types. ..."
Another letter, this one from John:
"Good stuff on your blasting Romney for the decision to bag the commuter rail. Far as I'm concerned, local Bloggers should start beating up on Hingham the way national blogs are bashing France."
"Could not agree more with you regarding cancellation of the Greenbush line and the general mass transit mess in Mass. To throw away this idea now is to wave the white flag on mass transit's future for ... well, probably decades. You correctly tie the issue to a type of effette snobbery of all things suburban emanating from the earthy-crunchy types. ..."
Another letter, this one from John:
"Good stuff on your blasting Romney for the decision to bag the commuter rail. Far as I'm concerned, local Bloggers should start beating up on Hingham the way national blogs are bashing France."
Surviving the war and now HBS?: First Lieutenant Joe Finnigan, who's deployed with the Third Battalion of the Fifth Marine Regiment in Iraq and who conducted an application interview via satellite phone during a sandstorm in Kuwait, has been accepted into the Harvard Business School. He doesn't know it yet. They're having trouble getting hold of him, understandably. Here's hoping he gets home safely and has a happy celebration.
Update -- Here’s why we should pray for the Boston College grad's safe return: Saddam’s Fedayeen are launching deliberate attacks in Baghdad against civilians, trying to pin blame for them on Americans and disrupting the peace. The Christian Science Monitor’s Scott Petersen actually interviews one of the Fedayeen, who's confronted by a cleric: " 'You were not forced,' the cleric spat out. 'You fedayeen are hypocrites. Fedayeen is a missionary job; you are misrepresenting the faith, and slaves of wealth. You've lost all your respect for human life.' " ... Nope, we haven't done one iota of good in Iraq. Not one iota.
Update -- Here’s why we should pray for the Boston College grad's safe return: Saddam’s Fedayeen are launching deliberate attacks in Baghdad against civilians, trying to pin blame for them on Americans and disrupting the peace. The Christian Science Monitor’s Scott Petersen actually interviews one of the Fedayeen, who's confronted by a cleric: " 'You were not forced,' the cleric spat out. 'You fedayeen are hypocrites. Fedayeen is a missionary job; you are misrepresenting the faith, and slaves of wealth. You've lost all your respect for human life.' " ... Nope, we haven't done one iota of good in Iraq. Not one iota.
Deep cuts and House pay raises: You can’t make this up: House Dems are pushing ahead with plans for deep cuts in order to make the public scream for taxes -- while Tommy and Trav orchestrate pay hikes for members, most of whom just voted to turn down pay hikes in order to ‘share the pain’ with the people. ... The cynicism is so par for these guys, it barely registers a blip on the outrage detector. ... Is there or is there not a voter-approved constitutional provision establishing how and when lawmakers should get pay raises? Not that voters and the constitution matter to these guys. ... Still: Not a peep from the ‘progressive’ community, as one reform after another gets shot down. They’ll feign outrage after they get the taxes -- when the leverage is conveniently gone.
Plato, Socrates, Jefferson, Locke, Marx etc. -- all rolled into one: Here’s a quick profile of Harvard professor Brian Palmer, who teaches "Globalization and Human Values: Envisioning World Community." ... That covers about everything, right? History, economics, philosophy, ethics, the future of the world, etc.
Hub Blog’s headache over humanitarian assistance in Iraq: Hub Blog goes back and forth on this issue, causing dizziness, disorientation and throbbing headaches. Here’s why: Sarah Kenyon Lischer, a specialist in humanitarian aid and a research fellow at Harvard University, makes some good points about the expertise of professional do-gooders in these matters. And then she bashes the military. ... Of course, you can’t bash the military too much as long as they’re hiring committed people like Michael Iacobacci, a civilian contractor for the Army in Iraq. ... But, whoa! The former head of the Big Dig is overseeing U.S. development efforts in Iraq. ... But, wait, the antiwar movement now wants a say in rebuilding Iraq. ... See my dilemma? ...
... Favorite quote from antiwar ‘activist’ Katharine Preston of Lincoln, Mass.: "People who turn to antiwar protesters and say, 'You must have been wrong,' don't understand where we're coming from.” ... You’re wrong, Katharine. We know exactly where you’re coming from, even though the media routinely doesn’t tell us where you're coming from in stories about the antiwar movement. ... Second favorite quote from an antiwar ‘activist’: "There's not one iota of proof yet that what the US has done there has helped anyone." Remember: Not one iota.
Update -- Here's one iota -- besides the freeing of millions from a tryrant -- Hub Blog would like to see happen in Iraq: The capture of Saddam. The Brits are reporting he's still alive.
... Favorite quote from antiwar ‘activist’ Katharine Preston of Lincoln, Mass.: "People who turn to antiwar protesters and say, 'You must have been wrong,' don't understand where we're coming from.” ... You’re wrong, Katharine. We know exactly where you’re coming from, even though the media routinely doesn’t tell us where you're coming from in stories about the antiwar movement. ... Second favorite quote from an antiwar ‘activist’: "There's not one iota of proof yet that what the US has done there has helped anyone." Remember: Not one iota.
Update -- Here's one iota -- besides the freeing of millions from a tryrant -- Hub Blog would like to see happen in Iraq: The capture of Saddam. The Brits are reporting he's still alive.
The devil wants the Angels: Frank McCourt is a finalist to buy the World Series champion Anaheim Angels. ... Are those ugly surface parking lots near Fort Point Channel still ugly surface parking lots, Frank? Or are you still trying to throw wrenches into others’ development plans in order to maximize the value of your parking lots? ... Believe me, Frank is a kook. I’ve met him. I’ve listened to him. He’s a kook. Hope he buys the Angels. Improves the Sox’s odds.
‘Doug’s DisneyWorld’: The war is over -- and Brighton Reader is back! Anyway, Brighton Reader takes aim at Doug Foy and the decision to kill the Greenbush and New Bedford/Fall River commuter lines. From Brighton Reader:
“What is this guy thinking? Commuter rail is not going to cause sprawl. If zoning regulations stay the same, there are still going to be big subdivisions of oversized houses no matter what you do about public transportation. Provide some real incentives to communities to allow multi-family housing, smaller lot sizes and houses that are not enormous, and thus hopefully more affordable. One of the main reasons people keep pushing out to 495 and beyond is the hunt for a home they can afford. Foy also overlooks the economic benefits that commuter rail brings. The New Bedford/Fall River area has always had one of the higher unemployment rates in the state. They will benefit from having more people living in the area, spending the money they earn in Boston.
“And people really like commuter rail! It is popular!
“Totally agree with you about the message it sends about litigating projects to death, and also puts the administration on the side of elitists who want to keep their towns isolated Pleasantvilles.”
Hub Blog's response: This is one of those issues that will leave a negative mark on Mitt's record for years to come, if not decades. Frank Sargent killed an auto highway through the city -- and he's fondly remembered for it. Mitt killed commuter rail lines into the city -- and won't be fondly remembered for it. The difference is 'auto' and 'commuter rail.'
“What is this guy thinking? Commuter rail is not going to cause sprawl. If zoning regulations stay the same, there are still going to be big subdivisions of oversized houses no matter what you do about public transportation. Provide some real incentives to communities to allow multi-family housing, smaller lot sizes and houses that are not enormous, and thus hopefully more affordable. One of the main reasons people keep pushing out to 495 and beyond is the hunt for a home they can afford. Foy also overlooks the economic benefits that commuter rail brings. The New Bedford/Fall River area has always had one of the higher unemployment rates in the state. They will benefit from having more people living in the area, spending the money they earn in Boston.
“And people really like commuter rail! It is popular!
“Totally agree with you about the message it sends about litigating projects to death, and also puts the administration on the side of elitists who want to keep their towns isolated Pleasantvilles.”
Hub Blog's response: This is one of those issues that will leave a negative mark on Mitt's record for years to come, if not decades. Frank Sargent killed an auto highway through the city -- and he's fondly remembered for it. Mitt killed commuter rail lines into the city -- and won't be fondly remembered for it. The difference is 'auto' and 'commuter rail.'
‘The tax revolt will be something to watch’: The Herald had a nice editorial yesterday about efforts by the anti-reform 'Let ‘Em Beg for Taxes' Dems pushing a trial balloon to raise the auto excise tax. The Herald: “... on second thought, maybe they should let the plan go forward. The taxpayer revolt will be something to watch.” ... Indeed, let them go forward with it. It’s sure to further alienate Independent suburban voters. ...
... Instapundit is taking a swipe at the Herald’s pay-to-view policy on its columnists. Glenn: “Why in God's name is The Herald limiting its web content to subscribers?” ...
... Instapundit is taking a swipe at the Herald’s pay-to-view policy on its columnists. Glenn: “Why in God's name is The Herald limiting its web content to subscribers?” ...
Monday, April 14, 2003
'Kubler-Ross's stages of dying': A reader writes in to thank me for all my recent posts on Tom Keane’s Let ‘Em Beg For Taxes theory on the state budget, adding that I sound like I’m going through "Kubler-Ross's stages of dying: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance." ... Hey, I admit it. I see Finneran’s strategy unfolding before my eyes and I can’t believe people are falling for it. I’m scrambling for counter-measure tactics. ... FYI: Blogger’s permalinks don’t seem to be working today. Scroll down for numerous references to Tom’s column.
Cosmo takes a smack at CNN: More on Eason Jordan and Peter Arnett in Cosmo Macero’s column, which contends CNN is croaking itself. ...
... Dan Kennedy also has some thoughts on both CNN’s ‘ethics’ and Jules Crittenden’s classic ‘A mortal decision made’ column on the demise of objectivity in the face of enemy fire. Put another way: There are no atheists in foxholes -- and there ain’t no journalism objectivity either when someone’s firing RPGs at you. ... FYI: For the same Blogger-permalink reasons, you may have to scroll down below for my thoughts yesterday on Crittenden’s piece. ...
... Dan Kennedy also has some thoughts on both CNN’s ‘ethics’ and Jules Crittenden’s classic ‘A mortal decision made’ column on the demise of objectivity in the face of enemy fire. Put another way: There are no atheists in foxholes -- and there ain’t no journalism objectivity either when someone’s firing RPGs at you. ... FYI: For the same Blogger-permalink reasons, you may have to scroll down below for my thoughts yesterday on Crittenden’s piece. ...
Grab me one of those flintlock jezails, Jules: The Herald’s embed Jules Crittenden looks like he’s about to bid farewell to A Company, 4/64 Armor Battalion and head home, perhaps after he grabs himself and Hub Blog one of those souvenirs in Uday’s secret storeroom in Baghdad.
‘Prepared for a backlash’ over Doug’s World: The Romney administration says it’s ‘prepared for a backlash’ over its plan to kill the Greenbush and New Bedford-Fall River rail commuter lines. They better be prepared. Because the backlash starts right here: This is an awful, snob-motivated, non-reality-based decision that’s being driven less by transit finances, as the administration claims and fibs, and obviously more by Doug Foy’s fanciful, ideological, anti-sprawl, utopian vision for developing the Perfect Hobbit Villages. ...
... Ultimately, the new transit plan’s glaring flaw -- abandoning commuter rail expansion in favor of expanding the Blue, Green and Silver lines, as if the two are mutually exclusive -- rests on the fanstastic assumption that’s there’s only one way to fight sprawl: Doug Foy’s Happy Hobbits way. ... What does Doug expect? For corporations and people to suddenly pack up their belongings and move from the suburbs to Revere, Medford, Chelsea and other inner-city communities because Doug slaps a T stop in them? Yes, I can envisage it: Like in the old WWII newsreels from Europe, we’ll see refugees hauling their belongings in quaint horse-drawn carts as they’re pulled in the micro-managed direction Dougie is wishing them, leaving behind empty suburban homes, schools, churches, office parks and shopping malls, all of which one day can be plowed under and returned to nature. ... Questions to Doug: Are you going to have high-quality schools in place when the happy masses roll into your quaint Hobbit villages? Will you have quaint patisseries and butcher shops ready, too? When they arrive, can they do happy Peasant Dances around maypoles like in the movies Robin Hood and Braveheart? It will be so communal! How about organized Barn Raisings? Yeah, a Barn Raising! Oh, the masses can’t wait for their Perfect Hobbit Villages along the new Blue and Green line extensions! ...
... Back to harsh and depressing reality. ...
... Let me get this straight: The state has spent years and years planning the expansion of the Greenbush and New Bedford-Fall River lines -- buying up land, fighting anti-transit fanatics in Hingham, filing environmental reports, lining up funding, building consensus and hope. But now the state is going to abandon those projects and start anew with more years and years of planning on the Green, Blue, Urban Ring and Silver Line extensions etc., only to possibly later resurrect the Greenbush and New Bedford plans when we accept the reality that the suburbs won’t go away. Oh, this is great. ... The net result of this plan is going to be: No expansion of any rail transit lines for years and years and years and years, compounded, and sending a signal to mass transit opponents that you can kill future projects by driving up costs through litigation. Including future projects such as the Blue, Green and Siliver line extensions. ... Congrats, Mitt! ... Your first big mass-transit decision is to kill off doable mass transit projects in pursuit of Perfect Hobbit Villages. ...
... Hub Blog has nothing against the extension of the Blue Line to Lynn, the Green Line extension to Medford, and the Urban Ring, a fanciful and far-into-the-future vision of a rail-and-bus service circumventing Boston. In fact, Hub Blog LOVES the concepts. Let’s move forward on them. Except for the overrated Silver Line. But what I can’t stand about this new non-commuter-rail strategy is that it’s so flavor of the month, so utterly blind to the market reality that most high-tech companies and their workers etc. are now based in the suburbs and the suburbs aren’t going away, so dunderheaded that it doesn’t accept the REALITY that people LIKE living in quieter suburbs (just like you, Mitt) and commuting into the city via the Fitchburg commuter lines of the world (just like your Belmont neighbors, Mitt). ...
... Ah, but there are evil Sheriffs of Notingham out there who will destroy Doug’s dreams for Perfect Hobbit Villages for the masses ...
... From Bennet Heart, senior attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation, on commuter rails vs. T lines: ''It doesn't need to be either/or. ... They should do everything they can to make the funding pie bigger for transit and rail.” ... Well, thank goodness the CLF hasn’t lost its marbles, unlike its former director who’s lost his now that he’s in state government. ...
... What the state needs is a reality-based INTEGRATED mass transit plan -- which requires both commuter rail for suburban travelers AND inner-city expansion of the T. ...
Hub Blog’s suggestion: Ram reforms down the T’s throat, pass a gax tax hike, fund what needs to be done: A fully INTEGRATED mass transit plan that deals with REALITY, not far-off Hobbit Villages. ... There are different and more realistic ways to approach sprawl, Doug.
... Ultimately, the new transit plan’s glaring flaw -- abandoning commuter rail expansion in favor of expanding the Blue, Green and Silver lines, as if the two are mutually exclusive -- rests on the fanstastic assumption that’s there’s only one way to fight sprawl: Doug Foy’s Happy Hobbits way. ... What does Doug expect? For corporations and people to suddenly pack up their belongings and move from the suburbs to Revere, Medford, Chelsea and other inner-city communities because Doug slaps a T stop in them? Yes, I can envisage it: Like in the old WWII newsreels from Europe, we’ll see refugees hauling their belongings in quaint horse-drawn carts as they’re pulled in the micro-managed direction Dougie is wishing them, leaving behind empty suburban homes, schools, churches, office parks and shopping malls, all of which one day can be plowed under and returned to nature. ... Questions to Doug: Are you going to have high-quality schools in place when the happy masses roll into your quaint Hobbit villages? Will you have quaint patisseries and butcher shops ready, too? When they arrive, can they do happy Peasant Dances around maypoles like in the movies Robin Hood and Braveheart? It will be so communal! How about organized Barn Raisings? Yeah, a Barn Raising! Oh, the masses can’t wait for their Perfect Hobbit Villages along the new Blue and Green line extensions! ...
... Back to harsh and depressing reality. ...
... Let me get this straight: The state has spent years and years planning the expansion of the Greenbush and New Bedford-Fall River lines -- buying up land, fighting anti-transit fanatics in Hingham, filing environmental reports, lining up funding, building consensus and hope. But now the state is going to abandon those projects and start anew with more years and years of planning on the Green, Blue, Urban Ring and Silver Line extensions etc., only to possibly later resurrect the Greenbush and New Bedford plans when we accept the reality that the suburbs won’t go away. Oh, this is great. ... The net result of this plan is going to be: No expansion of any rail transit lines for years and years and years and years, compounded, and sending a signal to mass transit opponents that you can kill future projects by driving up costs through litigation. Including future projects such as the Blue, Green and Siliver line extensions. ... Congrats, Mitt! ... Your first big mass-transit decision is to kill off doable mass transit projects in pursuit of Perfect Hobbit Villages. ...
... Hub Blog has nothing against the extension of the Blue Line to Lynn, the Green Line extension to Medford, and the Urban Ring, a fanciful and far-into-the-future vision of a rail-and-bus service circumventing Boston. In fact, Hub Blog LOVES the concepts. Let’s move forward on them. Except for the overrated Silver Line. But what I can’t stand about this new non-commuter-rail strategy is that it’s so flavor of the month, so utterly blind to the market reality that most high-tech companies and their workers etc. are now based in the suburbs and the suburbs aren’t going away, so dunderheaded that it doesn’t accept the REALITY that people LIKE living in quieter suburbs (just like you, Mitt) and commuting into the city via the Fitchburg commuter lines of the world (just like your Belmont neighbors, Mitt). ...
... Ah, but there are evil Sheriffs of Notingham out there who will destroy Doug’s dreams for Perfect Hobbit Villages for the masses ...
... From Bennet Heart, senior attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation, on commuter rails vs. T lines: ''It doesn't need to be either/or. ... They should do everything they can to make the funding pie bigger for transit and rail.” ... Well, thank goodness the CLF hasn’t lost its marbles, unlike its former director who’s lost his now that he’s in state government. ...
... What the state needs is a reality-based INTEGRATED mass transit plan -- which requires both commuter rail for suburban travelers AND inner-city expansion of the T. ...
Hub Blog’s suggestion: Ram reforms down the T’s throat, pass a gax tax hike, fund what needs to be done: A fully INTEGRATED mass transit plan that deals with REALITY, not far-off Hobbit Villages. ... There are different and more realistic ways to approach sprawl, Doug.
Sunday, April 13, 2003
‘A mortal decision made: Journalistic objectivity a casualty of firefight': Read this story. Now. Don’t put it off. It’s one of the most memorable and frank accounts of battle -- and journalism ethics -- I’ve ever read. Of course, it’s by the Herald’s embed Jules Crittenden, who openly admits to his spotting three enemy soldiers during a firefight and their subsequent deaths at the hands of machine-gun-firing GIs. From Jules:
“Some in our profession might think as a reporter and non-combatant, I was there only to observe. Now that I have assisted in the deaths of three human beings in the war I was sent to cover, I'm sure there are some people who will question my ethics, my objectivity, etc. I'll keep the argument short. Screw them, they weren't there. But they are welcome to join me next time if they care to test their professionalism.”
Hub Blog’s reaction: Now I understand why Jules mentioned the word ‘we’ in this post. I suspected this was the case. And I side with Jules 100 percent. ... As Jules says: Screw ‘em. ... Darwinian and moral question to fellow armchair journalists: What was Jules supposed to do? What would you do? Stay cool, calm and collected during a battle and let enemy soldiers fire off RPGs, allowing GIs and yourself to be killed in the process? Leave behind a widowed wife and fatherless children? It’s not even a close call. ... You shout ‘incoming!’ when you hear artillery coming in. You shout ‘grenade!’ when a grenade is lobbed in your midst. You shout ‘watch it!’ when an enemy takes aim at you and someone else. You push a person out of the way when a piano is falling from a tenth-floor window. ... Think of this honesty about a split-second, life-or-death decision during an intense battle and contrast it to CNN’s year-after-year, non-life-or-death, corporate-boardroom decision to cover up the truth in the name of network access. ...
“Some in our profession might think as a reporter and non-combatant, I was there only to observe. Now that I have assisted in the deaths of three human beings in the war I was sent to cover, I'm sure there are some people who will question my ethics, my objectivity, etc. I'll keep the argument short. Screw them, they weren't there. But they are welcome to join me next time if they care to test their professionalism.”
Hub Blog’s reaction: Now I understand why Jules mentioned the word ‘we’ in this post. I suspected this was the case. And I side with Jules 100 percent. ... As Jules says: Screw ‘em. ... Darwinian and moral question to fellow armchair journalists: What was Jules supposed to do? What would you do? Stay cool, calm and collected during a battle and let enemy soldiers fire off RPGs, allowing GIs and yourself to be killed in the process? Leave behind a widowed wife and fatherless children? It’s not even a close call. ... You shout ‘incoming!’ when you hear artillery coming in. You shout ‘grenade!’ when a grenade is lobbed in your midst. You shout ‘watch it!’ when an enemy takes aim at you and someone else. You push a person out of the way when a piano is falling from a tenth-floor window. ... Think of this honesty about a split-second, life-or-death decision during an intense battle and contrast it to CNN’s year-after-year, non-life-or-death, corporate-boardroom decision to cover up the truth in the name of network access. ...
Let ‘em Beg for Taxes: Yep, Tom Keane was right. They’re going for the more severe cuts and dumping Mitt’s reforms. ... Two things: 1.) Mitt’s undeniably sloppy numbers are being used as an excuse to cover up their nixing of reforms. Mitt clearly shot himself in the foot in this regard. 2. ) Mitt should strip down all his reform ideas, throwing away the ones he knows are bogus, package them together and then force lawmakers to take a constitutional up-or-down vote on them. Forget the budget numbers. Make it simple and clear: These guys oppose any and all reforms -- and they will shamefully tax people to the max and slash services to the bone in order to avoid altering the way their world works on Beacon Hill. ... Wonder if progressives see the cynical strategy unfolding in the House.
‘Let’s hear from Bulger’: From Eileen McNamara: “The last thing this town needs is more secrecy or more deference to those who would use their power to protect the most depraved among us.” ... What is the rationale for letting Bulger testify behind closed doors? National security? I’ll bet, if we dig into the rationale a bit more, we’ll find the FBI’s cover-it-up fingerprints somewhere, as well as others’ embarrassed cover-it-up fingerprints.
‘This block needs retail dialysis’: Don’t agree with turning Boylston Street into another Charles Street. But love the other ideas and overall vision for Boylston Street expressed in the piece. ... One quibble: Don’t bad mouth the past-their-prime retailers on Boylston who stuck with the street through thick and thin. They deserve praise, not ridicule. ... One other point: Another show-off-Boston boulevard we should be concentrating on is Cambridge Street, from the Charles Street T stop to City Hall Plaza. The state recently postponed a much-needed and long-planned street and sidewalk project for this neglected gateway into Boston from Cambridge. Let’s get it done before the 2004 Dem convention.
Postwar Iraq and the Kurds: Not a bad editorial in the Globe, which suggests the administration should ‘sheathe the sword,’ cool down the rhetoric and concentrate on rebuilding Iraq -- while also keeping a wary eye on Syria and Iraq. It even slaps around Russia, Germany and France. Hub Blog would have been tougher on Syria and Iraq -- and more than just slapped around the Coalition of the Clueless. But the editorial is fundamentally on target. ...
... Tom Oliphant writes a good piece on Turkey’s betrayal and the Kurds' loyalty. Tom: “It's bad enough that the Kurds are not receiving the proper affection and gratitude for all they have done to help topple Saddam. The kid glove treatment of a misbehaving alleged ally, Turkey, needs to stop now.”
... Tom Oliphant writes a good piece on Turkey’s betrayal and the Kurds' loyalty. Tom: “It's bad enough that the Kurds are not receiving the proper affection and gratitude for all they have done to help topple Saddam. The kid glove treatment of a misbehaving alleged ally, Turkey, needs to stop now.”
Building a democracy after totalitarianism: Smart piece by Paul Berman on the success rate of rebuilding a country and establishing democracy after a totalitarian government collapses. The comparisons between post-communist Poland and Yugoslavia etc. are important. ... The main problem we’re facing in Iraq in establishing democracy: Saddam appears to have wiped out any and all liberal opposition. No Havels, no Mandelas, no Karzais. One might emerge, but it’s not clear right now if any survived.
Saturday, April 12, 2003
A protest heard 'round the world: From the Globe wire services: "Even as the war with Iraq winds down, protesters in the United States and abroad continued their campaign against the conflict Saturday." ... As I've indicated before, they're not playing with a full deck. ...
The ultimate no-bid consulting contract: Let me get this straight: An $8,000 monthly retainer with a private-sector company to find public-sector contracts with the private-sector retainer paid for by public tax dollars since 1989. Not bad.
‘The House is more intent on protecting business as usual’: Mitt on rejection of his court reforms by a House committee: “The direction they may be heading is, `Give me taxes or give me cuts, but don't give me reform.’ ” ... Saw a snippet of Jon Keller’s interview with Speaker Finneran -- for Jon’s ‘At Large’ show tomorrow on Channel 56, 8: 30 a.m. -- in which Finneran vows to outdo Mitt in budget cuts. Maybe Tom Keane was right. Personally, I keep going back and forth on the Let ‘Em Beg For Taxes theory. ... No reforms, no new taxes.
‘These antiwar protesters are so hypocritical’: Perhaps the most awful great idea in the history of the Commonwealth: Charging antiwar protesters to pay the cost for their staged arrests. ... Says state Rep. Brian P. Lees, R-East Longmeadow: “These antiwar protesters are so hypocritical. They stand out there with their signs that say don't spend our money on war. They should add a line that says don't spend our money on war, but spend it on arresting me.” ... Alas, the idea is probably unconstitutional and therefore regrettably regrettable.
‘Coalition of the Clueless’: Am I the only one who thinks President Putin appeared embarrassed to be seen in the presence of his fellow ‘Coalition of the Clueless’ members, President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder? ... Notice how Putin was the only one of the three to embrace the American idea of forgiving Iraq’s foreign debts. ... George Will thinks the UN should be involved in rebuilding Iraq, but only on a limited humanitarian and civil administrative basis: “This invitation should be extended for the same reason France was made a permanent member of the Security Council in 1945 -- as psychotherapy for a crisis of self-esteem brought on by bad behavior.”
‘Uday Hussein's Weapons Store’: A gold-plated AK-47, a gold-plated Walther pistol, a 200-year-old 5-foot-long Arab flintlock jezail (‘inlaid with mother-of-pearl’), Arabic swords, huge Braveheart-like broadswords, Winchester repeaters, Remington shotguns, more jezails, Baretta pistols, a gold-plated antique Mauser bolt-action rifle. And, oh, what appears to be one sound-proof torture chamber in the basement. Jules Crittenden has the embed goods. ... Hey, I know I'm a non-legitimate blogger low in the social hierarchy of the journalism world, but I would have grabbed one of the those flintlock jezails and scrammed.
‘Unlovely and unloved’: Globe ran an editorial this morning on the latest effort to change the ‘unlovely and unloved’ City Hall Plaza. ... Hub Blog is all excited about the redevelopment and the forthcoming Sidewalk Superintendent ideas. My suggestion: Townhouses, with ground-floor retail, with really narrow streets and/or alleyways. At least along Cambridge Street. Townhouses would pay for other plaza improvements. Need to bring 24/7 life back to the area!
Friday, April 11, 2003
Cosmo, big media and blogging: Hey, Cosmo Macero’s blog is getting some backing and a plug, albeit a small plug (for now), over at the Herald’s web site. Go to this link, scroll to the right. See Cosmo’s handsome picture? Look right under it. See tiny ‘weblog’ reference. Click. ... OK, so it’s not such a big deal. But it’s another sign of the Big Media Blogging Convergence. FYI: There might also be some ‘guest blogging’ on Cosmo’s site ...
Postscript: On Cosmo’s site, I happened to notice this item about the blogging Agonist controversy and comments by Sean Kirby, who rightly notes the strengths of the big media and how blogging won’t eclipse it etc. All of which is absolutely true. But there was something sanctimonious and annoying about Sean's tone, such as how many bloggers are “excellent freelance journalists whose aspirations to be important participants in topics of importance outpace their actual pull in the social hierarchy of the journalism world." Or: “Bloggers shouldn't overstate their role in that dialogue or imagine that their traffic numbers equal legitimacy.”
Social hierarchy? Legitimacy? Geesh. ... Hey, you newsroom janitors! Get out of the way! The big dogs are walking through. ...
Postscript II: This on the day CNN’s Eason Jordan writes an op-ed that will probably go down in journalism history as one of the greatest and most shocking confessions of a journalist who sold his soul for access. ... Check out Dan Kennedy's reaction to CNN's social hierarchy, legitimacy and treatment of excellent freelance Iraqi employees who just didn't have enough pull.
Postscript: On Cosmo’s site, I happened to notice this item about the blogging Agonist controversy and comments by Sean Kirby, who rightly notes the strengths of the big media and how blogging won’t eclipse it etc. All of which is absolutely true. But there was something sanctimonious and annoying about Sean's tone, such as how many bloggers are “excellent freelance journalists whose aspirations to be important participants in topics of importance outpace their actual pull in the social hierarchy of the journalism world." Or: “Bloggers shouldn't overstate their role in that dialogue or imagine that their traffic numbers equal legitimacy.”
Social hierarchy? Legitimacy? Geesh. ... Hey, you newsroom janitors! Get out of the way! The big dogs are walking through. ...
Postscript II: This on the day CNN’s Eason Jordan writes an op-ed that will probably go down in journalism history as one of the greatest and most shocking confessions of a journalist who sold his soul for access. ... Check out Dan Kennedy's reaction to CNN's social hierarchy, legitimacy and treatment of excellent freelance Iraqi employees who just didn't have enough pull.
Mitt raises gas taxes: Yep, you read it right. Cosmo Macero has the scoop, though you’ll have to pay the Herald’s own online fee/tax to read the column (i.e. pay-to-view). The bottom line: The administration approved what amounts to a 2 cents per gallon tax hike through an obscure fund that pays for cleaning spills and underground leaks at gas stations. ...
Hub Blog’s view: Fine. Mitt’s no-new-taxes pledge applied to the deficit. He never ruled out other tax increases. Unless this gas tax money is diverted to other projects or agencies (and/or frees up money for other uses), he’s keeping within his pledge -- not that I agree with the pledge. ... Also: Hub Blog is boldly on record as advocating a gas tax hike to pay for expansion of rail service and other infrastructure improvements -- as long as it’s tied to reforms at reform-challenged agencies like the MBTA.
Hub Blog’s view: Fine. Mitt’s no-new-taxes pledge applied to the deficit. He never ruled out other tax increases. Unless this gas tax money is diverted to other projects or agencies (and/or frees up money for other uses), he’s keeping within his pledge -- not that I agree with the pledge. ... Also: Hub Blog is boldly on record as advocating a gas tax hike to pay for expansion of rail service and other infrastructure improvements -- as long as it’s tied to reforms at reform-challenged agencies like the MBTA.
They’re testing the tax waters: House leaders are tinkering with the idea of changing the way auto excise taxes are assessed in Massachusetts. Think suburban owners of a 2000 Mercedes S-Class are going to put up with paying $1,375 per year for the right to drive their car? Lawmakers are trying to frame the allegedly revenue-neutral move in progressive, soak-the-rich, class-warfare language, though they’re not quite phrasing it that way. ... Hub Blog can’t think of a better way for House Democrats to kiss away suburban votes in the next election. ...
... Kind of surprised the House has even broached the subject at this point. I thought the game plan was for House Democrats to first let citizens shriek over budget cuts -- then pull out the tax proposals. They don’t have the timing down, obviously. Or maybe Tom and Hub Blog were wrong about our Let ‘Em Beg For Taxes theory. ...
The Globe is pounding the drums again for a broad-based tax increase. No mention of reforms. ... Howie Carr is having a good guffaw at do-gooders’ expense. (Howie's column is pay-to-view.)
... Kind of surprised the House has even broached the subject at this point. I thought the game plan was for House Democrats to first let citizens shriek over budget cuts -- then pull out the tax proposals. They don’t have the timing down, obviously. Or maybe Tom and Hub Blog were wrong about our Let ‘Em Beg For Taxes theory. ...
The Globe is pounding the drums again for a broad-based tax increase. No mention of reforms. ... Howie Carr is having a good guffaw at do-gooders’ expense. (Howie's column is pay-to-view.)
Another reform bites the dust?: As the House floats its auto excise idea, other House members are belittling Mitt’s reform/restructuring plan for Massachusetts’ court system. The lede of the story says it all: “Defending their power to oversee the courts, members of a special House task force yesterday ...” ... You get the idea. ... These guys are like the Catholic hierarchy: They will never give up power without a fight. Never. Hub Blog is almost embarrassed for suggesting yesterday what I thought was a reasonable compromise: A tax increase in exchange for true reforms. How naive of me. (See above ‘Tom and Hub Blog’ link for details.) ...
... But there’s good (and surprising) news on the reform/budget front: A progressive organization, Common Cause Massachusetts, is actually backing Mitt’s court overhaul plan. I’m shocked. Guess I’ll have to tinker a bit more with my cutting-edge theory about the Progressive Hack Alliance -- though it doesn’t fundamentally change my belief that ‘progressives’ tend to look the other way when it comes to patronage/nepotism/corruption as long as they get their cherished tax hikes.
... But there’s good (and surprising) news on the reform/budget front: A progressive organization, Common Cause Massachusetts, is actually backing Mitt’s court overhaul plan. I’m shocked. Guess I’ll have to tinker a bit more with my cutting-edge theory about the Progressive Hack Alliance -- though it doesn’t fundamentally change my belief that ‘progressives’ tend to look the other way when it comes to patronage/nepotism/corruption as long as they get their cherished tax hikes.
One excellent reason to overhaul the courts: John ''Jackie'' Bulger, who pleaded guilty yesterday to lying under oath in the Whitey Bulger case, is a former court magistrate. ... Gee, wonder how he got his court job. ... Think it has anything to do with lawmakers “defending their power to oversee the courts”?
‘I don't know, sir, one palace don't need 50 fricking stereos’: I didn’t think it was possible, but the Herald’s Jules Crittenden has outdone himself in terms of superb embed reporting from Iraq. Most of his past stories -- particularly those involving combat and the dialogue of GIs -- have been incredibly vivid and telling. ... But this story, well, it’s different. He throws away the detached I’m Not Really Here language and starts referring to events in the personal “we” and “our” and “us” and “I,” as he tells tales of a chaotic Baghdad, GIs liberating stashes of Chivas Regal in Saddam’s palaces, soldiers bragging about wasting Iraqi soldiers. ... Jules just walks from one surreal moment to the next. Outstanding reporting. ...
The Globe’s Pulitzer and Kristen Lombardi’s reporting: Dan Kennedy has a nice piece about the Globe’s well-earned Pulitzer for its coverage of the sex-abuse scandal. ... Couldn’t agree more, as I indicated earlier this week. ... Still, the Phoenix’s Kristen Lombardi was one of the first to expose Cardinal Law’s “culpability in the matter,” as Dan puts it. ... The Globe indeed blew the lid off the scandal; Lombardi was among the first to notice there was a lid at all. So she also deserves credit -- and gratitude -- for helping expose and dismantle a local pedophile network.
Next up: Syria?: The Boston-based Christian Science Monitor is all over the Syria angle. There’s this CSM story about how some in the administration appear to have "pretty much decided to go after Syria.” ... Then there’s the story by CSM embed Ben Arnoldy about how Saddam’s forces brought in freelance Syrian fanatics to fight Americans, using local Iraqi civilians and their homes as shields. ... And here’s another CSM story about America’s future foreign policy. Says one expert: "Syria may be next. ... The Syrians consider it a given." ...
Hub Blog’s view? One can’t escape these facts: We’re in Iraq. We’ve taken it. We’re going to have to rebuild the country and, if at all possible, establish democracy there. If Syria and Iran try to undermine our rebuilding efforts by sending in terrorists and thugs, they’re playing with fire. Syria and Iran are simply realities we have to face now that we’re in Iraq. We need to deal with Syria and Iraq on a case-by-case basis, aggresively and militarily if necessary. ...
... However, what bothers me about this entire affair is how the Bush administration has yet to spell out to the American people what’s clearly emerging as a grander vision of the world and even of history, a vision that goes well beyond the war on terrorism: Belittling alliances, the UN, global economic institutions, NGOs overseeing AIDS programs etc. A lot of today's policies are indeed driven by a laudable desire to prevent the spread of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. No doubt. But there’s a deeper philosophy at work here: It’s about the fundamental permanency of American power and how it should be wielded well into the 21st century to shape the world in our image -- regardless of whether we smash terrorism and bottle up all the world’s WMD. ... And it’s not a vision of the world and history that Tony Blair shares, FYI. ... Hub Blog's new mantra: Assess events on a case-by-case basis.
Hub Blog’s view? One can’t escape these facts: We’re in Iraq. We’ve taken it. We’re going to have to rebuild the country and, if at all possible, establish democracy there. If Syria and Iran try to undermine our rebuilding efforts by sending in terrorists and thugs, they’re playing with fire. Syria and Iran are simply realities we have to face now that we’re in Iraq. We need to deal with Syria and Iraq on a case-by-case basis, aggresively and militarily if necessary. ...
... However, what bothers me about this entire affair is how the Bush administration has yet to spell out to the American people what’s clearly emerging as a grander vision of the world and even of history, a vision that goes well beyond the war on terrorism: Belittling alliances, the UN, global economic institutions, NGOs overseeing AIDS programs etc. A lot of today's policies are indeed driven by a laudable desire to prevent the spread of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. No doubt. But there’s a deeper philosophy at work here: It’s about the fundamental permanency of American power and how it should be wielded well into the 21st century to shape the world in our image -- regardless of whether we smash terrorism and bottle up all the world’s WMD. ... And it’s not a vision of the world and history that Tony Blair shares, FYI. ... Hub Blog's new mantra: Assess events on a case-by-case basis.
Armchair Gen. Savin Hill on suicide attacks in Iraq: As noted above, the CSM is hammering away at the Syrians-are-in-Iraq angle. But let’s give Armchair Gen. Savin Hill, a loyal Hub Blog reader and contributor, a crack at roughly the same issue. From Savin Hill:
“Many reports (Thursday) on the news attributing suicide bomb attacks to Iraqi forces. I don't believe for a minute the suicide bombers are Iraqis or Fedayeen. The Fedayeen and and Baathist militia's weapons are AK-47s and RPGs, not plastic explosives, remote timing devices and an operational knowledge of bomb electronics. Suicide bombing is not something you decide over breakfast -- you need to recruit and train people for it.
“Note that in the largest concentration of militia and Fedayeen -- in Basra -- there were no suicide bomb attacks, just conventional weapons. And remember, these guys were fundamentally fighting for survival -- to keep their privileged place in a brutal regime. Fighting for survival by blowing yourself up is slightly inconsistent. ...
“Who carried out the most extensive suicide bombing wave in history last year? Hamas. Who trains, equips and even offers office space to Hamas in its capital? Syria. Would Syria be interested in waging a proxy war in Iraq -- to destabilize a new pro-US neighbor? I'll let you figure that out.”
“Many reports (Thursday) on the news attributing suicide bomb attacks to Iraqi forces. I don't believe for a minute the suicide bombers are Iraqis or Fedayeen. The Fedayeen and and Baathist militia's weapons are AK-47s and RPGs, not plastic explosives, remote timing devices and an operational knowledge of bomb electronics. Suicide bombing is not something you decide over breakfast -- you need to recruit and train people for it.
“Note that in the largest concentration of militia and Fedayeen -- in Basra -- there were no suicide bomb attacks, just conventional weapons. And remember, these guys were fundamentally fighting for survival -- to keep their privileged place in a brutal regime. Fighting for survival by blowing yourself up is slightly inconsistent. ...
“Who carried out the most extensive suicide bombing wave in history last year? Hamas. Who trains, equips and even offers office space to Hamas in its capital? Syria. Would Syria be interested in waging a proxy war in Iraq -- to destabilize a new pro-US neighbor? I'll let you figure that out.”
Thursday, April 10, 2003
George ‘They got it down!’ Bush: My favorite reaction to news of the fall of Baghdad? The excited reaction of the undeniable Man of the Hour: George Bush. As he watched the televised toppling of Saddam’s statue in Baghdad, the president reportedly exclaimed, ‘They got it down!’ ...
... Though the administration is trying to dampen down current euphoria, George Bush clearly deserves enormous praise. Forget past (and undoubtedly future) arguments over his diplomatic skills. What’s amazing about his leadership during the current military campaign and the military campaign in Afghanistan is that he simply made the right choices, despite warring factions within his administration and the Pentagon. He put boots on the ground in Afghanistan. He put boots, tanks, Bradleys, embeds, Special Forces, Marines, Brits on the ground in Iraq (not to mention smart bombs hurling from the air), wisely splitting the difference between competing military doctrines within his administration. This isn’t luck. This was his call. Two campaigns, two brilliant victories.
... I know, I know. The war isn’t over. It wasn’t over yesterday when Saddam’s Stalinist statue was yanked off its pedestal, as the Herald’s Jules Crittenden made clear. Even as adults and children chanted ‘Good, good, mister! Good, good, mister!’, GIs were rooting out Syrian Islamic extremists hiding in a neighborhood mosque. ... And the war won’t be over today or tomorrow, as the Globe’s Charlie Sennott and David Filipov make clear. Resistance in northern Iraq -- and resolving the Kurdish question -- is still far from over. ...
But, what the heck, let’s celebrate -- or better yet, let’s read about others’ celebrations. From an American officer in Baghdad, as quoted in this Globe embed story: ''The civilians all came out and were overjoyed to see us. I was surprised that a lot of them spoke English and had relatives in the United States. They were thanking us for our help and denouncing Saddam and the regime.'' ....
The Iraqis have relatives in the United States? OK, let’s switch over to them. From a local Iraqi woman as quoted in this Herald story: “It was the happiest moment in my life. It's a dream. It's my dream -- to see Saddam's statue toppled down.”
What a day.
Update - 10:20 a.m. -- So how long is The War Isn't Over Phase going to last? I don't know, but Kiruk just fell. ... And Turkey is none too happy about it.
... Though the administration is trying to dampen down current euphoria, George Bush clearly deserves enormous praise. Forget past (and undoubtedly future) arguments over his diplomatic skills. What’s amazing about his leadership during the current military campaign and the military campaign in Afghanistan is that he simply made the right choices, despite warring factions within his administration and the Pentagon. He put boots on the ground in Afghanistan. He put boots, tanks, Bradleys, embeds, Special Forces, Marines, Brits on the ground in Iraq (not to mention smart bombs hurling from the air), wisely splitting the difference between competing military doctrines within his administration. This isn’t luck. This was his call. Two campaigns, two brilliant victories.
... I know, I know. The war isn’t over. It wasn’t over yesterday when Saddam’s Stalinist statue was yanked off its pedestal, as the Herald’s Jules Crittenden made clear. Even as adults and children chanted ‘Good, good, mister! Good, good, mister!’, GIs were rooting out Syrian Islamic extremists hiding in a neighborhood mosque. ... And the war won’t be over today or tomorrow, as the Globe’s Charlie Sennott and David Filipov make clear. Resistance in northern Iraq -- and resolving the Kurdish question -- is still far from over. ...
But, what the heck, let’s celebrate -- or better yet, let’s read about others’ celebrations. From an American officer in Baghdad, as quoted in this Globe embed story: ''The civilians all came out and were overjoyed to see us. I was surprised that a lot of them spoke English and had relatives in the United States. They were thanking us for our help and denouncing Saddam and the regime.'' ....
The Iraqis have relatives in the United States? OK, let’s switch over to them. From a local Iraqi woman as quoted in this Herald story: “It was the happiest moment in my life. It's a dream. It's my dream -- to see Saddam's statue toppled down.”
What a day.
Update - 10:20 a.m. -- So how long is The War Isn't Over Phase going to last? I don't know, but Kiruk just fell. ... And Turkey is none too happy about it.
Best local lead on a Fall of Baghdad story: From the CSM: “One of the most brutal and entrenched tyrannies of the age fell Wednesday with a crack heard around the world.”
Best online street map of downtown Baghdad: Right here. Now, where was that cracked statue heard around the world?
Benjamin Franklin’s sad and dying legacy: Not quite sure why the fate of the Ben Franklin Institute of Technology has hit such a sad nerve in me. Maybe it’s the history. Not sure. .. But it’s clearly hit a sad nerve in Adrian Walker as well. Adrian: “Sad it is, both because the institute serves a population that depends on it and because this debacle might have been avoided.”
The unfolding scenario for a tax increase: Hub Blog was busy most of Wednesday, which accounts for the only one blog item yesterday. However, I did catch Tom Keane’s column about what he thinks will happen in the end as lawmakers cobble together a state budget package: Taxes will be raised after enough shrieking over budget cuts. Tom: “The scenario I describe is really just a variation on the strategy Finneran successfully employed last year, when he almost single-handedly pushed through a delay in planned income tax cuts. If it worked then, it very well may work now.”
... Tom is probably right. But the big questions are these: Will any reforms be passed? And what will Mitt do and say if lawmakers move to raise taxes without passage of any substantive restructuring and reforms? Mitt made three vows during the campaign (not two, as the Globe once asserted in an editorial): 1.) He will not raise taxes to balance the budget. 2.) He will not cut core services. 3.) He will clean up the mess on Beacon Hill. If lawmakers raise taxes to avoid cutting core services, will Mitt stand idly by as as lawmakers also gut most of his restructuring and reform ideas? He could indeed sit on the sidelines, taking shots at lawmakers and making them pay the price. But he might also come across as another ineffective Paul Cellucci or Jane Swift if he chooses that option. Tough call.
... Personally, I think he could also throw his grudging support behind a tax increase -- assuming it’s going to happen anyway -- as leverage to get his reforms. He’d break his no-taxes pledge by doing so, but I think he could explain to the public that he had no room to maneuver, that a tax increase was going to happen anyway, and that he went for a compromise in order to achieve at least some of his aims. ... Hey, what do I know? I’m not a politician. That’s just one scenario. But I do know this: Mitt’s day of pledges reckoning is fast arriving. He’s done a great job making reforms a top issue. What’s he willing to do to make some of them a reality? ... The chess match is far from over.
A reader responds: A reader writes in asking 'what's in it for legislators to cut a deal' with Mitt. ...I assume he's referring to a taxes-for-reforms deal. So the answer is: Mitt can give them cover. ... I hope that answers the question. And, again, it's only one scenario I'm throwing out there. Lawmakers could pass a budget on their own with a tax increase and just enough reforms in it to quiet the masses ... Or. ... Many other 'or' possibilities out there.
... Tom is probably right. But the big questions are these: Will any reforms be passed? And what will Mitt do and say if lawmakers move to raise taxes without passage of any substantive restructuring and reforms? Mitt made three vows during the campaign (not two, as the Globe once asserted in an editorial): 1.) He will not raise taxes to balance the budget. 2.) He will not cut core services. 3.) He will clean up the mess on Beacon Hill. If lawmakers raise taxes to avoid cutting core services, will Mitt stand idly by as as lawmakers also gut most of his restructuring and reform ideas? He could indeed sit on the sidelines, taking shots at lawmakers and making them pay the price. But he might also come across as another ineffective Paul Cellucci or Jane Swift if he chooses that option. Tough call.
... Personally, I think he could also throw his grudging support behind a tax increase -- assuming it’s going to happen anyway -- as leverage to get his reforms. He’d break his no-taxes pledge by doing so, but I think he could explain to the public that he had no room to maneuver, that a tax increase was going to happen anyway, and that he went for a compromise in order to achieve at least some of his aims. ... Hey, what do I know? I’m not a politician. That’s just one scenario. But I do know this: Mitt’s day of pledges reckoning is fast arriving. He’s done a great job making reforms a top issue. What’s he willing to do to make some of them a reality? ... The chess match is far from over.
A reader responds: A reader writes in asking 'what's in it for legislators to cut a deal' with Mitt. ...I assume he's referring to a taxes-for-reforms deal. So the answer is: Mitt can give them cover. ... I hope that answers the question. And, again, it's only one scenario I'm throwing out there. Lawmakers could pass a budget on their own with a tax increase and just enough reforms in it to quiet the masses ... Or. ... Many other 'or' possibilities out there.
Local leftovers from Wednesday: As I noted above, Hub Blog was busy on the Big Day in Baghdad -- and couldn’t blog as much as usual. But I did save some local stories of interest from Wednesday. Quickly, here they are in no particular order ...
Globe Special Forces Columnist Eileen McNamara -- obviously aware of possible Jo Moore church tricks during the war and obviously aware most of her Globe colleagues would be savagely hungover from all their well-earned Pulitzer parties -- nobly stood guard on the ramparts and caught Thailand Paul's church attorneys going after both a victim and a parent.
... The Herald reported that Billy will indeed be dragged before a Congressional hearing. Scot Lehigh praises Dan Burton -- yes, praises, and rightly so -- for not letting go of the Billy story. Scot also makes mention of ''Black Mass,'' by Dick Lehr and Gerard O'Neill. Hub Blog’s advice: If you haven’t already, read “Black Mass.” One of the three best books about modern Boston’s darker side. The two other books, of course, are “Common Ground” and “The Friends of Eddie Coyle.” ...
... On of all days, the Globe editorialized on Wednesday about Pentagon policies allowing single-parent GIs to serve in combat. An important issue, for sure. But editorializing on the subject as Baghdad was under siege and as the world’s attention was focused on more profound events unfolding in Iraq? Geesh. I don’t know. ... Robert Kuttner, showing no sense of timing, began his op-ed on Wednesday by sniping at Rummy’s military tactics in Iraq, citing Maureen Dowd as an authority. Believe it or not, I kept reading after the Dowd reference and learned that Bob is now stomping off to the next ideological argument. Bob, calm down. Take a day off. Enjoy the celebrations. A nasty regime just collapsed. ... Derrick Jackson was upset George Bush didn’t pray for Iraq during the war. Maybe he didn’t. But, Derrick, he did answer the prayers of a lot of Iraqis on Wednesday.
Globe Special Forces Columnist Eileen McNamara -- obviously aware of possible Jo Moore church tricks during the war and obviously aware most of her Globe colleagues would be savagely hungover from all their well-earned Pulitzer parties -- nobly stood guard on the ramparts and caught Thailand Paul's church attorneys going after both a victim and a parent.
... The Herald reported that Billy will indeed be dragged before a Congressional hearing. Scot Lehigh praises Dan Burton -- yes, praises, and rightly so -- for not letting go of the Billy story. Scot also makes mention of ''Black Mass,'' by Dick Lehr and Gerard O'Neill. Hub Blog’s advice: If you haven’t already, read “Black Mass.” One of the three best books about modern Boston’s darker side. The two other books, of course, are “Common Ground” and “The Friends of Eddie Coyle.” ...
... On of all days, the Globe editorialized on Wednesday about Pentagon policies allowing single-parent GIs to serve in combat. An important issue, for sure. But editorializing on the subject as Baghdad was under siege and as the world’s attention was focused on more profound events unfolding in Iraq? Geesh. I don’t know. ... Robert Kuttner, showing no sense of timing, began his op-ed on Wednesday by sniping at Rummy’s military tactics in Iraq, citing Maureen Dowd as an authority. Believe it or not, I kept reading after the Dowd reference and learned that Bob is now stomping off to the next ideological argument. Bob, calm down. Take a day off. Enjoy the celebrations. A nasty regime just collapsed. ... Derrick Jackson was upset George Bush didn’t pray for Iraq during the war. Maybe he didn’t. But, Derrick, he did answer the prayers of a lot of Iraqis on Wednesday.
Wednesday, April 09, 2003
A Herald embed’s account of the killing of 2 journalists: Talk about being on top of a highly controversial story -- and a highly controversial story involving journalists, reported by journalists and, if the action of the Committee to Protect Journalists is any indication, about some journalists taking a rather rash and double-standard side in the controversy. Setting the stage: Two reporters died yesterday when an American tank blasted a Baghdad hotel.
The Boston Herald’s Jules Crittenden is embedded with the U.S. brigade -- and, I believe, the very tank company -- that fired on the hotel. Excerpts from Jules’ story:
“It was later in the day, after the Assassins had taken their first combat casualties, that the tank company tried to stop RPG fire from across the Tigris River and kill a suspected Iraqi forward artillery observer.
“One tank opened fire, hitting the upper floors of the 17-story Palestine Hotel, killing two journalists and wounding at least three others. The tanker had seen RPG crews operating around the hotel, headquarters for hundreds of foreign journalists, and someone peering out an upper window with binoculars. ...
“The incident, which set off a furor in Arab-language media, came on the day one of the unit's tank commanders was seriously injured by a sniper ... The Army tanker, who was in serious condition but managed to walk to a medevac track, was shot through the shoulder by a sniper in a building as armed Iraqis in civilian clothing were pushed back to an intersection outside the palace complex.”
Now let’s switch to another story about the killings:
“Even if accidental, the two cases raised issues for the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists, as did the US response.
“ ‘They (Pentagon officials) did not say what needed to be said: `We want to make sure our troops and fighters know this is wrong and we don't want to see it happen again,' said board member Michael Massing, who is monitoring the war from Doha. In a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the committee said, ‘We believe these attacks violate the Geneva Conventions.’
“Even if fire was coming from the Palestine Hotel, ‘the evidence suggests that the response of US forces was disproportionate and therefore violated international humanitarian law,’ the letter said.”
Whoa! Hold on, Michael. I know you're upset. I am, too. But what’s with this ‘even if accidental’ and ‘even if fire was coming from the Palestine Hotel’ and ‘the attacks violate the Geneva Conventions’ and the ‘evidence suggests’ a ‘disproportionate’ force and therefore the U.S. is ‘violating international humanitarian law’?
Does Michael have any clue that the committee might have just crossed a line by sending that letter, by so quickly and so assertively proclaiming/suggesting violations of international laws without even a full day’s investigation of the facts? Did the committee bother to wait until it could interview its own colleagues -- embeds, such as the Herald’s Crittenden -- to get another perspective on the incident?
Does the Committee to Protect Journalists realize it’s opening itself up to possible charges of emotional bias and double-standards in the middle of a war? Has any such letter been sent to the Iraqi regime about ‘armed Iraqis in civilian clothing’ who are clearly hovering near the hotel (if not in it, as the committee acknowledges for the sake of argument) etc?
For a journalism advocacy group to so quickly make such serious charges -- in the middle of a war and while admitting the tragic hotel incident could have been an accident and at least more complicated than it appears -- is simply ludicrous and embarrassing.
Postscript: Maybe the committee should start investigating -- but refrain from firing off a letter concerning -- the death of two other journalists in Iraq: “On Monday, Christian Liebig of the German news weekly Focus and Julio Anguita Parrado of the Spanish newspaper El Mundo -- both embedded journalists -- were killed when an Iraqi rocket hit a US communications center on Baghdad's southern fringe.”
The Boston Herald’s Jules Crittenden is embedded with the U.S. brigade -- and, I believe, the very tank company -- that fired on the hotel. Excerpts from Jules’ story:
“It was later in the day, after the Assassins had taken their first combat casualties, that the tank company tried to stop RPG fire from across the Tigris River and kill a suspected Iraqi forward artillery observer.
“One tank opened fire, hitting the upper floors of the 17-story Palestine Hotel, killing two journalists and wounding at least three others. The tanker had seen RPG crews operating around the hotel, headquarters for hundreds of foreign journalists, and someone peering out an upper window with binoculars. ...
“The incident, which set off a furor in Arab-language media, came on the day one of the unit's tank commanders was seriously injured by a sniper ... The Army tanker, who was in serious condition but managed to walk to a medevac track, was shot through the shoulder by a sniper in a building as armed Iraqis in civilian clothing were pushed back to an intersection outside the palace complex.”
Now let’s switch to another story about the killings:
“Even if accidental, the two cases raised issues for the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists, as did the US response.
“ ‘They (Pentagon officials) did not say what needed to be said: `We want to make sure our troops and fighters know this is wrong and we don't want to see it happen again,' said board member Michael Massing, who is monitoring the war from Doha. In a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the committee said, ‘We believe these attacks violate the Geneva Conventions.’
“Even if fire was coming from the Palestine Hotel, ‘the evidence suggests that the response of US forces was disproportionate and therefore violated international humanitarian law,’ the letter said.”
Whoa! Hold on, Michael. I know you're upset. I am, too. But what’s with this ‘even if accidental’ and ‘even if fire was coming from the Palestine Hotel’ and ‘the attacks violate the Geneva Conventions’ and the ‘evidence suggests’ a ‘disproportionate’ force and therefore the U.S. is ‘violating international humanitarian law’?
Does Michael have any clue that the committee might have just crossed a line by sending that letter, by so quickly and so assertively proclaiming/suggesting violations of international laws without even a full day’s investigation of the facts? Did the committee bother to wait until it could interview its own colleagues -- embeds, such as the Herald’s Crittenden -- to get another perspective on the incident?
Does the Committee to Protect Journalists realize it’s opening itself up to possible charges of emotional bias and double-standards in the middle of a war? Has any such letter been sent to the Iraqi regime about ‘armed Iraqis in civilian clothing’ who are clearly hovering near the hotel (if not in it, as the committee acknowledges for the sake of argument) etc?
For a journalism advocacy group to so quickly make such serious charges -- in the middle of a war and while admitting the tragic hotel incident could have been an accident and at least more complicated than it appears -- is simply ludicrous and embarrassing.
Postscript: Maybe the committee should start investigating -- but refrain from firing off a letter concerning -- the death of two other journalists in Iraq: “On Monday, Christian Liebig of the German news weekly Focus and Julio Anguita Parrado of the Spanish newspaper El Mundo -- both embedded journalists -- were killed when an Iraqi rocket hit a US communications center on Baghdad's southern fringe.”
Tuesday, April 08, 2003
‘It deserves the gratitude of Catholics everywhere’: Globe editor Marty Baron to his Globe staff on winning the Pulitzer for its coverage of the sex-abuse scandal: “You made history this past year.” ... And they absolutely did. They made history on so many levels, exposing a local and national pedophelia network, forcing a cardinal to resign in shame for taking part in that network, provoking Catholics to question the church, its leadership and its very logic and legitimacy, and changing the generational loyalty and dynamics of Catholics everywhere and forever. Spiritually, the scandal was an historic watershed -- and the church and its hierarchy will never fully recover from it. ... My favorite quote about the Globe came from an AP story: “ ‘The Globe deserves more than recognition from its journalistic peers. It deserves the gratitude of Catholics everywhere,’ said Barbara Blaine, president of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.” ... ‘Deserves the gratitude of Catholics everywhere.’ As a Catholic, I can’t think of a better accolade. ...
... The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune also won a Pulitzer for its coverage of the deaths of four boys who died in the icy waters of the Merrimack. ... And Winthrop’s Samantha Power, executive director of the Carr Center at Harvard, also won a Pulitzer for "'A Problem From Hell:' America and the Age of Genocide.” ...
All in all, a spectacular day for Boston reporters and writers.
... The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune also won a Pulitzer for its coverage of the deaths of four boys who died in the icy waters of the Merrimack. ... And Winthrop’s Samantha Power, executive director of the Carr Center at Harvard, also won a Pulitzer for "'A Problem From Hell:' America and the Age of Genocide.” ...
All in all, a spectacular day for Boston reporters and writers.
'I heard Madonna was protesting the war': Speaking of fine journalism (and as the war apparently winds down), here’s a good behind-the-scenes piece in the Christian Science Monitor about the military’s civil authorities who are tasked with winning the peace, which one officer described as “the exact opposite of the 'shock and awe' campaign.” ...
Meanwhile, another CSM embed reporter, Ann Scott Tyson, writes a melancholy piece about how badly American GIs want and need the support of the American people back home. Says one forlorn GI: “I heard Madonna was protesting the war.” ... Speaking of the Christian Science Monitor, Hub Blog has been negligent by not giving the same attention to the Monitor’s embed reporters as I’ve given to other local reporters. Ben Arnoldy, who wrote the first story above, and Tyson, who penned the second story, have done a stellar job in the Gulf, as have their embed colleagues at the Globe and Herald.
Meanwhile, another CSM embed reporter, Ann Scott Tyson, writes a melancholy piece about how badly American GIs want and need the support of the American people back home. Says one forlorn GI: “I heard Madonna was protesting the war.” ... Speaking of the Christian Science Monitor, Hub Blog has been negligent by not giving the same attention to the Monitor’s embed reporters as I’ve given to other local reporters. Ben Arnoldy, who wrote the first story above, and Tyson, who penned the second story, have done a stellar job in the Gulf, as have their embed colleagues at the Globe and Herald.
Now that the war is winding to an apparent close ...: The war wasn't going well last week -- and John Kerry was antiwar. The war is going well this week -- and John Kerry now wants to change the subject. Hmmmmmm. ... The Herald is now stalking poor John in Iowa and having a fun time.
Update -- Paul Krugman is rushing to John Kerry’s defense, framing the issue around the ‘right to criticize in times of war’ and ‘questioning one’s patriotism in times of war.’ Granted, as I’ve noted already, some dunderheaded right-wing hawks are indeed unfairly attacking Kerry on those fronts. ... But a lot of other non-right-wing people (including Tom Oliphant) see something different in Kerry’s words and deeds. It has something to do with Kerry’s constant backtracking and pandering to voters. Krugman conveniently doesn’t address this issue. And I'll leave it at that. (Krugman column via Dan Kennedy.)
Update -- Paul Krugman is rushing to John Kerry’s defense, framing the issue around the ‘right to criticize in times of war’ and ‘questioning one’s patriotism in times of war.’ Granted, as I’ve noted already, some dunderheaded right-wing hawks are indeed unfairly attacking Kerry on those fronts. ... But a lot of other non-right-wing people (including Tom Oliphant) see something different in Kerry’s words and deeds. It has something to do with Kerry’s constant backtracking and pandering to voters. Krugman conveniently doesn’t address this issue. And I'll leave it at that. (Krugman column via Dan Kennedy.)
The most questions ever asked in a column?: Or the most desperate column ever written? You decide, dear reader. The whole damn column is questions. Forty-one in all. Carroll is obviously reeling -- but I didn’t think reeling could get this bad. Ridiculous questions. Obvious questions. Leading questions. Contradictory questions. Questions, questions, questions! ... My question: Should I even bother clicking on his column in the future? I think 'the answer is no.' It’s getting to that point.
Update -- Instapundit is having a field day with questions, questions, questions! He even asks if there's a shortage of exclamation points in Boston! What a foolish question! I think 'the answer is no'! What do you think, James? Does Instapundit make good points? Is there a shortage of other punctuation marks in Boston? Is he right about open-ended questions? Tell him it isn't so!
Update -- Instapundit is having a field day with questions, questions, questions! He even asks if there's a shortage of exclamation points in Boston! What a foolish question! I think 'the answer is no'! What do you think, James? Does Instapundit make good points? Is there a shortage of other punctuation marks in Boston? Is he right about open-ended questions? Tell him it isn't so!
Gay marriages and gay GIs fighting for their country: A majority of Massachusetts citizens now support gay marriages. A slim majority, granted. But it’s a majority. Quick question: Do you think the Catholoic sex-abuse scandal has anything to do with this? I wonder. I suspect the scandal has factored into this shift, somewhere, somehow. Put it this way: When a priest or Bishop bellows from the pulpit about the evils of homosexuality, I know some church goers will nod their heads in agreement. I also know that more than a few parishioners will raise their eyebrows, look sideways at each other, stifle a mischievous grin and wonder, ‘Who the hell is he to lecture to us about homos in the wrong places?’ ... The sex-abuse scandal, more likely than not, will have a subtle and not-so-subtle impact on a wide range of political issues in Massachusetts, one of the most Catholic states in America.
And the war will have an impact, too, as Tom Oliphant notes in his column this morning on gays in the military. The hypocrisy we’re showing towards gays -- treating them as second-class citizens while asking them to fight and die for our country -- is glaring and will come to light after the war, when the first gay war hero is inevitably drummed out of service amid outrage among constituents and some straight GIs alike.
And the war will have an impact, too, as Tom Oliphant notes in his column this morning on gays in the military. The hypocrisy we’re showing towards gays -- treating them as second-class citizens while asking them to fight and die for our country -- is glaring and will come to light after the war, when the first gay war hero is inevitably drummed out of service amid outrage among constituents and some straight GIs alike.
Monday, April 07, 2003
A ‘vindication of the Rumsfeld doctine’?: Armchair Gen. Savin Hill writes in. My reaction before getting into the thrust of his arguments: A.) This isn’t exactly a pure form of the Rumsfeld Doctrine (as I’ve said before). B.) The Brits developed their own urban warfare tactics without Rummy’s help or influence C.) I still admire Armchair Gen. Savin Hill’s insightful, non-partisan, non-ideological analysis of the war. Lots of honest analysis. Armchair Gen. Savin Hill:
“Verdict: Operation Iraqi Freedom was (ok, ok, is) a vindication of the Rumsfeld doctrine of a ‘transformation’ military in action. People still seem to be confused over what this is, so let me lay out the main elements:
“ -- Multiple, simultaneous attacks using multiple strategies and force dispositions: At any one time, we were launching cruise missiles on the leadership, using air assets on the com grid, using armor against conventional forces, and using special forces and airborne to seize special objectives. The point is, this was all done at the SAME TIME. The Southern front was conventional division/ground assault. The Northern front was a light-infantry/special forces operation. Two entirely different force dispositions working at the same time in different fronts.
“ -- Enhanced, new ‘remote sensing’ technology gave an unprecedented and fully coordinated view of the battlefield, accessible to any ground commander. This was done with JSTARS overhead assimilating and disseminating real-time data from unmanned drones at high, medium and low (hundreds of feet) altitudes.
“ -- The emergence of UCAS: Never even heard of before last week, US forces have apparently worked out a system of Urban Close Air Support. Unfortunately, it looks like we won't get a chance to practice it much. Nonetheless -- it points to a new urban fighting doctrine with far-reaching consequences: You are not safe in a city -- even in your capital.
“ -- Victory over ‘irregular’ forces: Brits proved their mettle, again, as experts in fighting against guerrilla, ‘irregular’ forces. Conventional forces cordoned off hostile areas while special forces went in at night and killed/captured targets and gathered intel. Of course, the 3rd ID just rolled into Baghdad and blasted apart anybody who looked at them funny, and that appears to work well, too.
“ -- Intell wins the day: From the first minute, it was apparent we now have intel assets that could provide ‘eyes on target’ of the highest echelons of leadership. That's game, set and match in military terms. The message: You are not safe -- even in your leadership circle.
“Verdict: No future enemy force, conventional or irregular, should feel safe today. Hooah.”
“Verdict: Operation Iraqi Freedom was (ok, ok, is) a vindication of the Rumsfeld doctrine of a ‘transformation’ military in action. People still seem to be confused over what this is, so let me lay out the main elements:
“ -- Multiple, simultaneous attacks using multiple strategies and force dispositions: At any one time, we were launching cruise missiles on the leadership, using air assets on the com grid, using armor against conventional forces, and using special forces and airborne to seize special objectives. The point is, this was all done at the SAME TIME. The Southern front was conventional division/ground assault. The Northern front was a light-infantry/special forces operation. Two entirely different force dispositions working at the same time in different fronts.
“ -- Enhanced, new ‘remote sensing’ technology gave an unprecedented and fully coordinated view of the battlefield, accessible to any ground commander. This was done with JSTARS overhead assimilating and disseminating real-time data from unmanned drones at high, medium and low (hundreds of feet) altitudes.
“ -- The emergence of UCAS: Never even heard of before last week, US forces have apparently worked out a system of Urban Close Air Support. Unfortunately, it looks like we won't get a chance to practice it much. Nonetheless -- it points to a new urban fighting doctrine with far-reaching consequences: You are not safe in a city -- even in your capital.
“ -- Victory over ‘irregular’ forces: Brits proved their mettle, again, as experts in fighting against guerrilla, ‘irregular’ forces. Conventional forces cordoned off hostile areas while special forces went in at night and killed/captured targets and gathered intel. Of course, the 3rd ID just rolled into Baghdad and blasted apart anybody who looked at them funny, and that appears to work well, too.
“ -- Intell wins the day: From the first minute, it was apparent we now have intel assets that could provide ‘eyes on target’ of the highest echelons of leadership. That's game, set and match in military terms. The message: You are not safe -- even in your leadership circle.
“Verdict: No future enemy force, conventional or irregular, should feel safe today. Hooah.”
‘The price-gouging abounded’: In an editorial, the Globe jumps on a Hub Blog pet-peeve issue, to wit: The botched, monopolized, anti-competitive electricity deregulation in California -- and the lessons that might apply to what appears to be an increasingly monopolized and anti-competitive electricty industry here.
Sen. Having It Both Ways strikes yet again: This isn’t as big as the ‘regime change’ fiasco, but it’s yet another example of Kerry’s sorry antics. From the Herald:
“Kerry argued that the White House should restart a dialogue with (North Korea), even as it fights the war with Iraq.
“ ‘There are a lot of people in Washington and elsewhere who believe that one of the reasons the administration won't do that is that you need a boogeyman over there in order to be able to build a missile defense,’ he said.
“Asked about the comment, Kerry said some ‘serious policy people in Washington’ had made those assertions but said he did not agree with them.”
Notice how the senator is saying what he said wasn’t really what he meant but reflected what others said and so he said it. Translation: He’s having it both ways. Got it?
“Kerry argued that the White House should restart a dialogue with (North Korea), even as it fights the war with Iraq.
“ ‘There are a lot of people in Washington and elsewhere who believe that one of the reasons the administration won't do that is that you need a boogeyman over there in order to be able to build a missile defense,’ he said.
“Asked about the comment, Kerry said some ‘serious policy people in Washington’ had made those assertions but said he did not agree with them.”
Notice how the senator is saying what he said wasn’t really what he meant but reflected what others said and so he said it. Translation: He’s having it both ways. Got it?
Two embeds -- and an armchair journalistic critic of embeds: Two more good embed pieces from local reporters -- one by Brian MacQuarrie as U.S. troops try to bottle up Baghdad from the north and the other by Jules Crittenden about mopping up operations in the south. ...
... Meanwhile, an armchair academic criticizes embeds and media coverage of the war in general, saying they’re “constrained by’’ all those “institutions” and the “ideology of society,” all of which “not surprisingly produces a view of the world skewed toward the powerful.” The author of the Globe op-ed is Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and author of “Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream.” ... Gee, I wonder what Jensen’s ‘view of the world’ and ‘ideology’ might be -- and how he views the war with or without facts. I can’t imagine.
... Meanwhile, an armchair academic criticizes embeds and media coverage of the war in general, saying they’re “constrained by’’ all those “institutions” and the “ideology of society,” all of which “not surprisingly produces a view of the world skewed toward the powerful.” The author of the Globe op-ed is Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and author of “Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream.” ... Gee, I wonder what Jensen’s ‘view of the world’ and ‘ideology’ might be -- and how he views the war with or without facts. I can’t imagine.
They’re Botching It Again?: The Christian Science Monitor reports on the diplomatic wrangling over post-war Iraq. I’d love to say of the Bush administration: They’re botching it again! But I’m also dubious about the UN and France and Russia and China getting involved. So I give up. I’m throwing in the towel. ... Another possibility: Follow Tony Blair’s instincts on this one. The British prime minister has become an expert on sorting out the warring factions within the American administration.
Civil liberties in times of war: The CSM goes after the FBI over its handling of the six Buffalo-area men of Yemeni origin who were charged with ‘conspiracy and aiding a terrorist organization.’ All six of them had visited Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, so I really don’t buy their arguments that, oh, you see, well, we became disillusioned and so we left -- and so leave us alone! .... But the FBI, well, it’s still the FBI. ... Instapundit says the FBI’s actions sound like ‘dirty pool’ tactics. ... Cathy Young is concerned about (and saddened by) tough anti-terrorist measures in the United States, but she’s not alarmed. Not yet. Mistaken Homeland Security measures do have a way of being democratically A.) blocked B.) exposed as folly and/or C.) corrected.
Sunday, April 06, 2003
Maureen Dowd on Michael Kelly: No Dowdisms. She's hurting inside. A straight-from-the-heart tribute.
‘John Kerry goofed in the middle of war last week’: And goofed is putting it mildly. The Herald’s Wayne Woodlief, in a subscriber/pay-to-view column, says John Kerry’s remarks last week showed “an appalling lack of judgment and a stunning political miscue” by Kerry. ... The MetroWest Daily News’ Tom Moroney asks: “What was he thinking? If this is how Sen. John Kerry plans to run the rest of his campaign for president, I have only one thing to say. It's going to be a lot more fun than I figured.” ...
But Tom Oliphant nails it pretty well, systematically taking apart Kerry’s comments as wrong, dumb and damaging at almost every level. Tom: “A more enduring point is that every serious candidate for president must survive at least one near-death experience. I doubt the Peterborough Pop-off qualifies, but it's close enough that Kerry should take care to learn from it.”
One last quote from Tom’s column:
“Kerry has had difficulty articulating his support as well as his reservations and criticisms without exposing himself to the suggestion that he wants to be for and against the war at the same time. In politics, clarity trumps fudge.” ... Which leads to. ...
But Tom Oliphant nails it pretty well, systematically taking apart Kerry’s comments as wrong, dumb and damaging at almost every level. Tom: “A more enduring point is that every serious candidate for president must survive at least one near-death experience. I doubt the Peterborough Pop-off qualifies, but it's close enough that Kerry should take care to learn from it.”
One last quote from Tom’s column:
“Kerry has had difficulty articulating his support as well as his reservations and criticisms without exposing himself to the suggestion that he wants to be for and against the war at the same time. In politics, clarity trumps fudge.” ... Which leads to. ...
JFK II can learn from Teddy K: Have you noticed the dignity Ted Kennedy has displayed since the outbreak of the war? Kennedy was hard-core antiwar before the war broke out, but he clearly meant what he said when he proclaimed once it started: “Our thoughts and our heartfelt prayers are also with our president. ... We join our president in pledging our commitment to victory, to disarm Saddam and to bring freedom and opportunity to all the people of Iraq.”
Here’s a portion of Kennedy’s statement yesterday on the death of Capt. Benjamin Sammis in Iraq: “I pray for a quick end to this conflict so no more Americans have to lose their lives in the fight for Iraqi freedom.”
Here’s what he said at a rally yesterday at Otis Air Foce Base: ``You already know the overwhelming support you have from the people of Massachusetts and people across the country at this critical time. ... We've always been proud of you, and we're prouder than ever now.''
What does this all add up to? Class. ... Can the same be said about JFK II?
Here’s a portion of Kennedy’s statement yesterday on the death of Capt. Benjamin Sammis in Iraq: “I pray for a quick end to this conflict so no more Americans have to lose their lives in the fight for Iraqi freedom.”
Here’s what he said at a rally yesterday at Otis Air Foce Base: ``You already know the overwhelming support you have from the people of Massachusetts and people across the country at this critical time. ... We've always been proud of you, and we're prouder than ever now.''
What does this all add up to? Class. ... Can the same be said about JFK II?
Mitt’s first 100 days -- three views: Three views on Mitt’s first 100 days in office:
1. The Globe’s piece is excellent, thoroughly and fairly analyzing the governor’s strengths, weaknesses, successes and setbacks.
2. The Herald’s piece is also fair and balanced, though it’s not as nuanced and thorough.
Best quote from Mitt (in Globe story): ''I'm not Pollyannaish enough to think everything I want to see happen will be accepted by the Legislature. ... But I want to move the ball forward. And for some cases I've gone for the long bomb, on others it will be three yards and a cloud of dust, and on others I'll probably be thrown for a loss.''
3. Hub Blog’s view: Oh, now here’s a fair and thorough and balanced and nuanced view. ... Hub Blog shall give Mitt an A - for setting the agenda. No small task for a Republican governor facing a Democratic-controlled Legislature in Massachusetts. He's kept lawmakers off balance and on the defensive. Lawmakers even acknowledge the need for 'reform,' even though we all know they despise the thought. ...But Mitt still gets only a C for execution -- partly because he doesn't have much room to maneuver (no veto threat to wield etc.), partly because he's made some classic rookie and Dudley Do-Right mistakes that are distinctly 'Mitt' in nature, partly because he assumed people wouldn't add up his budget numbers. ... The latter grade would have been a solid A+ if his ‘shock and awe’ strategy had initially worked to decapitate Billy. All other blunders would have been forgiven.
1. The Globe’s piece is excellent, thoroughly and fairly analyzing the governor’s strengths, weaknesses, successes and setbacks.
2. The Herald’s piece is also fair and balanced, though it’s not as nuanced and thorough.
Best quote from Mitt (in Globe story): ''I'm not Pollyannaish enough to think everything I want to see happen will be accepted by the Legislature. ... But I want to move the ball forward. And for some cases I've gone for the long bomb, on others it will be three yards and a cloud of dust, and on others I'll probably be thrown for a loss.''
3. Hub Blog’s view: Oh, now here’s a fair and thorough and balanced and nuanced view. ... Hub Blog shall give Mitt an A - for setting the agenda. No small task for a Republican governor facing a Democratic-controlled Legislature in Massachusetts. He's kept lawmakers off balance and on the defensive. Lawmakers even acknowledge the need for 'reform,' even though we all know they despise the thought. ...But Mitt still gets only a C for execution -- partly because he doesn't have much room to maneuver (no veto threat to wield etc.), partly because he's made some classic rookie and Dudley Do-Right mistakes that are distinctly 'Mitt' in nature, partly because he assumed people wouldn't add up his budget numbers. ... The latter grade would have been a solid A+ if his ‘shock and awe’ strategy had initially worked to decapitate Billy. All other blunders would have been forgiven.
It’s turned into a Story That Won’t Go Away: More on the Tip’s Tunnel/Liberty Tunnel flap. ... Jeff Jacoby is piling on in a partisan way. I didn't think it was possible, but he's managed to do it. ... Repeat: Hub Blog likes ‘Tip’s Tunnel,' primarily because I love the ring of it. It’s quaint, parochial, endearing. Sure to evoke questions 50 years from now like, ‘Why do they call it Tip’s Tunnel?’ It adds to local lore. ... The issue is settled! Hub Blog has made the decision! Now go away! ...
‘The history and ethics of military deceptions’: This Globe 'Ideas' piece comes dangerously close, in my mind, to moral relativism concerning the argument over/excuse for Saddam’s savage tactics in Iraq. Read it and see if you agree. ...
The ideological war over military tactics in the war: Terrific story by the Globe’s Bryan Bender and Robert Schlesinger on the battle over military tactics. ... Didn’t know that Rummy has a long, long pre-Wolfy/Perle history of supporting a lean-and-mean, high-tech machine. Also didn’t know this fact: Rummy used to drive Henry Kissinger up a wall when Rumsfeld served in the Pentagon in the ‘70s. File this under: New Respect. ...
... Here’s a key line in the article, though: “Since Sept. 11, 2001, Rumsfeld has tried to put the winds of history at his back.” ... Ding, ding, ding! ... Here’s where the debate over military strategy, which pre-dates the administration and even pre-dates Saddam's rise to power, starts to dovetail into today’s ideological debate within the administration. ... Clearly, Paul Wolfowitz and neoconservatives like William Kristol have glommed onto not only Sept. 11 but also to 'Invasion light' to push their Pax America vision of U.S. foreign policy. Iraq and ‘Invasion light’ happened to neatly fit into their ideological vision of American foreign policy and the wars they envision fighting. Rummy, who hired Wolfy, also is exploiting Sept. 11 to push what amounts to a combo military and ideological cause. ...
But does that mean those who oppose the Pax America/Rummy ideological agenda should oppose 'Invasion light' because it's been effectively hijacked by neoconservatives? Answer: No. As I said the other day, it's not as black and white as some ideologues on the left and right hope and/or want. We're probably going to need to maintain three military doctrines into the foreseeable future: 'Invasion light' (for campaigns like we saw in Afghanistan), the 'Powell Doctrine' (for conventional wars that may break out in such places as Korea) and a combination of the two (which we're seeing now in Iraq).
...Mickey Kaus is still hammering away at the ideological angle. I suspect Mickey’s merely trying to win an argument at this point.
... Here’s a key line in the article, though: “Since Sept. 11, 2001, Rumsfeld has tried to put the winds of history at his back.” ... Ding, ding, ding! ... Here’s where the debate over military strategy, which pre-dates the administration and even pre-dates Saddam's rise to power, starts to dovetail into today’s ideological debate within the administration. ... Clearly, Paul Wolfowitz and neoconservatives like William Kristol have glommed onto not only Sept. 11 but also to 'Invasion light' to push their Pax America vision of U.S. foreign policy. Iraq and ‘Invasion light’ happened to neatly fit into their ideological vision of American foreign policy and the wars they envision fighting. Rummy, who hired Wolfy, also is exploiting Sept. 11 to push what amounts to a combo military and ideological cause. ...
But does that mean those who oppose the Pax America/Rummy ideological agenda should oppose 'Invasion light' because it's been effectively hijacked by neoconservatives? Answer: No. As I said the other day, it's not as black and white as some ideologues on the left and right hope and/or want. We're probably going to need to maintain three military doctrines into the foreseeable future: 'Invasion light' (for campaigns like we saw in Afghanistan), the 'Powell Doctrine' (for conventional wars that may break out in such places as Korea) and a combination of the two (which we're seeing now in Iraq).
...Mickey Kaus is still hammering away at the ideological angle. I suspect Mickey’s merely trying to win an argument at this point.
Saturday, April 05, 2003
‘Free Iraq’ pins: A local reader of Hub Blog sends in this link in to get your very own ‘Free Iraq’ pin/logo. Check it out. And check out the moving words about the pin/logo. You don't have to be prowar or antiwar to appreciate the sentiments expressed.
NYT discovers politics in antiwar, prowar movements: This is a funny, funny story about the yawning political gap between college professors and students regarding the war in Iraq. The aging ‘60s professors seem stunned -- particularly at Amherst College -- that their students don’t see the world through their 30-year-old Vietnam-era prisms. Can you imagine? For the record, the NYT actually uses commonly used political phrases/terminology to describe where people are coming from! Here’s the tally from the NYT story:
Mention of the words ‘liberal’ or ‘liberals’ in the story: 3. As in ‘three’ mentions.
Mention of the words ‘left’ or ‘leftist’ or ‘left-wing’ or ‘radical’ etc.: 2. As in ‘two.’
Mention of the words ‘politics’ or ‘political’: 1. As in ‘one.’
Mention of the words ‘ideology’ or ‘ideological’: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of any other politically related word commonly used in all other ‘political’ stories that might indicate where antiwar and prowar citizens might be coming from in terms of their ‘political’ identity: 3. As in ‘three.’
Of course, this still isn't very impressive, considering just about every time the story mentions ‘antiwar,’ the words ‘liberal’ or ‘left-wing’ could easily have replaced it. But it’s a hell of a lot better than the politically neutered antiwar stories we saw in the local press last weekend. Guess you can’t avoid a ‘political’ analysis when you can’t fall back on a ‘sociological analysis’ about the 'intellectual elite' and ‘more educated’ etc. But it’s a start!
Favorite quote in story: “ ‘Protesting is a niche activity,’ said Prof. Michael Kazin, co-author of "America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960's. ‘There are some people who do drama, some people who do protest, other people who drink too much.' ” (NYT story via Instapundit.)
Mention of the words ‘liberal’ or ‘liberals’ in the story: 3. As in ‘three’ mentions.
Mention of the words ‘left’ or ‘leftist’ or ‘left-wing’ or ‘radical’ etc.: 2. As in ‘two.’
Mention of the words ‘politics’ or ‘political’: 1. As in ‘one.’
Mention of the words ‘ideology’ or ‘ideological’: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of any other politically related word commonly used in all other ‘political’ stories that might indicate where antiwar and prowar citizens might be coming from in terms of their ‘political’ identity: 3. As in ‘three.’
Of course, this still isn't very impressive, considering just about every time the story mentions ‘antiwar,’ the words ‘liberal’ or ‘left-wing’ could easily have replaced it. But it’s a hell of a lot better than the politically neutered antiwar stories we saw in the local press last weekend. Guess you can’t avoid a ‘political’ analysis when you can’t fall back on a ‘sociological analysis’ about the 'intellectual elite' and ‘more educated’ etc. But it’s a start!
Favorite quote in story: “ ‘Protesting is a niche activity,’ said Prof. Michael Kazin, co-author of "America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960's. ‘There are some people who do drama, some people who do protest, other people who drink too much.' ” (NYT story via Instapundit.)
Entering Baghdad -- and the ideological war simmers down: Whew! American troops are entering Baghdad. And according to this AP report, they’re not probing -- they’re there to stay. A daring plan to forestall the possibility of Republican Guard troops regrouping and infiltrating back into the city? The opportunity was there, so the Americans took it? Who knows? ...
... On another war front, an ideological truce over the ideological arguments over military tactics apparently has been called -- an argument that had less to do with military tactics and more to do with scoring ideological points, left and right. To his credit, the conservative Andrew Sullivan says this column by the NYT’s liberal Bill Keller ‘brings closure, to my mind, to debate over the war-plan.’ Keller’s key point:
“The war we are watching is neither a pure old-fashioned, heavy-metal war nor a light and lean ‘transformational’ war. It is, as Mr. Thompson puts it, ‘a transitional war’ — with elements of both old and new.”
Which is a point I was making yesterday and which is a point Tom Oliphant has been making the last few weeks, in this column and in this column. (FYI: Oliphant’s excellent columns during the war have been an important element of the Globe’s superb ‘shock and awe’ war coverage. More later on how the media has covered the war. Until that greatly anticipated Hub Bloggian moment, check out Dan Kennedy’s assessment, again.)
... On another war front, an ideological truce over the ideological arguments over military tactics apparently has been called -- an argument that had less to do with military tactics and more to do with scoring ideological points, left and right. To his credit, the conservative Andrew Sullivan says this column by the NYT’s liberal Bill Keller ‘brings closure, to my mind, to debate over the war-plan.’ Keller’s key point:
“The war we are watching is neither a pure old-fashioned, heavy-metal war nor a light and lean ‘transformational’ war. It is, as Mr. Thompson puts it, ‘a transitional war’ — with elements of both old and new.”
Which is a point I was making yesterday and which is a point Tom Oliphant has been making the last few weeks, in this column and in this column. (FYI: Oliphant’s excellent columns during the war have been an important element of the Globe’s superb ‘shock and awe’ war coverage. More later on how the media has covered the war. Until that greatly anticipated Hub Bloggian moment, check out Dan Kennedy’s assessment, again.)
Sad Note: New England is seeing its first military fatalities in the war. Here’s the Herald story and the Globe story. ... The pre-war talk between Matthew Boule and his WWII vet grandfather was sad, brief but historically intriguing, especially if you’re a history buff. See Globe story to see what I’m talking about.
Michael Kelly, RIP -- Part II: More on the sad death of Michael Kelly. ... Often, the seemingly simple observations say so much about a person. From afar (having never met him), Kelly always struck me as a little kid with a great heart and mind. In other words, he was curious, enthusiastic, confident, full of child-like energy. Here’s what Michael’s wife told Mark Jurkowitz: ''He has two little boys that he loved very much and who love him very much. ... He was up for anything, just jumped into anything with his kids.'' And he jumped into a war when he got bored with office journalism. He was that type of guy, it seems. ... Here’s the Herald’s story. ...
... Mickey Kaus has a lot of links about Kelly, including this terrific piece by Peggy Noonan. ... Andrew Sullivan has more to say over at Salon.
... Mickey Kaus has a lot of links about Kelly, including this terrific piece by Peggy Noonan. ... Andrew Sullivan has more to say over at Salon.
Fast Company makes fast break to NYC: No surprise here: Boston-based Fast Company is indeed moving its operations to New York. The magazine’s owner, Gruner+Jahr USA, also moved Boston-based Inc. magazine to NYC last year. Can’t blame them. Makes sense to concentrate Gruner+Jahr USA’s growing North American holdings in one place. ... Another blow to Boston publishing? Definitely. But don’t cry too much. ... I’m beginning to think Boston perhaps is becoming a great incubator for new publications. My only problem: We don't seem to have anything in the entrepreneurial pipeline right now. Hub Blog (seriously) has some ideas for new publications, if any David Bradley types want to contact me about them. ... We still have the Atlantic Monthly and Christian Science Monitor!
Technical change to prep school: This is sad, but also not surprising. The Benjamin Franklin Institute has been struggling for a long time now. ...
Friday, April 04, 2003
Finneran uncorks on just about everyone: In an interview with the Dorchester Reporter, House Speaker Tom Finneran fires off volleys in every direction:
On the Bulger/Romney spat: "They'll be no defense of President Bulger simply because he's the former senate president and now has done a good job at the university. Nobody's going to be able to just sit back and relax. At the same time, I do take issue with somebody who just wants to drop-kick him around and impose a punishment because he was the former senate president."
On the Herald’s coverage of the spat: “The Herald really seems to be thirsting for this one, like it's Ali-Frazier or something. They want to see the heavyweights dance and hit each other."
On Romney’s first 90 days: “If there's a strategy there, I'm troubled by it because the strategy would seem to suggest that you're going to lead the public in a direction and, then, never really inform the public. It seems to me that the governor should either be less bold in his initial announcements or he owes a statement to the public.”
On opponents of his constitutional amendment requiring a mandatory reserve fund: "process liberals."
Fun stuff. Good points. Bad points. Check it out. P.S.: Hub Blog is wondering when Finneran et gang will endorse at least one of Mitt's reforms. Still waiting, Mr. Speaker.
Update -- A reader sends in an obvious observation that Mitt isn't going after Billy because he's a former Senate president. It has 'something to do,' the reader said, with 'taking the Fifth during a manhunt for a murderer.'
On the Bulger/Romney spat: "They'll be no defense of President Bulger simply because he's the former senate president and now has done a good job at the university. Nobody's going to be able to just sit back and relax. At the same time, I do take issue with somebody who just wants to drop-kick him around and impose a punishment because he was the former senate president."
On the Herald’s coverage of the spat: “The Herald really seems to be thirsting for this one, like it's Ali-Frazier or something. They want to see the heavyweights dance and hit each other."
On Romney’s first 90 days: “If there's a strategy there, I'm troubled by it because the strategy would seem to suggest that you're going to lead the public in a direction and, then, never really inform the public. It seems to me that the governor should either be less bold in his initial announcements or he owes a statement to the public.”
On opponents of his constitutional amendment requiring a mandatory reserve fund: "process liberals."
Fun stuff. Good points. Bad points. Check it out. P.S.: Hub Blog is wondering when Finneran et gang will endorse at least one of Mitt's reforms. Still waiting, Mr. Speaker.
Update -- A reader sends in an obvious observation that Mitt isn't going after Billy because he's a former Senate president. It has 'something to do,' the reader said, with 'taking the Fifth during a manhunt for a murderer.'
Michael Kelly, RIP: Returning from a luncheon meeting, I saw I had an email from Reader No. 1, slugged "Awful news!!!!!" Michael Kelly, former editor and current editor at large of the Boston-based Atlantic Monthy, has been killed in Iraq covering the war. Awful news indeed. Reader No. 1 also forwarded a link to Dan Kennedy's site, with this message about Dan's item, 'This is an awesome remembrance.' It surely is. Boy, Mike will be missed.
... Here's a statement from the Atlantic Monthy. Says David Bradley, chairman and owner of Atlantic Media: "This is the first friend and the best friend I made in journalism. In that quarter of the heart, he can't be touched." Says Cullen Murphy, managing editor: "He saw his profession not as a game but as a public service. I want Mike's boys Tom and Jack to know that their Dad was a hero. His loss is devastating to all of us." ... There are other comments and photos at the site.
Update -- Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit has more about Michael Kelly and some other links, one of which is so gross that, well, I'll let Glenn rebut it in his usually devastating fashion. I can't believe someone could sink so low.
... Here's a statement from the Atlantic Monthy. Says David Bradley, chairman and owner of Atlantic Media: "This is the first friend and the best friend I made in journalism. In that quarter of the heart, he can't be touched." Says Cullen Murphy, managing editor: "He saw his profession not as a game but as a public service. I want Mike's boys Tom and Jack to know that their Dad was a hero. His loss is devastating to all of us." ... There are other comments and photos at the site.
Update -- Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit has more about Michael Kelly and some other links, one of which is so gross that, well, I'll let Glenn rebut it in his usually devastating fashion. I can't believe someone could sink so low.
Cable and local coverage of the war: John Ellis has a sharp piece over at the WSJ Opinion Journal about the cable news networks’ coverage of the war. John: “Wall Street remains insistent that companies hit their numbers come hell or high water. So we're fast approaching the point where one of these news operations is going to have to blink” and cut back on coverage. I’ll let John tell you who he thinks will blink first. ...
... Meanwhile, Dan Kennedy has a good column about the local media’s coverage of the war. Dan’s overall assessment: They’ve done a fine job. Couldn’t agree more. They’ve really been impressive.
... Meanwhile, Dan Kennedy has a good column about the local media’s coverage of the war. Dan’s overall assessment: They’ve done a fine job. Couldn’t agree more. They’ve really been impressive.
‘You should be shot in the head’ ... ‘Have you ever shot anyone?’: I loved these two stories, strategically placed next to each other in the Globe today, about a UMass prof getting arrested during a protest (if you can call it that) and Marine recruiters at Belmont High. ...
... As for the UMass-Boston story, the National Guard officer, who was on campus recruiting, certainly comes across as a jackass who should be disciplined for losing his cool, but so does the professor, as you read into the story. National Guard officer to prof: ''You should be shot in the head.'' Prof to National Guard officer: ''No. You should be shot in the head.'' Case closed. Both are jerks. ...
Notice how the UMass students are quoted throughout the piece, verifying the prof’s version of events even while they’re chanting ''Stop police brutality'' and ''Recruiters off our campus.'' And then like groupies being led by a Pied Piper Prof, the students all trudge off to the police station to show their support for our hero. ...
... Contrast those college students with the Belmont High School students, who surrounded an on-campus Marine recruiter and eagerly fired off these questions: ''Have you ever been in live combat?'' ''Have you ever shot anyone?'' ''What's your favorite weapon?'' They also did push-ups to get Marine T-shirts. ... Fear not: when the Professor Van Der Meers of higher ed get their hands on these kids, they’ll be shouting “Police brutality” and “Recruiters off our campus.” ... Interesting fact: Military recruitment isn’t really up in Massachusetts. But interest is.
... As for the UMass-Boston story, the National Guard officer, who was on campus recruiting, certainly comes across as a jackass who should be disciplined for losing his cool, but so does the professor, as you read into the story. National Guard officer to prof: ''You should be shot in the head.'' Prof to National Guard officer: ''No. You should be shot in the head.'' Case closed. Both are jerks. ...
Notice how the UMass students are quoted throughout the piece, verifying the prof’s version of events even while they’re chanting ''Stop police brutality'' and ''Recruiters off our campus.'' And then like groupies being led by a Pied Piper Prof, the students all trudge off to the police station to show their support for our hero. ...
... Contrast those college students with the Belmont High School students, who surrounded an on-campus Marine recruiter and eagerly fired off these questions: ''Have you ever been in live combat?'' ''Have you ever shot anyone?'' ''What's your favorite weapon?'' They also did push-ups to get Marine T-shirts. ... Fear not: when the Professor Van Der Meers of higher ed get their hands on these kids, they’ll be shouting “Police brutality” and “Recruiters off our campus.” ... Interesting fact: Military recruitment isn’t really up in Massachusetts. But interest is.
‘Sgt. Lustig just blew that guy's head off’: Another great embed piece by Jules Crittenden, whose best reporting comes when he simply lets the GIs do the talking. ...
One curious line in the story: “In the Bradley's rear cabin, we slapped magazines into the M-4 rifles in case we were forced out to fight in the road.” ... We? This wasn’t part of a quote.
One curious line in the story: “In the Bradley's rear cabin, we slapped magazines into the M-4 rifles in case we were forced out to fight in the road.” ... We? This wasn’t part of a quote.
Having it both ways on Sen. Having It Both Ways: Hub Blog is having it both ways with John Kerry. Yesterday, it was glee over his being tripped up; today, it’s glee over his tripping up Republican critics who know so much about proper military protocol in times of war, even though they’ve never served in the military in times of war. ... FYI: Kerry’s criticism of the president isn’t the issue. It’s his backtracking that’s the issue.
Not a public naming contest! Ahhhhhhh!: Admire the Globe for weighing in on the ‘Tip Tunnel vs. Liberty Tunnel’ spat. But we just held a truly stupid public contest to come up with the truly stupidest state motto. And now we should repeat that stupid process for naming the new I-93 tunnels? ... The suits are going to overrule anything the public suggests anyway. So let’s cut the charade about public input and go with ‘Tip’s Tunnel North’ and ‘Tip’s Tunnel South.’ ... And go with a ‘Salvucci Park’ and a ‘Conte Park,’ too.
Kill the bottle law?: Hub Blog has a soft spot for the bottle bill. You see, there’s this elderly Asian woman who, three times a week, goes through everyone’s trash on Beacon Hill, collecting beer and wine bottles for the deposits. She’s a little messy, tearing open trash bags etc. But she’s gotten better in recent months. And so. ... Well, Steve Bailey has some interesting arguments against expansion of the bottle bill. In fact, he wants to kill the bottle bill. Very persuasive, insightful arguments. But what about the Asian woman?
The new Green Monster: ‘The view is awesome’: Hub Blog likes it! Good job! ... Here’s a photo of the changes at Fenway. (Photo expires tomorrow.)
French anti-Semitism watch: From the Boston-based CSM: “The problem, as (French) Jewish activists see it, isn't necessarily the support for Palestinians. It's the rejection of Israel. ‘It's become acceptable to not want Israel to exist,’ says Levy.” ... FYI: Levy, a French leftist and a Jew, was severely beaten at a Paris antiwar rally when he came to the defense of another Jew being beaten. Their crimes: They were Jews.
Update -- A Hub Blog reader, noting there's indeed "something worthwhile from France," sent me a link to a new bilingual blog, The Dissident Frogman, apparently written by a Frenchmen who likes our policies. ...
... Of course, there's the legendary Merde in France, written by an American who lives in Paris and who's a blast to read.
Update -- A Hub Blog reader, noting there's indeed "something worthwhile from France," sent me a link to a new bilingual blog, The Dissident Frogman, apparently written by a Frenchmen who likes our policies. ...
... Of course, there's the legendary Merde in France, written by an American who lives in Paris and who's a blast to read.
Ideologues continue the argument over military tactics: It’s almost laughable: armchair general intellectuals arguing over the military strategies and tactics being used in Iraq. From the left: Discredit ‘Invasion Light’ -- and you discredit the pre-emptive/unilateralist foreign policy initiatives of neoconservatives. From the right: Prove the worth of ‘Invasion Light’ -- and you prove the credibility of pre-emptive/unilateralist foreign policy initiatives of neoconservatives. ...
... Andrew Sullivan is at the forefront of this obnoxious and toxic debate. Sadly, H.D.S. Greenway, who wrote some of the most insightful political columns before the war, allowed himself today to get sucked into the vortex: “The Pentagon's worst mistake may prove to have been abandoning the Colin Powell doctrine of overwhelming force. Instead the Pentagon chose to feed troops into the battle piecemeal in the so-called ‘rolling start’ strategy.” ... H.D.S. also brings up Vietnam, ‘hubris’ and ‘hopes for quick victory are receding’ etc. etc.
But these armchair generals, both left and right, should do one thing: Read this Tom Oliphant column from a few weeks ago. In fact, President Bush wisely split the difference between ‘Invasion light’ and the ‘Powell Docrtine,’ as Tom makes clear. What we’re seeing in Iraq today is a combination of the two doctrines, not a ‘pure’ form of either one, and it would have tilted more in the ‘Powell Doctrine’ direction if we could have gotten the 4th Armored Division on the ground in time. But we didn’t. ... Alas, that won’t stop ideologues from seeing things in black and white. ...
... FYI: I believe there is an ideological element to the fight within the administration over ‘Invasion light’ vs. the ‘Powell Docrtine.’ But also keep in mind: There’s been a huge, huge debate in the Pentagon, well before Rummy took office, about the future make-up of the military, with some generals arguing for a leaner-meaner military in the post-Cold War world, while others say we still need ‘an overwhelming force’ that’s the hallmark of the Powell Doctrine. Both are right. The campaign in Afghanistan cried out for a nimble, lean-and-mean strategy -- and it worked. But would the same doctrine work if North Korean forces all of a sudden started to cross the 38th parallel next week?
The worst possible outcome in this ideological debate is for one ideological side to prevail -- for then armchair intellectual generals will literally have blood on their hands if one doctrine is abandoned and later found to have been necessary for victory.
... Andrew Sullivan is at the forefront of this obnoxious and toxic debate. Sadly, H.D.S. Greenway, who wrote some of the most insightful political columns before the war, allowed himself today to get sucked into the vortex: “The Pentagon's worst mistake may prove to have been abandoning the Colin Powell doctrine of overwhelming force. Instead the Pentagon chose to feed troops into the battle piecemeal in the so-called ‘rolling start’ strategy.” ... H.D.S. also brings up Vietnam, ‘hubris’ and ‘hopes for quick victory are receding’ etc. etc.
But these armchair generals, both left and right, should do one thing: Read this Tom Oliphant column from a few weeks ago. In fact, President Bush wisely split the difference between ‘Invasion light’ and the ‘Powell Docrtine,’ as Tom makes clear. What we’re seeing in Iraq today is a combination of the two doctrines, not a ‘pure’ form of either one, and it would have tilted more in the ‘Powell Doctrine’ direction if we could have gotten the 4th Armored Division on the ground in time. But we didn’t. ... Alas, that won’t stop ideologues from seeing things in black and white. ...
... FYI: I believe there is an ideological element to the fight within the administration over ‘Invasion light’ vs. the ‘Powell Docrtine.’ But also keep in mind: There’s been a huge, huge debate in the Pentagon, well before Rummy took office, about the future make-up of the military, with some generals arguing for a leaner-meaner military in the post-Cold War world, while others say we still need ‘an overwhelming force’ that’s the hallmark of the Powell Doctrine. Both are right. The campaign in Afghanistan cried out for a nimble, lean-and-mean strategy -- and it worked. But would the same doctrine work if North Korean forces all of a sudden started to cross the 38th parallel next week?
The worst possible outcome in this ideological debate is for one ideological side to prevail -- for then armchair intellectual generals will literally have blood on their hands if one doctrine is abandoned and later found to have been necessary for victory.
Thursday, April 03, 2003
Have-It-Both-Ways Kerry strikes again ...and again. ... and again: Lost track of how many have-it-both-ways incidents/antics the Globe catches in this one article alone, based on one speech and one post-speech interview with John Kerry. Mickey Kaus is going to have a field day with this. Highlights from the Globe:
Exhibit A:
Kerry: '' ‘What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,’ Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough (N.H.) Town Library.”
Kerry after being confronted by Globe: “It is possible that the word `regime change' is too harsh. Perhaps it is.”
Exhibit B:
“Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.”
Exhibit C:
“By echoing the ‘regime change’ line popular with hundreds of thousands of antiwar protesters who have demonstrated across the nation in recent weeks, the Massachusetts senator and Democratic presidential contender seemed to be reaching out to a newly invigorated constituency as rival Howard Dean ...”
Exhibit D:
“The criticism appeared to contradict statements Kerry made on March 18, just a day before Bush authorized military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”
And on and on it goes. Oh, yeah, almost forgot. The article notes: “Finally, he said his overall criticism of the administration was part of ‘the healthy democracy of the United States of America’ and no different from some of the war critiques published on the front page of major newspapers. ‘Is that unpatriotic?’ he asked.”
Questions: Did the Globe reporter and/or someone else ask about your patriotism, John? Did the reporter and/or someone else question your patriotism, John? Why are you even bringing up the subject, John?
Which conveniently brings us to ...
Exhibit A:
Kerry: '' ‘What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,’ Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough (N.H.) Town Library.”
Kerry after being confronted by Globe: “It is possible that the word `regime change' is too harsh. Perhaps it is.”
Exhibit B:
“Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.”
Exhibit C:
“By echoing the ‘regime change’ line popular with hundreds of thousands of antiwar protesters who have demonstrated across the nation in recent weeks, the Massachusetts senator and Democratic presidential contender seemed to be reaching out to a newly invigorated constituency as rival Howard Dean ...”
Exhibit D:
“The criticism appeared to contradict statements Kerry made on March 18, just a day before Bush authorized military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”
And on and on it goes. Oh, yeah, almost forgot. The article notes: “Finally, he said his overall criticism of the administration was part of ‘the healthy democracy of the United States of America’ and no different from some of the war critiques published on the front page of major newspapers. ‘Is that unpatriotic?’ he asked.”
Questions: Did the Globe reporter and/or someone else ask about your patriotism, John? Did the reporter and/or someone else question your patriotism, John? Why are you even bringing up the subject, John?
Which conveniently brings us to ...
The dreaded Debate Over Debate In Times of War: Bringing up the My-Patriotism-is-Being-Questioned line has now become the rhetorical shield du jour of those who want to criticize but can’t stand being criticized back. ... Kerry is obviously anticipating criticism of his criticism, so he pre-emptively pulled out the old My-Patriotism-is-Being-Questioned shield. Ugh. ...
Lots of other talk today (such as in this Globe editorial) about ‘dissent’ and ‘protest’ and ‘healthy democracy’ in times of war, a subject Hub Blog tackled way back when Tommy DeLay obnoxiously told Tom Daschle, ‘Fermez la bouche.’ Hub Blog repeats: Criticism in times of war is good. ...
But the opposite is true, too: Analytical criticism of the critics’ arguments is also good in a time of war.
Example: Joan Vennochi today rightly bashes Peter Arnett over the head (you gotta read how she levels him -- not once, but twice, in her column). I.e. She’s criticizing the appropriateness and timing of Arnett’s criticisms and antics. Fine. That’s her right: Analytical criticism of a critic’s arguments/antics in a time of war.
But then Joan attacks those who criticized the negative military analysis by armchair General Barry R. McCaffrey and non-armchair General William Wallace (who really didn’t criticize -- he just spoke a truth about what’s happening on the ground in Iraq). Joan asks: “Is unpleasant truth now treason?” ... Huh? Who said anything about “treason” in regards to McCaffrey and Wallace? Granted, Arnett definitely has been fatuously accused of ‘treason’ by some right-wing pundits. But McCaffrey and Wallace? I’ll stand corrected if they were indeed accused of ‘treason,’ but my reading of it is that their military arguments and assessments were being questioned and criticized, not their patriotism. No need for a My-Patriotism-is-Being-Questioned shield in those two instances, Joan.
God, I hate debates over debates.
Lots of other talk today (such as in this Globe editorial) about ‘dissent’ and ‘protest’ and ‘healthy democracy’ in times of war, a subject Hub Blog tackled way back when Tommy DeLay obnoxiously told Tom Daschle, ‘Fermez la bouche.’ Hub Blog repeats: Criticism in times of war is good. ...
But the opposite is true, too: Analytical criticism of the critics’ arguments is also good in a time of war.
Example: Joan Vennochi today rightly bashes Peter Arnett over the head (you gotta read how she levels him -- not once, but twice, in her column). I.e. She’s criticizing the appropriateness and timing of Arnett’s criticisms and antics. Fine. That’s her right: Analytical criticism of a critic’s arguments/antics in a time of war.
But then Joan attacks those who criticized the negative military analysis by armchair General Barry R. McCaffrey and non-armchair General William Wallace (who really didn’t criticize -- he just spoke a truth about what’s happening on the ground in Iraq). Joan asks: “Is unpleasant truth now treason?” ... Huh? Who said anything about “treason” in regards to McCaffrey and Wallace? Granted, Arnett definitely has been fatuously accused of ‘treason’ by some right-wing pundits. But McCaffrey and Wallace? I’ll stand corrected if they were indeed accused of ‘treason,’ but my reading of it is that their military arguments and assessments were being questioned and criticized, not their patriotism. No need for a My-Patriotism-is-Being-Questioned shield in those two instances, Joan.
God, I hate debates over debates.
Peewee hockey players booed by patriotic French Canadians: Speaking of the right to dissent in times of war, I hereby respectfully disagree with the behavior of the Quebec fans, players and citizens described in this article about how peewee hockey players from Massachusetts were received in Montreal. And, no, I’m not questioning the people of Quebec’s patriotism or accusing them of treason. From the story (via Instapundit):
“MONTREAL -- A peewee hockey tournament in Montreal became a trip into hostile territory for a busload of Americans who say they encountered such fierce anti-Americanism that they will think twice before returning.
“During a four-day visit, boys travelling with their Massachusetts hockey team witnessed the burning of the Stars and Stripes and the booing of the U.S. national anthem. When travelling in their bus emblazoned with a red-white-and-blue ‘Coach USA’ logo, they saw people on the street who extended their middle fingers or made other angry gestures.
“On the ice, the Canadian players told their visiting counterparts that ‘the U.S. sucks’ and dispensed other anti-American insults, the Americans said.”
Hub Blog’s response: What class. FYI: The Bay State team was from Brockton, methinks. Poor kids.
P.S. Quebec relies a lot on French TV for its international news coverage of the war. Wonder if there’s a connection?
P.S. P.S. Not that we, in turn, can’t act like idiots. Some in Congress want to ‘punish’ countries such as France and Turkey for not supporting us in the war. ... The Christian Science Monitor’s John Hughes is urging America to cool it with France. We’ll need each other after the war for rebuilding, he notes. And he’s right.
“MONTREAL -- A peewee hockey tournament in Montreal became a trip into hostile territory for a busload of Americans who say they encountered such fierce anti-Americanism that they will think twice before returning.
“During a four-day visit, boys travelling with their Massachusetts hockey team witnessed the burning of the Stars and Stripes and the booing of the U.S. national anthem. When travelling in their bus emblazoned with a red-white-and-blue ‘Coach USA’ logo, they saw people on the street who extended their middle fingers or made other angry gestures.
“On the ice, the Canadian players told their visiting counterparts that ‘the U.S. sucks’ and dispensed other anti-American insults, the Americans said.”
Hub Blog’s response: What class. FYI: The Bay State team was from Brockton, methinks. Poor kids.
P.S. Quebec relies a lot on French TV for its international news coverage of the war. Wonder if there’s a connection?
P.S. P.S. Not that we, in turn, can’t act like idiots. Some in Congress want to ‘punish’ countries such as France and Turkey for not supporting us in the war. ... The Christian Science Monitor’s John Hughes is urging America to cool it with France. We’ll need each other after the war for rebuilding, he notes. And he’s right.
‘It was like the liberation of Paris’: As French Canadians boo Bay State peewee hockey players, American GIs are being cheered in the streets of Najaf. From the Globe (via WaPo) story: “An enthusiastic welcome for US forces in Najaf turned jubilant yesterday, as several thousand Iraqis braved sporadic firefights for what one special forces officer described as ‘the Macy's Day parade,’ applauding a US patrol that pushed close to a religious shrine at the center of the city.”
A U.S. commander on the scene described the scene this way: “We waited about an hour and a half, and the hair on the back of my neck began to stand up. The crowd got bigger and bigger, so we pulled back out. But it was like the liberation of Paris.''
Can’t resist: ‘It was like the liberation of Paris.’ ... Wonder if they’ll cover/see it that way on French TV -- or in Montreal. ...
In other war news:
... The Herald has a good story that raises some doubt (but not entirely) about the connection between Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaeda in northern Iraq. The evidence is not quite conclusive, but, clearly, Saddam, if he wished, could have crushed Ansar al-Islam. He didn’t. And so ...
A U.S. commander on the scene described the scene this way: “We waited about an hour and a half, and the hair on the back of my neck began to stand up. The crowd got bigger and bigger, so we pulled back out. But it was like the liberation of Paris.''
Can’t resist: ‘It was like the liberation of Paris.’ ... Wonder if they’ll cover/see it that way on French TV -- or in Montreal. ...
In other war news:
... The Herald has a good story that raises some doubt (but not entirely) about the connection between Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaeda in northern Iraq. The evidence is not quite conclusive, but, clearly, Saddam, if he wished, could have crushed Ansar al-Islam. He didn’t. And so ...
‘How the peace movement blew it’: Hope I don’t get accused of questioning antiwar protesters’ patriotism by noting this op-ed in the CSM this morning. It’s by an antiwar activist who (don’t say it too loud) criticizes the antiwar movement’s criticisms and tactics. From the op-ed by Mark LeVine:
“(B)y focusing on the quantity of protesters rather than the quality of our discourse, we deluded ourselves into thinking that our protests were delaying the war. But Bush was just playing for time till all the men and materiel were in place for war.
“We should have responded: ‘You're right, Mr. President, Hussein is a criminal who should be removed and brought to justice. But so should almost every regime in the Middle East.”
He has other criticisms of the war critics, but we won’t get into that subject again, right?
“(B)y focusing on the quantity of protesters rather than the quality of our discourse, we deluded ourselves into thinking that our protests were delaying the war. But Bush was just playing for time till all the men and materiel were in place for war.
“We should have responded: ‘You're right, Mr. President, Hussein is a criminal who should be removed and brought to justice. But so should almost every regime in the Middle East.”
He has other criticisms of the war critics, but we won’t get into that subject again, right?
A ‘cooperative’ spin by a non-cooperative Bulger: Billy is now smiling, sounding like an angel who’s only oh-so happy to 'cooperate' with the feds trying to find the truth about his mass-murdering brother, etc. Small point: Billy’s being forced to cooperate. ... Question: How many ‘aides’ does Billy have spinning this bogus happy-to-cooperate spiel? Are we paying for them? Or are they being paid out of the non-profit UMass endowment fund Billy’s been trying to tap into? ... Mitt is quite confident Billy will ‘cooperate.’
Wednesday, April 02, 2003
Peter Arnett's sincerity problem ...: Dan Kennedy has the goods. Read until the end. ... And I was almost beginning to feel sorry for Peter.
‘Tip’s Tunnel’ and ‘Salvucci Park’: Hope the spat over ‘Liberty Tunnel vs. Tip’s Tunnel’ doesn’t turn into a Story That Won’t Go Away, ala ‘Who is John Kerry?’ Repeat: Name both tunnels after O’Neill -- so we can start referring to them as ‘Tip’s Tunnel North’ and ‘Tip’s Tunnel South’ -- and be done with it. ...
Ah, but that leaves the issue of recognizing one of the other great figures in the history of the Big Dig: Fred Salvucci. Hub Blog suggested last week that we should honor Fred by naming one of the surface parks after him. Don’t know if Scot Lehigh agrees, but he definitely gives Salvucci the credit he richly deserves.
P.S. Reader No Nickname wrote in a few days ago with this observation on Mitt’s renaming the north tunnel to ‘Liberty Tunnel’: “This is a stupid, bland, tone-deaf move that makes Romney look like an out-of-touch out-of-towner. Its not like there was a huge constituency out there pleased as punch about the name 'Liberty'. Take the low-hanging fruit when it’s offered to you.”
Ah, but that leaves the issue of recognizing one of the other great figures in the history of the Big Dig: Fred Salvucci. Hub Blog suggested last week that we should honor Fred by naming one of the surface parks after him. Don’t know if Scot Lehigh agrees, but he definitely gives Salvucci the credit he richly deserves.
P.S. Reader No Nickname wrote in a few days ago with this observation on Mitt’s renaming the north tunnel to ‘Liberty Tunnel’: “This is a stupid, bland, tone-deaf move that makes Romney look like an out-of-touch out-of-towner. Its not like there was a huge constituency out there pleased as punch about the name 'Liberty'. Take the low-hanging fruit when it’s offered to you.”
Did the California diocese hire a R.I. attorney?: You gotta wonder. This lawsuit -- by the California diocese against the Boston Archdiocese -- is crazy but wonderful at the same time. There must be a Rhode Island-attorney connection somewhere, somehow. ...
... The Globe is attacking Bishop Lennon’s decision not to accept funds from Voice of the Faithful. Eileen McNamara is attacking the decision, too. But Eileen is advising Voice of the Faithful: Declare victory and give it up. She’s probably right, unfortunately. The hierarchy will never give up power. Never.
... The Globe is attacking Bishop Lennon’s decision not to accept funds from Voice of the Faithful. Eileen McNamara is attacking the decision, too. But Eileen is advising Voice of the Faithful: Declare victory and give it up. She’s probably right, unfortunately. The hierarchy will never give up power. Never.
The comical sides of the Bulger saga: Hub Blog just loves it whenever “UMass President William Bulger” and “former New England Mafia boss Francis ‘Cadillac Frank’ Salemme” are mentioned in the same lede. It just seems so fitting, so right. ...
... Sounds like Mitt recognizes it’s time to give up the personal battle with Billy, but his staff just can’t/won't let go of it. Go with your gut instinct, Mitt. This is just small-time bickering that demeans the governorship. Worse, it's almost becoming comical. Meet Billy. It's inevitable. Get it over with. Smile for the cameras, shake his hand -- and then wash your hand with a hankie afterward, out of sight of the cameras, of course.
... Sounds like Mitt recognizes it’s time to give up the personal battle with Billy, but his staff just can’t/won't let go of it. Go with your gut instinct, Mitt. This is just small-time bickering that demeans the governorship. Worse, it's almost becoming comical. Meet Billy. It's inevitable. Get it over with. Smile for the cameras, shake his hand -- and then wash your hand with a hankie afterward, out of sight of the cameras, of course.
More evidence ‘embeds’ are working: Mark Jurkowitz has an excellent story about how the ‘embeds’ are keeping the Pentagon honest. ...
... Meanwhile, Jules Crittenden has an excellent ‘embed’ story that indirectly explains the WaPo article/incident that Jurkowitz writes about. Example: “In the bitter street fighting in the towns along the way to Baghdad, he (an intelligence officer) said, ‘We've seen them pull women and children into buildings so the Americans won't shoot. I witnessed this.’” ...
The ‘embeds’ have simply been a spectacular success. Yes, yes, yes. They only provide ‘slices’ of the war. But they’ve also consistently confirmed and/or refuted key assertions made by dolts from across the political/military spectrum.
... Meanwhile, Jules Crittenden has an excellent ‘embed’ story that indirectly explains the WaPo article/incident that Jurkowitz writes about. Example: “In the bitter street fighting in the towns along the way to Baghdad, he (an intelligence officer) said, ‘We've seen them pull women and children into buildings so the Americans won't shoot. I witnessed this.’” ...
The ‘embeds’ have simply been a spectacular success. Yes, yes, yes. They only provide ‘slices’ of the war. But they’ve also consistently confirmed and/or refuted key assertions made by dolts from across the political/military spectrum.
‘Get to know the term ‘Karbala Pass’: Thought of Armchair Gen. Savin Hill’s advice at the start of the war (‘Get to know the term ‘Karbala Pass’) when I read this Globe story this morning. The battle of Karbala Pass has indeed begun -- and it may already be over with now, for all I know. Events are moving very quickly on the ground. ... The noose around Baghdad tightens. Are we still talking in terms of months to finish the war? Or is it now coming down to a matter of days or weeks?
The ‘smoking gun’ linking Iraq with Al Qaeda and WMD?: It’s getting close, as this Globe story and this CSM story explain. ... I think they’ll need a couple more of these type of ‘smoking guns’ before anyone can definitely say the connection has been made, but a case is slowly being made, make no mistake. ... If and when we get into Baghdad, we’re going to have a lot of interesting files to sift through.
‘The shouting match about troop levels’: The ideological debate about our military tactics in Iraq -- i.e. did we pursue an ‘Invasion Light’ option because it fit into the long-term goals of the pre-emptive/unilateralist types within the administration? -- has been raging for a few days now. Josh Marshall, a moderate liberal, and Andrew Sullivan, a conservative and gung-ho backer of the war, are politely duking it out (scroll around for latest updates etc.).
But, once again, Tom Oliphant, a prowar liberal, is sorting through the muck and coming up with intelligent answers. Oliphant, whose column appeared yesterday but wasn’t posted by Hub Blog because of all the blogger problems, summarizes his thoughts thusly:
“The shouting match about troop levels and the war's pace is diverting but misses the point of overwhelming US and British superiority. This war's outcome is not in reasonable doubt; it is in the aftermath, not the planning and execution, that the conflict's worth will be judged.”
But, once again, Tom Oliphant, a prowar liberal, is sorting through the muck and coming up with intelligent answers. Oliphant, whose column appeared yesterday but wasn’t posted by Hub Blog because of all the blogger problems, summarizes his thoughts thusly:
“The shouting match about troop levels and the war's pace is diverting but misses the point of overwhelming US and British superiority. This war's outcome is not in reasonable doubt; it is in the aftermath, not the planning and execution, that the conflict's worth will be judged.”
‘The Time Magazine Syndrome’ of covering the antiwar movement?: Sad to say, even the Boston-based Christian Science Monitor has now succumbed to the ‘non-political political coverage’ of the antiwar movement. ...
... I recently had a conversation with a friend, who happens to be a fellow journalist, about this interesting phenomenon of the media not using normal political terms like ‘left’ and ‘left-wing’ and ‘liberal’ etc. to describe the clear, undeniable political make-up of the antiwar movement. Some of our explanations are old but still sadly valid: the press remains largely liberal (albeit, less liberal than a decade or so ago) and just can’t bring itself to state the obvious truth about the antiwar movement -- so it subjects stories to ‘obvious sanitation’ and a form of ‘self-censorship,’ as my friend put it; many reporters/editors are afraid of being accused of ‘McCarythism’ if they use accurate political phrases about the movement, blah, blah, blah. Both of these explanations, by themselves or combined, are partially true but still inadequate, in my mind. ...
So I told my friend about my exciting new ‘Time Magazine Syndrome’ theory of modern journalism, i.e. how Time magazine, when selecting its Man/Person of the Year each December, has consistently wimped out and dodged controversy in recent years. Time named Albert Einstein, for instance, as ‘Person of the Century,’ even though we all knew it wasn’t true. The Time editors were playing it safe. They didn’t want to create controversy and rock the boat. They also didn’t want to come across as endorsing one particular person and/or his cause. So they went for the mushy, safe, non-controversial option, i.e. good old Albert. Time magazine did the same thing in 2001, when anyone with a brain on their shoulder would have picked Bush and/or Osama bin Laden as Man/Men of the Year in the post-Sept. 11 world. ...
... So could it be -- as I eagerly explained to my friend -- that the ‘Time Magazine Syndrome’ has infected mainstream American journalism when it comes to covering politically sensitive topics like the political nature of the antiwar movement? Could it be that the press -- knowing if it accurately reported on the political nature of the antiwar movement, it would probably cause harm to the movement and unleash great controversy-- is dodging controversy and not trying to rock the boat? Huh?
.... Response of my friend: “Well, I’m sure that’s part of the reason but ...’ And then he went back to the bias angle. Hmmmmmm. I still think there’s something to the ‘Time Magazine Syndrome’ theory. It doesn’t explain everything, but it does make some sense. ... I’ll keep working on it.
... I recently had a conversation with a friend, who happens to be a fellow journalist, about this interesting phenomenon of the media not using normal political terms like ‘left’ and ‘left-wing’ and ‘liberal’ etc. to describe the clear, undeniable political make-up of the antiwar movement. Some of our explanations are old but still sadly valid: the press remains largely liberal (albeit, less liberal than a decade or so ago) and just can’t bring itself to state the obvious truth about the antiwar movement -- so it subjects stories to ‘obvious sanitation’ and a form of ‘self-censorship,’ as my friend put it; many reporters/editors are afraid of being accused of ‘McCarythism’ if they use accurate political phrases about the movement, blah, blah, blah. Both of these explanations, by themselves or combined, are partially true but still inadequate, in my mind. ...
So I told my friend about my exciting new ‘Time Magazine Syndrome’ theory of modern journalism, i.e. how Time magazine, when selecting its Man/Person of the Year each December, has consistently wimped out and dodged controversy in recent years. Time named Albert Einstein, for instance, as ‘Person of the Century,’ even though we all knew it wasn’t true. The Time editors were playing it safe. They didn’t want to create controversy and rock the boat. They also didn’t want to come across as endorsing one particular person and/or his cause. So they went for the mushy, safe, non-controversial option, i.e. good old Albert. Time magazine did the same thing in 2001, when anyone with a brain on their shoulder would have picked Bush and/or Osama bin Laden as Man/Men of the Year in the post-Sept. 11 world. ...
... So could it be -- as I eagerly explained to my friend -- that the ‘Time Magazine Syndrome’ has infected mainstream American journalism when it comes to covering politically sensitive topics like the political nature of the antiwar movement? Could it be that the press -- knowing if it accurately reported on the political nature of the antiwar movement, it would probably cause harm to the movement and unleash great controversy-- is dodging controversy and not trying to rock the boat? Huh?
.... Response of my friend: “Well, I’m sure that’s part of the reason but ...’ And then he went back to the bias angle. Hmmmmmm. I still think there’s something to the ‘Time Magazine Syndrome’ theory. It doesn’t explain everything, but it does make some sense. ... I’ll keep working on it.
The French view of the war, Part II: More French bashing in the wake of my item yesterday and in the wake of disturbing events in France: From a Hub Blog reader:
“If there's any doubt people should make their homes into French-free zones, this (article in the Times of London) should dispel it. The money quote:
‘Relations will be further rent by a second poll, in Le Monde, showing that only a third of the French felt that they were on the same side as the Americans and British, and that another third desired outright Iraqi victory over ‘les anglo-saxons.’’
“It's one thing to think the war is a bad idea. It's another thing to be actually rooting for Hussein to win. What pathetic, amoral, disgusting, sick people. Well, at least we finally have proof of what the French's true colors are. Backstabbers who are never to be trusted. Ever.”
Hub Blog’s response: Understand the frustration. Believe me. I’m no fan of French anti-Americanism, France’s amoral Henry Kissinger-like geopolitical/balance-of-power foreign policy, and France’s neocolonial policies in west Africa etc.
However, what I find somewhat amazing about the French poll numbers -- and the polls vary widely, by the way, though they draw roughly similar pictures -- is that there are any French people rooting for the Brits and Americans, let alone 34 percent or 53 percent, depending on what poll you use. Look at what the average Frenchmen is up against: A so-called ‘intellectual elite’ with long ties to left-wing and right-wing anti-Americanism; a governmental elite who are all schooled and trained at the same damn elitist institutions; a press (often government financed, bribed or run, especially TV) that’s openly hostile to the war, etc. Despite all of this (and the fact there's a large Muslim population in France that the elites are busy appeasing when they're not ignoring them), there’s still large segments of French society that can cut through this top-down malarkey.
An interesting tale to show you what I mean: I was stuck, not too long ago, in an airport terminal in N’djamena, Chad. Struck up a conversation with a group of Frenchmen. Out of nowhere, one of them said, “You know, we are all from Normandy. Did you know that? We remember what America did. We’re not all anti-Americans in France.” I looked at the other Frenchmen, and they were all nodding their heads. They were not among the ‘intellectual elite’ or the ‘more educated,’ as the Globe might call them. They were construction workers and engineers working on some project in Chad.
Quickly, on the French poll numbers: There are a lot of them flying around. I got these poll numbers from a BBC article based on the Le Monde/TF1 poll: 34 percent support the US-led war; 25 percent support Iraq; 31 percent support neither side. As I noted in my blog item yesterday, I noticed/heard slightly different numbers from a French-Channel 2 poll: 53 hoping the US-led forces would win; 35 percent rooting for Saddam.
P.S.: Notice in the BBC article how many French politicians, some of whom made a virtual career out of American bashing, are now warning against anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. They made the connection -- not me.
“If there's any doubt people should make their homes into French-free zones, this (article in the Times of London) should dispel it. The money quote:
‘Relations will be further rent by a second poll, in Le Monde, showing that only a third of the French felt that they were on the same side as the Americans and British, and that another third desired outright Iraqi victory over ‘les anglo-saxons.’’
“It's one thing to think the war is a bad idea. It's another thing to be actually rooting for Hussein to win. What pathetic, amoral, disgusting, sick people. Well, at least we finally have proof of what the French's true colors are. Backstabbers who are never to be trusted. Ever.”
Hub Blog’s response: Understand the frustration. Believe me. I’m no fan of French anti-Americanism, France’s amoral Henry Kissinger-like geopolitical/balance-of-power foreign policy, and France’s neocolonial policies in west Africa etc.
However, what I find somewhat amazing about the French poll numbers -- and the polls vary widely, by the way, though they draw roughly similar pictures -- is that there are any French people rooting for the Brits and Americans, let alone 34 percent or 53 percent, depending on what poll you use. Look at what the average Frenchmen is up against: A so-called ‘intellectual elite’ with long ties to left-wing and right-wing anti-Americanism; a governmental elite who are all schooled and trained at the same damn elitist institutions; a press (often government financed, bribed or run, especially TV) that’s openly hostile to the war, etc. Despite all of this (and the fact there's a large Muslim population in France that the elites are busy appeasing when they're not ignoring them), there’s still large segments of French society that can cut through this top-down malarkey.
An interesting tale to show you what I mean: I was stuck, not too long ago, in an airport terminal in N’djamena, Chad. Struck up a conversation with a group of Frenchmen. Out of nowhere, one of them said, “You know, we are all from Normandy. Did you know that? We remember what America did. We’re not all anti-Americans in France.” I looked at the other Frenchmen, and they were all nodding their heads. They were not among the ‘intellectual elite’ or the ‘more educated,’ as the Globe might call them. They were construction workers and engineers working on some project in Chad.
Quickly, on the French poll numbers: There are a lot of them flying around. I got these poll numbers from a BBC article based on the Le Monde/TF1 poll: 34 percent support the US-led war; 25 percent support Iraq; 31 percent support neither side. As I noted in my blog item yesterday, I noticed/heard slightly different numbers from a French-Channel 2 poll: 53 hoping the US-led forces would win; 35 percent rooting for Saddam.
P.S.: Notice in the BBC article how many French politicians, some of whom made a virtual career out of American bashing, are now warning against anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. They made the connection -- not me.
Tuesday, April 01, 2003
Sorry for the delay in posting today. Massive blogger problems all day. Just switched to Blogger Pro as a result. Here they are (I hope) ...
‘I got him! I got him! ... Shut up!’: The best local war reporting of the day goes to, without a doubt, the Herald’s Jules Crittenden, who sends in this utterly riveting story about his embedded A Company’s first day in combat:
“The shooting continued, answered by heavy volleys of M-4 fire and an M-203 grenade launcher.
“ ‘I think I got him!’ yelled the GI with the grenade launcher. When the shooting picked up again, Wolford ran ahead with his 9 mm pistol drawn, firing and yelling, ‘Anyone got a grenade? When you throw it, bound up on him while he's still stunned!’
“The GIs followed the captain's advice, shot one teenage Iraqi soldier in the head and pumped rounds at the other, who moaned but kept crawling.
“ ‘I got him! I got him! Stay down, (expletive!)’ a GI yelled. The Iraqi, bleeding from a shrapnel wound to his rump, had had enough. He moaned loudly.
“ ‘Shut up!'' the GIs yelled.
“ ‘How's that 203 round taste, (expletive!)’ the grenade shooter yelled. ‘That was me!’”
Read the entire story. Crittenden has the most amazing ear for GIs’ dialogue -- the ‘voice full of adrenaline, but sounding more like an excited kid than a killer,’ as he puts it at one point.
P.S. Here's a great Globe story on the northern Iraq front, which looks more and more like a mini-Afghanistan, without the Northern Alliance’s armored vehicles that can sweep down from the north. ... And here's another excellent Globe story about the mysterious western Iraq front.
‘I got him! I got him! ... Shut up!’: The best local war reporting of the day goes to, without a doubt, the Herald’s Jules Crittenden, who sends in this utterly riveting story about his embedded A Company’s first day in combat:
“The shooting continued, answered by heavy volleys of M-4 fire and an M-203 grenade launcher.
“ ‘I think I got him!’ yelled the GI with the grenade launcher. When the shooting picked up again, Wolford ran ahead with his 9 mm pistol drawn, firing and yelling, ‘Anyone got a grenade? When you throw it, bound up on him while he's still stunned!’
“The GIs followed the captain's advice, shot one teenage Iraqi soldier in the head and pumped rounds at the other, who moaned but kept crawling.
“ ‘I got him! I got him! Stay down, (expletive!)’ a GI yelled. The Iraqi, bleeding from a shrapnel wound to his rump, had had enough. He moaned loudly.
“ ‘Shut up!'' the GIs yelled.
“ ‘How's that 203 round taste, (expletive!)’ the grenade shooter yelled. ‘That was me!’”
Read the entire story. Crittenden has the most amazing ear for GIs’ dialogue -- the ‘voice full of adrenaline, but sounding more like an excited kid than a killer,’ as he puts it at one point.
P.S. Here's a great Globe story on the northern Iraq front, which looks more and more like a mini-Afghanistan, without the Northern Alliance’s armored vehicles that can sweep down from the north. ... And here's another excellent Globe story about the mysterious western Iraq front.
Finneran’s ‘Jo Moore’ pay-raise antics: Steve Bailey called it. They’re going for a pay hike as attention is focused on the war. ... Hub Blog had bet on them going after a stealth Jo Moore expansion of the Quinn bill to firefighters. I could still be proven right.
‘He is hunkered down and prepared to fight ...’: No, not another war story/item. Instead, this item’s slug is part of Joan Vennochi’s clever lead in her column about Billy Bulger fighting for his UMass job. Before getting into the meat of Joan’s column, you gotta read more of her lead: “A loyal cadre of followers is resisting all efforts to impose regime change. The battle to overthrow him now looks to be longer, meaner, and tougher than first presumed. University of Massachusetts President William M. Bulger is not going gently into that good night envisioned by Governor Mitt Romney.” ...
... Great writing. And the political analysis is even better, especially about the possible/probable role of Joe Malone holdovers pushing the grudge match against Bulger. ... Listen, I don’t like Bulger. I think he’s unfit to serve in public office as long as he refuses to assist public law enforcement in hunting down a public menace, i.e. an alleged mass-murderer. ... But Mitt ought to show more strategic flexibility, to carry the military metaphors a bit more, admit his ‘shock and awe’/‘tipping point’ strategy against Billy has failed and so bypass certain pockets of resistance and push on to other reform objectives. ... Like John Kerry, Joan is betting on a Bulger victory on this one. I am, too. Move on, Mitt. ...
... Wayne Woodlief agrees: “It's time for Gov. Mitt Romney to call a truce in his insulting - and probably unwinnable - battle with William M. ‘Billy’ Bulger.” ... Don’t know about the word ‘insulting,’ for Billy has been far more insulting and obnoxious in both his words and deeds. But the point is made: This is indeed ‘probably unwinnable’ for Mitt. .... (Woodlief’s full column is for paid subscribers/pay-to-view. For that reason, I didn’t read the whole thing, FYI.)
... Great writing. And the political analysis is even better, especially about the possible/probable role of Joe Malone holdovers pushing the grudge match against Bulger. ... Listen, I don’t like Bulger. I think he’s unfit to serve in public office as long as he refuses to assist public law enforcement in hunting down a public menace, i.e. an alleged mass-murderer. ... But Mitt ought to show more strategic flexibility, to carry the military metaphors a bit more, admit his ‘shock and awe’/‘tipping point’ strategy against Billy has failed and so bypass certain pockets of resistance and push on to other reform objectives. ... Like John Kerry, Joan is betting on a Bulger victory on this one. I am, too. Move on, Mitt. ...
... Wayne Woodlief agrees: “It's time for Gov. Mitt Romney to call a truce in his insulting - and probably unwinnable - battle with William M. ‘Billy’ Bulger.” ... Don’t know about the word ‘insulting,’ for Billy has been far more insulting and obnoxious in both his words and deeds. But the point is made: This is indeed ‘probably unwinnable’ for Mitt. .... (Woodlief’s full column is for paid subscribers/pay-to-view. For that reason, I didn’t read the whole thing, FYI.)
Gambling on gambling in Massachusetts: OK, do it. Get it out of the way. ‘Experiment’ with more gambling in Massachusetts. No moralistic opposition to it from this quarter. But two warnings: 1.) It won’t be ‘temporary’ and 2.) Keep an eye on the gambling industry’s lobbying/campaign financing/links with key politicos once it gets its industry snout in Massachusetts. ... Then again, it probably won't happen. Finneran will have his say.
It’s always been about ‘hierarchical power’: Ah, the Catholic church. In order to maintain its grip on power and control over the purse strings, it will not accept badly needed money from Voice of the Faithful to help the poor and vulnerable. ... But where’s the surprise? Wasn’t the sex-abuse scandal also about the hierarchy’s bid to maintain its grip on power and control over the purse strings despite the impact on the poor and vulnerable? ... Nothing has changed at the top. Nothing.
A French view of the war -- on local cable TV: If you have a chance, try to watch the French TV news shows playing on the International Channel (channel A35 on Boston's Comcast -- English subtitles and dubbing provided). Last night’s coverage of the war in Iraq was utterly mesmerizing -- and illuminating. The anchors and France-based reports were incredibly biased: Interviews with experts and politicians who blasted the war; generic video clips showing wounded Iraqi children; a Peter Arnett-like/softball interview of the Iraqi foreign minister in Baghdad, an interview that apparently was played on both French and Iraqi state television etc. ...
BUT two things blew me away: The French ‘embedded’ journalists with allied troops and a live studio interview with a panel guest who openly and angrily denounced French TV’s coverage of the war as “Saddam’s propaganda.”
On the French ‘embedded’ journalists:
Their embedded reports -- which were given minimal exposure in terms of on-air time devoted to the war -- were fair and balanced. They explained the allies’ military setbacks, interviewed GIs who were both scared and defiant; described the killing of civilians by Saddam’s forces and how Iraqi civilians were growing increasingly more confident about openly criticizing Saddam. The contrast between the ‘home-based’ anchors/analysts/reporters and the French ‘embedded’ journalists was stark.
On the in-studio guest who denounced French media coverage:
This interview was unbelievable. Don’t know who the guest was, though he was obviously French. Missed his identification. But he blasted the French media’s overall coverage of the war, saying it was not balanced and not giving enough attention to what was actually happening on the ground. The following exchange then ensued (emphasis from subtitles):
Interviewed guest: “Your news is really Saddam’s propaganda!”
Anchor: “Our job is about facts! ... We’re reporting facts ... Your comments on our work don’t reflect reality!”
Interviewed guest: “It’s all a matter of your editing!”
The anchor then reiterated his channel’s coverage (I think it was the state-run Channel 2 in France) was ‘all based on reality’ and then he angrily brought the interview to an end.
Yes, they’re arguing in France, too, about war coverage, but they’re coming at the media debate from a completely different angle. And, yes, like in America, the 'embedded' journalists are proving to be great checks against government/pundit spins back home.
FYI: My French is only so-so, and so I had to rely a lot on the subtitles for the above text. Will stand corrected if it turns out what I heard/scribbled down is a little off. But I’m 98 percent sure I got it largely right. ... Also FYI: I thought I heard polling figures that show 73 percent of the French people are against the war, but 53 percent are still rooting for the allies to win. That 53 percent isn’t exactly reassuring, especially since 35 percent were hoping we wouldn’t win the war. But the fact a majority was hoping for allied victory was, well, still significant and says a lot about the split and complex views/loyalties among the French.
BUT two things blew me away: The French ‘embedded’ journalists with allied troops and a live studio interview with a panel guest who openly and angrily denounced French TV’s coverage of the war as “Saddam’s propaganda.”
On the French ‘embedded’ journalists:
Their embedded reports -- which were given minimal exposure in terms of on-air time devoted to the war -- were fair and balanced. They explained the allies’ military setbacks, interviewed GIs who were both scared and defiant; described the killing of civilians by Saddam’s forces and how Iraqi civilians were growing increasingly more confident about openly criticizing Saddam. The contrast between the ‘home-based’ anchors/analysts/reporters and the French ‘embedded’ journalists was stark.
On the in-studio guest who denounced French media coverage:
This interview was unbelievable. Don’t know who the guest was, though he was obviously French. Missed his identification. But he blasted the French media’s overall coverage of the war, saying it was not balanced and not giving enough attention to what was actually happening on the ground. The following exchange then ensued (emphasis from subtitles):
Interviewed guest: “Your news is really Saddam’s propaganda!”
Anchor: “Our job is about facts! ... We’re reporting facts ... Your comments on our work don’t reflect reality!”
Interviewed guest: “It’s all a matter of your editing!”
The anchor then reiterated his channel’s coverage (I think it was the state-run Channel 2 in France) was ‘all based on reality’ and then he angrily brought the interview to an end.
Yes, they’re arguing in France, too, about war coverage, but they’re coming at the media debate from a completely different angle. And, yes, like in America, the 'embedded' journalists are proving to be great checks against government/pundit spins back home.
FYI: My French is only so-so, and so I had to rely a lot on the subtitles for the above text. Will stand corrected if it turns out what I heard/scribbled down is a little off. But I’m 98 percent sure I got it largely right. ... Also FYI: I thought I heard polling figures that show 73 percent of the French people are against the war, but 53 percent are still rooting for the allies to win. That 53 percent isn’t exactly reassuring, especially since 35 percent were hoping we wouldn’t win the war. But the fact a majority was hoping for allied victory was, well, still significant and says a lot about the split and complex views/loyalties among the French.
Monday, March 31, 2003
Oliver Willis, Blogger criminal: Oliver finally admits it: He's a criminal. Knew it! ... Wait. He was just buying water at a 7-11 and got stopped by the police. Or so he says. ... He notes he's African American. ... Hmmmmm. But might it have something to do with the type of water you were buying, Oliver? ... (Via Boston Online's Boston Common.)
‘Abandon All Cars, Ye Who Enter Here’: The other day, Reader BK suggested I take my ‘Hub-Bloggian Babes’ and test drive the new I-93 tunnel, north. Instead, another Hub Blog reader took up the challenge. His report from a Sunday drive:
“Just came back from a trip through the new 93 North tunnel.
“A radio news report mentioned a multi-car pileup in the tunnel on Sunday, and referred to comments from sources at the Turnpike Authority who said it will probably take drivers ‘a few’ drive-throughs to become acquainted with the tunnel. Once again reinforcing that Boston (a ‘world-class city’) welcomes out-of-towners with the transportation message: Abandon All Cars, Ye Who Enter Here.
“The entrance of the tunnel is bathed in brilliant and jarring yellow-gold lights that make one instinctively wince. I suspect this is a ‘Shock and Awe’ strategy to slow traffic upon entering the tunnel.
“I don't think speed will be the problem, however. On Sunday, instead of driving through Boston at a soul-deadening pace of 15 mph above the ground, I found myself driving through Boston at a soul-deadening pace of 15 mph below the ground.”
“Just came back from a trip through the new 93 North tunnel.
“A radio news report mentioned a multi-car pileup in the tunnel on Sunday, and referred to comments from sources at the Turnpike Authority who said it will probably take drivers ‘a few’ drive-throughs to become acquainted with the tunnel. Once again reinforcing that Boston (a ‘world-class city’) welcomes out-of-towners with the transportation message: Abandon All Cars, Ye Who Enter Here.
“The entrance of the tunnel is bathed in brilliant and jarring yellow-gold lights that make one instinctively wince. I suspect this is a ‘Shock and Awe’ strategy to slow traffic upon entering the tunnel.
“I don't think speed will be the problem, however. On Sunday, instead of driving through Boston at a soul-deadening pace of 15 mph above the ground, I found myself driving through Boston at a soul-deadening pace of 15 mph below the ground.”
Next up -- The Silver Line’s ‘Little Dig’: More evidence and opinions keep streaming in confirming Hub Blog’s profound bias against and loathing for the Silver Line, the overrated non-rail BUS boondoggle that T officials love and most of the public ridicules. Jane Holtz Kay, author of ‘Lost Boston’ and 'Asphalt Nation: How the Automobile Took Over America and How We Can Get It Back,’ blasts away:
“This senseless project not only demonstrates a myopic T management but also one blind to the nature of the region it serves. Boston is a first-class rail city, a streetcar city shaped and sustained by rail. Urban rail is the cheapest, most efficient way to go.”
Kay describes the decision to move ahead with the Silver Line as “a sign of transportation and city planning run amok.” And concludes: “We have lived through a decade and a half in the heaps of an auto-age project. Let's not let this one bury us.”
“This senseless project not only demonstrates a myopic T management but also one blind to the nature of the region it serves. Boston is a first-class rail city, a streetcar city shaped and sustained by rail. Urban rail is the cheapest, most efficient way to go.”
Kay describes the decision to move ahead with the Silver Line as “a sign of transportation and city planning run amok.” And concludes: “We have lived through a decade and a half in the heaps of an auto-age project. Let's not let this one bury us.”
‘Zoning at issue in affordable housing’: Duh. Not taking a dig at the reporter or copy editor who wrote the story and headline. Both are extremely accurate. It’s the 'duh' fact that it’s taken so long for some government officials to recognize the obvious:
“They are learning what many planners and academic observers have long known: Most of the problems associated with Chapter 40B, the affordable housing law, can be traced to Chapter 40A, the state's zoning law.”
“They are learning what many planners and academic observers have long known: Most of the problems associated with Chapter 40B, the affordable housing law, can be traced to Chapter 40A, the state's zoning law.”
The 'perception' about state government unions: Adrian Walker looks into the latest interest group to wage war against any and all attempts at reform. Adrian obviously leans on the side of unions, while not sinking to the level of demonizing and dismissing critics of unions. Taking a cue from Adrian about civil discourse, Hub Blog announces I’m going to lean on the side of reform, while not sinking to the level of demonizing and dismissing unions.
Question: Can anyone seriously defend ‘bumping rights’ and why such cushy union rules shouldn’t lead people to the logical ‘perception’ that unions are part (not all) of the problem on Beacon Hill? ... Good points raised by Adrian about the Quinn bill and Mitt. Hub Blog’s view: Kill or dramatically scale it back. The Quinn Bill is a union giveaway. Now, can we apply the same reform logic to the ‘bumbing rights’ issue?
Question: Can anyone seriously defend ‘bumping rights’ and why such cushy union rules shouldn’t lead people to the logical ‘perception’ that unions are part (not all) of the problem on Beacon Hill? ... Good points raised by Adrian about the Quinn bill and Mitt. Hub Blog’s view: Kill or dramatically scale it back. The Quinn Bill is a union giveaway. Now, can we apply the same reform logic to the ‘bumbing rights’ issue?
The war: Killing the ‘Dragon’ -- and the next ‘Dragon’: For those who sway back and forth about the progress/purpose of the war, read Cathy Young’s op-ed this morning, based on a dark comedy written by Russian author Evgeny Schwartz about Stalin’s actions during the early days of Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union:
“Schwartz's acid satire was rather transparently directed at Stalin's propaganda machine and its spin of the devastating defeats Soviet forces initially suffered in the war against Hitler's invading armies. Today, it can be seen as applying not only to the Stalinesque Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein but, to some degree, to the reckless promises of a quick and easy victory many of our own leaders and pundits offered in the early days of the war.”
FYI: Schwartz’s drama doesn’t have a happy ending, as one Dragon is slain and replaced with another dragon.
“Schwartz's acid satire was rather transparently directed at Stalin's propaganda machine and its spin of the devastating defeats Soviet forces initially suffered in the war against Hitler's invading armies. Today, it can be seen as applying not only to the Stalinesque Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein but, to some degree, to the reckless promises of a quick and easy victory many of our own leaders and pundits offered in the early days of the war.”
FYI: Schwartz’s drama doesn’t have a happy ending, as one Dragon is slain and replaced with another dragon.
The war - ‘The Benchmark of victory’: Lots to worry about in Iraq: Saddam’s population-terrorizing thugs, suicide bombers, reports of more ‘martyrs’ entering the fray, early signs of a Pentagon/ex-generals/media rift etc. But then I read this editorial in the Boston-based Christian Science Monitor, which details what has been accomplished so far by allied forces in Iraq and, well, I felt a little better and even a little embarrassed for going wobbly a bit over the weekend. From CSM:
“The biggest victory so far is the resolve of the American people to see this job through. Hussein calculated he could deflate support for the war by forcing delays and creating civilian causalities. It's become increasingly clear he miscalculated.”
“The biggest victory so far is the resolve of the American people to see this job through. Hussein calculated he could deflate support for the war by forcing delays and creating civilian causalities. It's become increasingly clear he miscalculated.”
The war: Boston’s intrepid ‘embeds’: Two papers, two embeds, two good accounts of what it’s like being a journalist with the troops in Iraq.
From the Herald’s Jules Crittenden:
“Media commentators have asked what is the hardest part about being embedded. Well, it isn't that rough. I like it. ... We all wonder how long this will go on. I am sharing the soldier's life now and I don't want to leave before they have to. ... The soldiers wonder about this, ask if I volunteered for this, and if I can leave when I want to. Yes to all of the above. They are all fathers, brothers, sons. They signed up a few years ago. I sign my name every day. On days like little Devon's birthday, it's a hard choice."
From the Globe’s Brian MacQuarrie:
“I am counted among the official roster of this battalion, and every personnel check must account for me. I'm truly ‘embedded’ with the 1/10, and the way home for me matches the return ticket for the rest of these desert-weary troops -- through Baghdad.”
From the Herald’s Jules Crittenden:
“Media commentators have asked what is the hardest part about being embedded. Well, it isn't that rough. I like it. ... We all wonder how long this will go on. I am sharing the soldier's life now and I don't want to leave before they have to. ... The soldiers wonder about this, ask if I volunteered for this, and if I can leave when I want to. Yes to all of the above. They are all fathers, brothers, sons. They signed up a few years ago. I sign my name every day. On days like little Devon's birthday, it's a hard choice."
From the Globe’s Brian MacQuarrie:
“I am counted among the official roster of this battalion, and every personnel check must account for me. I'm truly ‘embedded’ with the 1/10, and the way home for me matches the return ticket for the rest of these desert-weary troops -- through Baghdad.”
On Boston protesters, Eric Alterman and Marty Baron: Reader No. 1 tackles a lot of issues mentioned in Hub Blog over the past weekend. Reader No. 1:
“To judge by what I read and saw on the antiwar march Saturday, the protesters are apparently not well informed about what is happening in Iraq now -- combatants machine-gunning citizens of the country they claim to be defending; using said citizens as human shields because they know our military won't shoot first and ask questions later. Many of the protesters express concern about how the rest of the world thinks about issues, which is a fair point, but how many protesters expressed much concern about the reality of Iraq before the invasion? Do the allegedly-well-educated look at the activities since the start of the war and think that more negotiations would have made any difference?
“Maybe they are hearing this on the news, which suggests 3 possibilities:
“1. They know and they rationalize it. (What would you do if someone invaded your country; poverty and lack of opportunity is the problem, etc)
“2. They know and they don't want to hear it, so they don't think about it. They're in denial.
“All of which suggests that the Globe's superbly revamped ‘IDEAS’ section is not catching on as well as I might have hoped. I agree that the Robert Kagan piece was very strong, although it would have been better without the obligatory trash-the-Americans closing which the rest of the article doesn't support. This is the kind of liberal bias which Eric Alterman doesn't acknowledge in his accompanying piece. A couple more thoughts on Alterman:
“1. Alterman doesn't help his own case by muddying the definition of ‘liberal.’ He acknowledges, correctly, that most journalists are liberal in terms of their social views. But he then bemoans the absence of media support for what is more correctly described as a statist or socialist agenda.
“2. To judge by the number of words spent on excoriating enthusiastic coverage of once-triumphant CEOs, what seems to bother Alterman more than ‘conservative bias’ is the triumph of capitalism in the past 20 years. While we weep and moan about the ‘concentration of media power,’ let's also acknowledge that paradoxically, it has given viewers choices that didn't exist -- you can watch Peter Jennings, or you can watch Bill O'Reilly.
“Finally, a kudos to Marty Barron for making the Globe eminently readable. It's still a ‘liberal’ paper but it's much more open to divergent opinion and much more focused on real live issues. ... So, now that Marty has put the Globe on the mostly right track, when does he get a chance to restore the reputation of the parent newspaper in NYC?”
“To judge by what I read and saw on the antiwar march Saturday, the protesters are apparently not well informed about what is happening in Iraq now -- combatants machine-gunning citizens of the country they claim to be defending; using said citizens as human shields because they know our military won't shoot first and ask questions later. Many of the protesters express concern about how the rest of the world thinks about issues, which is a fair point, but how many protesters expressed much concern about the reality of Iraq before the invasion? Do the allegedly-well-educated look at the activities since the start of the war and think that more negotiations would have made any difference?
“Maybe they are hearing this on the news, which suggests 3 possibilities:
“1. They know and they rationalize it. (What would you do if someone invaded your country; poverty and lack of opportunity is the problem, etc)
“2. They know and they don't want to hear it, so they don't think about it. They're in denial.
“All of which suggests that the Globe's superbly revamped ‘IDEAS’ section is not catching on as well as I might have hoped. I agree that the Robert Kagan piece was very strong, although it would have been better without the obligatory trash-the-Americans closing which the rest of the article doesn't support. This is the kind of liberal bias which Eric Alterman doesn't acknowledge in his accompanying piece. A couple more thoughts on Alterman:
“1. Alterman doesn't help his own case by muddying the definition of ‘liberal.’ He acknowledges, correctly, that most journalists are liberal in terms of their social views. But he then bemoans the absence of media support for what is more correctly described as a statist or socialist agenda.
“2. To judge by the number of words spent on excoriating enthusiastic coverage of once-triumphant CEOs, what seems to bother Alterman more than ‘conservative bias’ is the triumph of capitalism in the past 20 years. While we weep and moan about the ‘concentration of media power,’ let's also acknowledge that paradoxically, it has given viewers choices that didn't exist -- you can watch Peter Jennings, or you can watch Bill O'Reilly.
“Finally, a kudos to Marty Barron for making the Globe eminently readable. It's still a ‘liberal’ paper but it's much more open to divergent opinion and much more focused on real live issues. ... So, now that Marty has put the Globe on the mostly right track, when does he get a chance to restore the reputation of the parent newspaper in NYC?”
Sunday, March 30, 2003
You mean, the state hasn’t passed a budget yet?: So much war, so little attention to other issues. Such as the state budget debate. Almost forgot it was there. So let’s get back into the swing of things:
Mitt vs. the unions: Yet another interest group is warning the sky is falling -- on them, i.e. unions. The unions are saying Mitt is trying to ‘bust’ them by reclassifying many middle-level managers as non-union members. To a small extent, the charge is true. The move would indeed weaken unions -- and reduce their numbers. But, of course, they’re exaggerating the impact and hyping the numbers. Ultimately, the administration is going after ‘bumping rights’ -- the cushy union rule that allows senior state workers who are laid off “to take the job of virtually any colleague in their agency who has less seniority in state service. That can have a sometimes absurd 'domino effect’ where workers bump others down the line, resulting in employees who are only minimally qualified for their jobs, said John Jesensky, director of the state Office of Employee Relations.”
Says Jersensky: ''How do you put a price tag on all the inefficiency that results from not having the best qualified people filling jobs?''
Will unions compromise on the ‘bumping rights’ rule? Of course not. They want to frame the debate in the most stark union-vs.-antiunion terms possible.
That nutty gambling ‘shakedown’ idea: When Mitt first floated the idea of out-of-state casinos paying Massachusetts millions in exchange for our not approving casino gambling here, the idea was dismissed as nutty. Hub Blog also had a laugh at Mitt’s expense. But then it turned out there were indeed out-of-state casino owners willing to pay millions, though not as much as Mitt wanted. Suddenly, the idea was not so nutty. The idea had legs.
But Harvard law prof Laurence Tribe now says the idea still has no legs, for legal reasons having to do with restraining trade and anti-competition. Interesting.
Higher-education reform: Oh, what the heck. Let Eileen McNamara go off on Mitt’s higher-ed reforms and his no-new-taxes tuition/fee increases. Don’t agree with Eileen’s relentless, offer-no-solutions attacks on Mitt. But her column does get the old debate blood flowing again.
Mitt vs. the unions: Yet another interest group is warning the sky is falling -- on them, i.e. unions. The unions are saying Mitt is trying to ‘bust’ them by reclassifying many middle-level managers as non-union members. To a small extent, the charge is true. The move would indeed weaken unions -- and reduce their numbers. But, of course, they’re exaggerating the impact and hyping the numbers. Ultimately, the administration is going after ‘bumping rights’ -- the cushy union rule that allows senior state workers who are laid off “to take the job of virtually any colleague in their agency who has less seniority in state service. That can have a sometimes absurd 'domino effect’ where workers bump others down the line, resulting in employees who are only minimally qualified for their jobs, said John Jesensky, director of the state Office of Employee Relations.”
Says Jersensky: ''How do you put a price tag on all the inefficiency that results from not having the best qualified people filling jobs?''
Will unions compromise on the ‘bumping rights’ rule? Of course not. They want to frame the debate in the most stark union-vs.-antiunion terms possible.
That nutty gambling ‘shakedown’ idea: When Mitt first floated the idea of out-of-state casinos paying Massachusetts millions in exchange for our not approving casino gambling here, the idea was dismissed as nutty. Hub Blog also had a laugh at Mitt’s expense. But then it turned out there were indeed out-of-state casino owners willing to pay millions, though not as much as Mitt wanted. Suddenly, the idea was not so nutty. The idea had legs.
But Harvard law prof Laurence Tribe now says the idea still has no legs, for legal reasons having to do with restraining trade and anti-competition. Interesting.
Higher-education reform: Oh, what the heck. Let Eileen McNamara go off on Mitt’s higher-ed reforms and his no-new-taxes tuition/fee increases. Don’t agree with Eileen’s relentless, offer-no-solutions attacks on Mitt. But her column does get the old debate blood flowing again.
Cheap shot: The Herald’s ‘The buzz’ column throws what appears to be a cheap shot, though I’ll stand corrected if the ‘ties’ turn out to be different than what I suspect they are. The Herald:
“Ray Howell, a former campaign manager for ex-Gov. William F. Weld who used political ties to start a high-powered consulting business, now is peddling his ties to another powerful friend, new Boston Globe business editor Caleb Solomon.”
Turns out Howell’s web site has a pop-up ad bragging about how he organized a meeting with Solomon and ‘movers and shakers’ within the business and political community.
The item leaves a bad impression/doubt about Solomon, in my opinion.
Hub Blog’s reaction to the ‘meeting’: Big fucking deal. As a former business reporter/editor (at the Boston Business Journal), I was routinely paraded in front of corporate CEOs by PR types who wanted to brag to their clients about their contacts with business editors/reporters. Why did I do it? Because I wanted to meet with CEOs to build a relationship and to build up sources. CEOs are not like politicians: They’re based all across eastern Massachusetts, in non-public buildings you can’t just walk into while on a trolling mission for gossip and stories. Business leaders are just tough to meet and get hold of. As a business journalist, you take advantage of each and every opportunity you can to meet with private-sector ‘movers and shakers.’ That’s how the game is played in business journalism. ... Journalists also can't control the imbecilic rants/bragging of PR people. You should see their marketing brochures -- not just in their web pop-up ads -- about how they've 'placed' stories in papers like the Herald, Globe, BBJ, WSJ etc.
“Ray Howell, a former campaign manager for ex-Gov. William F. Weld who used political ties to start a high-powered consulting business, now is peddling his ties to another powerful friend, new Boston Globe business editor Caleb Solomon.”
Turns out Howell’s web site has a pop-up ad bragging about how he organized a meeting with Solomon and ‘movers and shakers’ within the business and political community.
The item leaves a bad impression/doubt about Solomon, in my opinion.
Hub Blog’s reaction to the ‘meeting’: Big fucking deal. As a former business reporter/editor (at the Boston Business Journal), I was routinely paraded in front of corporate CEOs by PR types who wanted to brag to their clients about their contacts with business editors/reporters. Why did I do it? Because I wanted to meet with CEOs to build a relationship and to build up sources. CEOs are not like politicians: They’re based all across eastern Massachusetts, in non-public buildings you can’t just walk into while on a trolling mission for gossip and stories. Business leaders are just tough to meet and get hold of. As a business journalist, you take advantage of each and every opportunity you can to meet with private-sector ‘movers and shakers.’ That’s how the game is played in business journalism. ... Journalists also can't control the imbecilic rants/bragging of PR people. You should see their marketing brochures -- not just in their web pop-up ads -- about how they've 'placed' stories in papers like the Herald, Globe, BBJ, WSJ etc.
Eric Alterman gets his say on the media in the Globe: Eric Alterman -- the Nation media writer and author of the new book ‘What Liberal Media?’ -- opines on the same subject in a Globe ‘Ideas’ piece. Quickly: Eric says conservatives have more media power than liberals. A liberal himself, Eric argues grunt reporters and editors, who he acknowledges are mostly liberal and Democratic in their leanings, really don’t have as much power to sway public opinion as conservatives think because of their attempts to be fair/objective and because of corporate dominance of the media.
I’ve written about this subject before. Sort of agree with Eric. Sort of. Quickly: I’ve made the distinction that the ‘opinion media' is definitely dominated by conservatives. I’ve also said that the ‘mainstream’ media is largely liberal -- and it’s admirably gotten less liberal in recent years. But that’s not to say they’re not powerful in their ability to choose, shape and spin stories to match their political views, consciously or unconsciously.
Still, I believe conservatives, through the opinion media, are definitely, undeniably setting the political agenda on most issues. Not only do they outnumber liberals in the opinion media, the hard-core conservatives are also fanatical and relentless. On that, I agree with Eric, 100 percent. But I also think that conservative dominance has something to do with their winning the war of ideas, while the left wallows in its silly, moralistic ‘60s nostalgia that turns off so many people.
I’ve written about this subject before. Sort of agree with Eric. Sort of. Quickly: I’ve made the distinction that the ‘opinion media' is definitely dominated by conservatives. I’ve also said that the ‘mainstream’ media is largely liberal -- and it’s admirably gotten less liberal in recent years. But that’s not to say they’re not powerful in their ability to choose, shape and spin stories to match their political views, consciously or unconsciously.
Still, I believe conservatives, through the opinion media, are definitely, undeniably setting the political agenda on most issues. Not only do they outnumber liberals in the opinion media, the hard-core conservatives are also fanatical and relentless. On that, I agree with Eric, 100 percent. But I also think that conservative dominance has something to do with their winning the war of ideas, while the left wallows in its silly, moralistic ‘60s nostalgia that turns off so many people.
Speaking of ideologues ...: A truly terrific, terrific op-ed this morning by NYU’s Jonathan Zimmerman, who writes about the ''Liberal Antiwar Fallacy.'' Zimmerman is liberal. He even uses the word to describe both himself and, yes, the antiwar movement. He blasts both liberals and conservatives who demonize their opponents over the issue of the war.
... He raises a fascinating point, both about antiwar protesters and Bush: The open and/or near religious-like fanaticism on both sides, i.e. the ‘moral absolution.’ Zimmerman:
“Both sides, then, are operating in profoundly bad faith: they each presume that decent, knowledgeable people will agree with them.”
... He raises a fascinating point, both about antiwar protesters and Bush: The open and/or near religious-like fanaticism on both sides, i.e. the ‘moral absolution.’ Zimmerman:
“Both sides, then, are operating in profoundly bad faith: they each presume that decent, knowledgeable people will agree with them.”
Robert Kagan -- the neoconservative mentor of the ‘Bush Doctrine’: Gee, a lot of discussion today on ideological/war matters, left and right. Anyway, here’s a good piece on Robert Kagan. I disagree with so many issues Kagan pushes, but the article is fair and insightful. Kagan managed to clear up a few matters for me on his neoconservative philosophy on American power, foreign policy and pre-emption in the modern age. I still don’t think the unilateralist neoconservatives understand/appreciate how they can better use the UN and our alliances in a more realistic, less dismissive fashion, but Kagan’s at least aware of the argument. Appreciated this graf from the story:
“The Bush administration could certainly have tried harder to avoid the break with European allies, Kagan concedes. As he told a crowd of politicians and notables in London in mid-March, ‘There has been undoubtedly a lapse of statesmanship on the American side. No one not in the direct employ of the Bush administration could deny that. The way the administration has handled things couldn't be better designed to create ill will.’ But Kagan comes down much harder on the Europeans.”
Ding, ding, ding! Hub Blog’s He’s-Botched-It Hawk position partially vindicated/acknowledged from someone on the neoconservative right! ... And the digs at Europe, well, who can not love that? ...
Speaking of the ‘Bush Doctrine,’ the Herald tackles the issue in this piece, which looks at how the doctrine is being tested today in Iraq. ... One more: ‘Rumsfeld's tipping-point strategy’ and how it flopped in Iraq.
“The Bush administration could certainly have tried harder to avoid the break with European allies, Kagan concedes. As he told a crowd of politicians and notables in London in mid-March, ‘There has been undoubtedly a lapse of statesmanship on the American side. No one not in the direct employ of the Bush administration could deny that. The way the administration has handled things couldn't be better designed to create ill will.’ But Kagan comes down much harder on the Europeans.”
Ding, ding, ding! Hub Blog’s He’s-Botched-It Hawk position partially vindicated/acknowledged from someone on the neoconservative right! ... And the digs at Europe, well, who can not love that? ...
Speaking of the ‘Bush Doctrine,’ the Herald tackles the issue in this piece, which looks at how the doctrine is being tested today in Iraq. ... One more: ‘Rumsfeld's tipping-point strategy’ and how it flopped in Iraq.
The non-political political peace rally in Boston: From today's Globe story about yesterday's antiwar rally on Boston Common and subsequent antiwar march (see two posts below for context):
Mention of the words ‘liberal’ or ‘liberals’ in the story: 0. As in ‘zero’ mention.
Mention of the words ‘left’ or ‘leftist’ or ‘left-wing’ or ‘radical’ etc.: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of the words ‘politics’ or ‘political’: 1. As in ‘one.’
Mention of the words ‘ideology’ or ‘ideological’: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of any other politically related word commonly used in all other ‘political’ stories that might indicate where antiwar and prowar citizens might be coming from in terms of their ‘political’ identity: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Nope. The rally/march was not about politics. Nor is the war, I guess.
P.S. -- The article makes a good point: It was indeed very peaceful, and I had interesting conversations with a lot of good-natured people. At one point, I told a protester I was a 'moderate conservative,' for lack of other words, and how there was a big debate within conservative circles about the war and the future of American foreign policy. She looked at me incredulously and said, 'Conservatives are arguing among themselves?' I assured her it was true.
Update -- The Herald has two stories on the rally/march -- here and then here. Again, no serious political analysis of the rally/march, as if politics and the political views of organizers/speakers/attendees don't matter. The first story does have a political reference to a 'conservative.' The second article does mention the word 'politically.' ... I wonder if Eric Alterman, whose Globe article this morning will/should be posted above, has any explanation for this strange phenomenon?. ... I have my suspicions, which comes down to this: Are reporters afraid to call the vast, vast majority of protesters 'liberal' or of the 'left' -- descriptions that would bring down charges of 'McCarthyism' if they did so? Just wondering. ... I would love to have a reporter/editor explain to me why yesterday's rally/march wasn't 'political' in nature -- and thus why the debate over the war isn't 'political' in nature -- and therefore why such stories should not emphasize 'politics.'
Mention of the words ‘liberal’ or ‘liberals’ in the story: 0. As in ‘zero’ mention.
Mention of the words ‘left’ or ‘leftist’ or ‘left-wing’ or ‘radical’ etc.: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of the words ‘politics’ or ‘political’: 1. As in ‘one.’
Mention of the words ‘ideology’ or ‘ideological’: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of any other politically related word commonly used in all other ‘political’ stories that might indicate where antiwar and prowar citizens might be coming from in terms of their ‘political’ identity: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Nope. The rally/march was not about politics. Nor is the war, I guess.
P.S. -- The article makes a good point: It was indeed very peaceful, and I had interesting conversations with a lot of good-natured people. At one point, I told a protester I was a 'moderate conservative,' for lack of other words, and how there was a big debate within conservative circles about the war and the future of American foreign policy. She looked at me incredulously and said, 'Conservatives are arguing among themselves?' I assured her it was true.
Update -- The Herald has two stories on the rally/march -- here and then here. Again, no serious political analysis of the rally/march, as if politics and the political views of organizers/speakers/attendees don't matter. The first story does have a political reference to a 'conservative.' The second article does mention the word 'politically.' ... I wonder if Eric Alterman, whose Globe article this morning will/should be posted above, has any explanation for this strange phenomenon?. ... I have my suspicions, which comes down to this: Are reporters afraid to call the vast, vast majority of protesters 'liberal' or of the 'left' -- descriptions that would bring down charges of 'McCarthyism' if they did so? Just wondering. ... I would love to have a reporter/editor explain to me why yesterday's rally/march wasn't 'political' in nature -- and thus why the debate over the war isn't 'political' in nature -- and therefore why such stories should not emphasize 'politics.'
Saturday, March 29, 2003
Oh, no, the Boston Common antiwar rally wasn’t really ‘left wing’: Boy, I can’t wait to read tomorrow morning’s newspaper accounts of today’s antiwar rally/march in Boston -- especially after reading this pre-rally article and then this pre-rally sidebar in today’s Globe. (More on the two pre-antiwar rally articles directly below.) I was at today’s rally on the Common. Here is what I saw and heard:
Signs: ‘A.N.S.W.E.R’ ... ‘Vive la France’ ... ‘No blood for oil’ ... ‘CNN - Profiteering’ ... ‘911/WTC - Bush’s Reichstag Fire’ ... ‘Bomb Texas-It Has Oil.’ ... ‘Eat Another Pretzel, Asshole’ ... ‘Industrial Workers of the World’ ... ‘No War in Iraq - Free Palestine’ ... ‘Impeach the Dictator’ .... Lots and lots of Green Peace signs and colors ... Lots and lots of peace-symbol signs, in various sizes and shapes and styles ... ‘Bush and Kerry lie/Iraq and Children die’ ... ‘Dean for President’ ... ‘Welcome to fascist America’ (with photos of Hitler and Bush with a Hitler mustache) ... ‘Class war towards social revolution’ ... ‘The real ‘Shock and Awe’ is our country’s nuclear cock.’ ... ‘Victims of of Terrorism - NYC, Belgrade, Grozny, Baghdad’ ... ‘Radical Organizers for Peace’ ... ‘Bring our troops home/NOW!’ ... ‘War is illogical’ ... ‘Support our troops/Bring them home’ ... ‘It’s all about oil’ ... ‘No war for oil’ ... ‘Imperial Bush - the Dictator’ ... Lots of photos of Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in not-so-flattering
poses/captions ...
Signs that might be construed as ‘moderate’ if you willfully refused to believe there was no political motive behind them: ‘Veterans Against War’ ... ‘Airline employees against the war’ ... ‘Arlington Street Church Against ...’ ... ‘Support our troops’ ... ‘Boston Jews for Peace’ ... ‘Mother of All Blunders’ ... American flags, some waved, some worn around their shoulders ala Woodstock, one with a swatzstika where the stars should be. ...
My favorite sign: ‘911/WTC - Bush’s Reichstag Fire.’
Most accurate ideological/religious sign (when you think about it): ‘The world is my country/My religion is to do good’ ... (Along the same lines, saw lots of kids at the rally being ‘baptized,’ for lack of other words, into the ‘religion.’)
Best political costumes/Mardi Gras ‘festive’ antics: The M*A*S*H ‘Street Medics’ tent with a woman out front wearing a warlock/wizard/Merlin-like hat; no ‘patients’ seen inside ... Women dancing around in Vestal Virgin outfits ... Lots of cool, elaborate, time-consuming-to-make and gigantic plaster/whatever Bush masks and heads. ... Protesters on stilts. ... Protesters with skull masks. ... dolls covered with fake blood. ... Musicians Against the War ... Strange/Hard-to-categorize Anarchists with ominous black bandannas tied around their faces -- and rightly surrounded by cops ... Buddhas banging drums. ... Non-Asian Buddhas banging drums. ... Lots of earthy-looking people beating drums, tambourines etc. ... Someone wearing a cardboard dolphin outfit with the sign, ‘Bush - Mine your own business’ ... A Mardi Gras-like street band playing ragtime tunes ... Lots of aging and smiling ‘60s-era Boomers taking pictures of grandchildren posing with protesters wearing George Bush masks and giving the peace sign etc. ... and etc. etc.
Average dress of average protester: Upper-middle-class/GAP/Banana Republic garb; a disappointing low number of ‘hippie’ clothes; definitely no shortage of the grungy Seattle look and what might be described by the Globe as the ‘more educated’ uniforms of every-day ‘longtime liberal activists’ from Newton/Cambridge. ... No sign of what might be described as ‘working-class New England Patriots fans,’ i.e. not ONE Drew Bledsoe, Tom Brady or Bruins jersey.
Booths and stands selling books, stickers, sweat shirts etc. for: ANSWER. ... Revolution Books. ... Peace Products. ... Socialism. ... Peace Resource Project ... Noam Chomsky books etc. ... No NRA or ROTC stands spotted.
Among the non-partisan organizers of the rally/march: A.N.S.W.E.R and United For Justice With Peace.
Among the partisan groups who didn’t claim credit for the rally/march: YAF, the Moral Majority, the Rotary Club, VFW Halls, the Boy Scouts of Massachusetts, Our Lady of Fatima CYO Basketball League, the Boston Firefighters union etc. etc. etc.
Speakers, poets and random chants/rants: A representative from ‘Military Families Speak Out’ ... An MC who kept shouting in between speakers, ‘You’re beautiful! Look at you! You’re beautiful!’ -- to cheers ... Lots of talk of patriotism and attacks on those who questioned their patriotism while constantly mocking patriotism. ... ‘The people united will not be defeated!’ ... ‘Sisters and brothers!’ ... ‘No war in Iraq! Free Palestine!’ ... ‘I am an Iraqi!/I don’t want war!’ She read from a poem that didn’t make it clear if she really had gone through gas attacks, war, Saddam etc., as she appeared/implied to be claiming. Could be wrong about that. Willing to stand corrected. ... ‘I say we look like America!’ ... City councilor Chuck Turner, who ranted about the ‘military industrial complex’ ... Kaffia-wearing ‘traditional Palestinian dancers’ ... Rappers talking about ‘Revolution!’ and ‘Diversity!’ and 'Racism!' ... ‘activist’ students from Emerson and MIT who belong to the Green Party and who ‘organize’ on campus against racism and for feminism and ‘queers’ (their word, not mine) etc. ... ‘What do we want?’ ‘Peace!’ ‘When do we want it?’ ‘Now!’ ... ‘Fight for Jobs, not War!’ ‘Bring home the troops!’ ... ‘Revolution!’ etc. ... A lot of union leaders; no rank-and-file union members. Biggest chant disappointment: No ‘Hey ho ...’ nor ‘One, two, three, four, we don’t want ...’ Couldn’t believe it! I felt cheated!
Estimate of crowd: I’ll give it to them -- 50,000. Definitely tens of thousands. No doubt. But definitely less than the average attendance at a New England Patriots game -- and those fans pay up the ass to drive 45 miles to see a game in Foxborough. (Update - Today's papers are reporting the rally attendance at about 25,000. I thought it looked larger, personally, but I'm not a crowd-estimate expert.)
Estimate of non-leftist/non-Democratic attendees at the rally: In Massachusetts? C’mon. Use your friggin’ common sense.
Conclusion: Oh, no, the rally wasn’t really ‘leftist’ in nature or preponderance. Lots of diversity. ...
Signs: ‘A.N.S.W.E.R’ ... ‘Vive la France’ ... ‘No blood for oil’ ... ‘CNN - Profiteering’ ... ‘911/WTC - Bush’s Reichstag Fire’ ... ‘Bomb Texas-It Has Oil.’ ... ‘Eat Another Pretzel, Asshole’ ... ‘Industrial Workers of the World’ ... ‘No War in Iraq - Free Palestine’ ... ‘Impeach the Dictator’ .... Lots and lots of Green Peace signs and colors ... Lots and lots of peace-symbol signs, in various sizes and shapes and styles ... ‘Bush and Kerry lie/Iraq and Children die’ ... ‘Dean for President’ ... ‘Welcome to fascist America’ (with photos of Hitler and Bush with a Hitler mustache) ... ‘Class war towards social revolution’ ... ‘The real ‘Shock and Awe’ is our country’s nuclear cock.’ ... ‘Victims of of Terrorism - NYC, Belgrade, Grozny, Baghdad’ ... ‘Radical Organizers for Peace’ ... ‘Bring our troops home/NOW!’ ... ‘War is illogical’ ... ‘Support our troops/Bring them home’ ... ‘It’s all about oil’ ... ‘No war for oil’ ... ‘Imperial Bush - the Dictator’ ... Lots of photos of Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in not-so-flattering
poses/captions ...
Signs that might be construed as ‘moderate’ if you willfully refused to believe there was no political motive behind them: ‘Veterans Against War’ ... ‘Airline employees against the war’ ... ‘Arlington Street Church Against ...’ ... ‘Support our troops’ ... ‘Boston Jews for Peace’ ... ‘Mother of All Blunders’ ... American flags, some waved, some worn around their shoulders ala Woodstock, one with a swatzstika where the stars should be. ...
My favorite sign: ‘911/WTC - Bush’s Reichstag Fire.’
Most accurate ideological/religious sign (when you think about it): ‘The world is my country/My religion is to do good’ ... (Along the same lines, saw lots of kids at the rally being ‘baptized,’ for lack of other words, into the ‘religion.’)
Best political costumes/Mardi Gras ‘festive’ antics: The M*A*S*H ‘Street Medics’ tent with a woman out front wearing a warlock/wizard/Merlin-like hat; no ‘patients’ seen inside ... Women dancing around in Vestal Virgin outfits ... Lots of cool, elaborate, time-consuming-to-make and gigantic plaster/whatever Bush masks and heads. ... Protesters on stilts. ... Protesters with skull masks. ... dolls covered with fake blood. ... Musicians Against the War ... Strange/Hard-to-categorize Anarchists with ominous black bandannas tied around their faces -- and rightly surrounded by cops ... Buddhas banging drums. ... Non-Asian Buddhas banging drums. ... Lots of earthy-looking people beating drums, tambourines etc. ... Someone wearing a cardboard dolphin outfit with the sign, ‘Bush - Mine your own business’ ... A Mardi Gras-like street band playing ragtime tunes ... Lots of aging and smiling ‘60s-era Boomers taking pictures of grandchildren posing with protesters wearing George Bush masks and giving the peace sign etc. ... and etc. etc.
Average dress of average protester: Upper-middle-class/GAP/Banana Republic garb; a disappointing low number of ‘hippie’ clothes; definitely no shortage of the grungy Seattle look and what might be described by the Globe as the ‘more educated’ uniforms of every-day ‘longtime liberal activists’ from Newton/Cambridge. ... No sign of what might be described as ‘working-class New England Patriots fans,’ i.e. not ONE Drew Bledsoe, Tom Brady or Bruins jersey.
Booths and stands selling books, stickers, sweat shirts etc. for: ANSWER. ... Revolution Books. ... Peace Products. ... Socialism. ... Peace Resource Project ... Noam Chomsky books etc. ... No NRA or ROTC stands spotted.
Among the non-partisan organizers of the rally/march: A.N.S.W.E.R and United For Justice With Peace.
Among the partisan groups who didn’t claim credit for the rally/march: YAF, the Moral Majority, the Rotary Club, VFW Halls, the Boy Scouts of Massachusetts, Our Lady of Fatima CYO Basketball League, the Boston Firefighters union etc. etc. etc.
Speakers, poets and random chants/rants: A representative from ‘Military Families Speak Out’ ... An MC who kept shouting in between speakers, ‘You’re beautiful! Look at you! You’re beautiful!’ -- to cheers ... Lots of talk of patriotism and attacks on those who questioned their patriotism while constantly mocking patriotism. ... ‘The people united will not be defeated!’ ... ‘Sisters and brothers!’ ... ‘No war in Iraq! Free Palestine!’ ... ‘I am an Iraqi!/I don’t want war!’ She read from a poem that didn’t make it clear if she really had gone through gas attacks, war, Saddam etc., as she appeared/implied to be claiming. Could be wrong about that. Willing to stand corrected. ... ‘I say we look like America!’ ... City councilor Chuck Turner, who ranted about the ‘military industrial complex’ ... Kaffia-wearing ‘traditional Palestinian dancers’ ... Rappers talking about ‘Revolution!’ and ‘Diversity!’ and 'Racism!' ... ‘activist’ students from Emerson and MIT who belong to the Green Party and who ‘organize’ on campus against racism and for feminism and ‘queers’ (their word, not mine) etc. ... ‘What do we want?’ ‘Peace!’ ‘When do we want it?’ ‘Now!’ ... ‘Fight for Jobs, not War!’ ‘Bring home the troops!’ ... ‘Revolution!’ etc. ... A lot of union leaders; no rank-and-file union members. Biggest chant disappointment: No ‘Hey ho ...’ nor ‘One, two, three, four, we don’t want ...’ Couldn’t believe it! I felt cheated!
Estimate of crowd: I’ll give it to them -- 50,000. Definitely tens of thousands. No doubt. But definitely less than the average attendance at a New England Patriots game -- and those fans pay up the ass to drive 45 miles to see a game in Foxborough. (Update - Today's papers are reporting the rally attendance at about 25,000. I thought it looked larger, personally, but I'm not a crowd-estimate expert.)
Estimate of non-leftist/non-Democratic attendees at the rally: In Massachusetts? C’mon. Use your friggin’ common sense.
Conclusion: Oh, no, the rally wasn’t really ‘leftist’ in nature or preponderance. Lots of diversity. ...
The Globe’s strange Sociology Journalism -- as applied to antiwar stories: In this pre-antiwar rally story and in this sidebar pre-antiwar rally story -- both in the Globe today; didn’t check the Herald -- Hub Blog counted the following in both stories, combined:
Mention of the words ‘liberal’ or ‘liberals’: 1. As in ‘one’ mention. That’s it.
Mention of the words ‘left’ or ‘leftist’ or ‘left-wing’ or ‘radical’ etc.: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of the words ‘politics’ or ‘political’: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of the words ‘ideology’ or ‘ideological’: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of any other politically related word commonly used in all other ‘political’ stories that might indicate where antiwar and prowar citizens might be coming from in terms of their ‘political’ identity: 0. As in ‘zero.’
So what does the Globe talk about? ‘Class’ and ‘geography’ and ‘demographics,’ etc. In other words, the articles are classic examples of -- drum roll please -- pseudo-sophisticated Sociological Journalism, devoid of any political analysis about what is, ultimately, a political debate and movement. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh! These stories should be every grizzled city editor’s worst nightmare: Reporters pulling political punches by covering up the politically obvious with pseudo-sophisticated sociological mumbo jumbo. ...
... The second sidebar story -- with the headline 'Peace activists work to cross boundaries of class, geography' -- is utteraly fascinating because it actually tries to explain the cultural/political divide between the antiwar and prowar sides. Without using political terminology to explain it. Can you imagine reading political coverage of the past gubernatorial election with this type of pseudo-sophisticated sociological language and analysis? No use of the words ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘moderate’ or ‘radical’ or ‘far right-wing’ or ‘far left wing’ or ‘muddled middle’ or ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’ or ‘Libertarian’ or ‘Green’ or ‘Independent’? Can you imagine everything in the past gubernatorial election being boiled down to just where voters lived (‘geography’) and what income/education level they’re at (‘class’) or what racial group they belonged to (‘ethnicity’)? Granted, there’s a time and place for such analysis. But it breaks down at some point in POLITICAL reporting -- and usually quite quickly, especially in America. ...
Back to the war and antiwar rally: Can you imagine reading any other story about the raging domestic debate over the war -- unless it’s about the antiwar movement -- in which reporters don’t employ commonly used political words and phrases to describe events and people and their ideas? ... Or is the Globe suggesting, based on these two antiwar stories, that there are no 'politics' involved in the debate over the war? ...
Hub Blog LOVED this part of the Globe story in the second of the above-linked stories:
“Some antiwar activists said this week that they still sense a divide between the city's intellectual elite and its working-class population. ... ‘We're more upper-class,’ said Dan Kantoff of Brighton, an activist with the group Food Not Bombs. ‘The more educated you are, the more you're going to see, the more you're going to be aware of what's going on.’”
Wow. They ‘still sense’ a cultural/political divide (without referring to 'politics') after everything we saw and learned in the 20th Century? What planet are they on? ... Hello, Dan Kantoff! Can I ask a few questions, Dan? ... You see, Hub Blog is in a complex socio-political and economic quandary. I’m upper-class/upper-middle-class. I’m among those ‘more educated’ from elite, private universities. I’m from the ‘professional’ class. I think I’m a little ‘intellectual,’ or at least as ‘intellectual’ as the average ‘antiwar activist,’ Dan. My questions, Dan: Why don’t I see the world the same way as you do, given all our socio-political and economic similarities, Dan? Why am I not more ‘aware’ like you, Dan? Why am I a ‘moderate conservative’ with deep reservations about the war and how it started and still disagree with you, Dan? ... Why are MY views more in line with the working-class population you say you want to connect with, Dan? Hmmmmmm. ....
... Questions in general: Who benefits from this type of politically neutered reporting in the Globe? Who wants their ‘movement’ to come across as non-partisan and as ‘broad based’ as possible?
Mention of the words ‘liberal’ or ‘liberals’: 1. As in ‘one’ mention. That’s it.
Mention of the words ‘left’ or ‘leftist’ or ‘left-wing’ or ‘radical’ etc.: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of the words ‘politics’ or ‘political’: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of the words ‘ideology’ or ‘ideological’: 0. As in ‘zero.’
Mention of any other politically related word commonly used in all other ‘political’ stories that might indicate where antiwar and prowar citizens might be coming from in terms of their ‘political’ identity: 0. As in ‘zero.’
So what does the Globe talk about? ‘Class’ and ‘geography’ and ‘demographics,’ etc. In other words, the articles are classic examples of -- drum roll please -- pseudo-sophisticated Sociological Journalism, devoid of any political analysis about what is, ultimately, a political debate and movement. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh! These stories should be every grizzled city editor’s worst nightmare: Reporters pulling political punches by covering up the politically obvious with pseudo-sophisticated sociological mumbo jumbo. ...
... The second sidebar story -- with the headline 'Peace activists work to cross boundaries of class, geography' -- is utteraly fascinating because it actually tries to explain the cultural/political divide between the antiwar and prowar sides. Without using political terminology to explain it. Can you imagine reading political coverage of the past gubernatorial election with this type of pseudo-sophisticated sociological language and analysis? No use of the words ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘moderate’ or ‘radical’ or ‘far right-wing’ or ‘far left wing’ or ‘muddled middle’ or ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’ or ‘Libertarian’ or ‘Green’ or ‘Independent’? Can you imagine everything in the past gubernatorial election being boiled down to just where voters lived (‘geography’) and what income/education level they’re at (‘class’) or what racial group they belonged to (‘ethnicity’)? Granted, there’s a time and place for such analysis. But it breaks down at some point in POLITICAL reporting -- and usually quite quickly, especially in America. ...
Back to the war and antiwar rally: Can you imagine reading any other story about the raging domestic debate over the war -- unless it’s about the antiwar movement -- in which reporters don’t employ commonly used political words and phrases to describe events and people and their ideas? ... Or is the Globe suggesting, based on these two antiwar stories, that there are no 'politics' involved in the debate over the war? ...
Hub Blog LOVED this part of the Globe story in the second of the above-linked stories:
“Some antiwar activists said this week that they still sense a divide between the city's intellectual elite and its working-class population. ... ‘We're more upper-class,’ said Dan Kantoff of Brighton, an activist with the group Food Not Bombs. ‘The more educated you are, the more you're going to see, the more you're going to be aware of what's going on.’”
Wow. They ‘still sense’ a cultural/political divide (without referring to 'politics') after everything we saw and learned in the 20th Century? What planet are they on? ... Hello, Dan Kantoff! Can I ask a few questions, Dan? ... You see, Hub Blog is in a complex socio-political and economic quandary. I’m upper-class/upper-middle-class. I’m among those ‘more educated’ from elite, private universities. I’m from the ‘professional’ class. I think I’m a little ‘intellectual,’ or at least as ‘intellectual’ as the average ‘antiwar activist,’ Dan. My questions, Dan: Why don’t I see the world the same way as you do, given all our socio-political and economic similarities, Dan? Why am I not more ‘aware’ like you, Dan? Why am I a ‘moderate conservative’ with deep reservations about the war and how it started and still disagree with you, Dan? ... Why are MY views more in line with the working-class population you say you want to connect with, Dan? Hmmmmmm. ....
... Questions in general: Who benefits from this type of politically neutered reporting in the Globe? Who wants their ‘movement’ to come across as non-partisan and as ‘broad based’ as possible?
Friday, March 28, 2003
‘Hub-Bloggian Babes and driving thru the new tunnel': A reader writes in with a question related to yet another local story that hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves in recent days, i.e. the new I-93 Tunnel:
“Query: Will Hub Blog be getting into a car with several of his Hub-Bloggian Babes and driving thru the South-North side of the Big Dig when it is opened for him this coming Sunday? Hope so, and I expect to read Hub Blog's initial assessment of how well his (and his children's, and their children's) tax dollars were spent on this project no later than Monday."
Hub Blog’s response: I’ll try, though I may be suffering from emotional exhaustion/compassion fatigue after attending the big rally tomorrow on the Common.
“Query: Will Hub Blog be getting into a car with several of his Hub-Bloggian Babes and driving thru the South-North side of the Big Dig when it is opened for him this coming Sunday? Hope so, and I expect to read Hub Blog's initial assessment of how well his (and his children's, and their children's) tax dollars were spent on this project no later than Monday."
Hub Blog’s response: I’ll try, though I may be suffering from emotional exhaustion/compassion fatigue after attending the big rally tomorrow on the Common.
Speaking of local construction projects: Did Mitt and Doug Foy really announce this Longfellow Bridge project without first running it by Beacon Hill’s official Sidewalk Superintendent? I just wish they could learn to follow standard political protocol.
Blogger strafes Phoenix’s 'War and Peace,' attack met by ground fire: One’s attacking it. One’s defending it. Take it away Cosmo. ... P.S. One of the criticisms centers on the blog’s lack of hyperlinks, though I wasn’t very fond of the favorable hyperlink to a Robert Fisk article, obviously. ... FYI: Hub Blog’s aircraft-carrier propeller is still being repaired.
Martin Nolan on Daniel Patrick Moynihan: With the war entering its second week, don’t forget the sad passing away of Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Marty Nolan hasn’t. A wonderful piece that reminded me how deep Moynihan’s roots were in Massachusetts, particularly at my old alma mater, Tufts. From Nolan: “In academe, Moynihan kept his head on the Harvard faculty because, he proudly said, he had five degrees from Tufts University (the odd one is Bachelor of Naval Science).” ...
... Mickey Kaus, who closely follows welfare reform issues, has a terrific tribute to Moynihan, as well as lots of Moynihan obituary/analysis links. FYI: Mickey makes an interesting point about Moynihan: He was one of the first people to identify the profound flaws in Great Society welfare programs, but Moynihan could never pinpoint and/or accept possible solutions to those flaws. ... Mickey also relates a fond story about Moynihan singing away at a Somerville bar.
... Mickey Kaus, who closely follows welfare reform issues, has a terrific tribute to Moynihan, as well as lots of Moynihan obituary/analysis links. FYI: Mickey makes an interesting point about Moynihan: He was one of the first people to identify the profound flaws in Great Society welfare programs, but Moynihan could never pinpoint and/or accept possible solutions to those flaws. ... Mickey also relates a fond story about Moynihan singing away at a Somerville bar.
One down, two to go: John Bulger plans to ‘plead guilty to charges that he lied to a federal grand jury and obstructed efforts by investigators to capture his notorious brother James.’ ... As they say, it’s a start. ...
Update -- The UMass chancellors (yes, plural) are urging Mitt to meet with Billy concerning higher-ed reforms. Understand Mitt's reluctance, but, sooner or later, he's going to meet with/bump into the guy, who undoubtably will try to embarrass Mitt when it inevitably happens. Might as well orchestrate/manage the confrontation. ... Pull a Jo Moore and just get it over with and get the carping critics to stop their shameless we-love-you-Billy yelping.
Now to the war. ...
Update -- The UMass chancellors (yes, plural) are urging Mitt to meet with Billy concerning higher-ed reforms. Understand Mitt's reluctance, but, sooner or later, he's going to meet with/bump into the guy, who undoubtably will try to embarrass Mitt when it inevitably happens. Might as well orchestrate/manage the confrontation. ... Pull a Jo Moore and just get it over with and get the carping critics to stop their shameless we-love-you-Billy yelping.
Now to the war. ...
CSM correspondent unfairly gets the boot: C’mon. Give me a break. The Christian Science Monitor correspondent who was booted out of Iraq yesterday was only stating the obvious, though he might have been a tad bit too specific in real time, at worst. Everyone closely following this war knows where the Marines are generally located. ... Look at this story from the Globe about the Marines making a ‘brief thrust north’ yesterday in an apparent feint to draw Iraqi forces away from the 3rd Army Division. It’s all there, practically down to the mile. Even Hub Blog knows this: The Marines are part of the right-wing flank of a two-headed spear headed for Baghdad, with the 3rd Army Division on its left flank. ...
Hats off to CSM editor Paul Van Slambrouck for calmly:1.) sticking by the correspondent, Philip Smucker, and 2.) not jumping on a journalistic soapbox while doing so. ... Also in the CSM, it looks like Daniel Schorr is tempted to jump on the journalistic soapbox, but he wisely doesn’t, concluding that there are many tough journalistic questions out there, i.e. ‘And there is no easy answer.”
Hats off to CSM editor Paul Van Slambrouck for calmly:1.) sticking by the correspondent, Philip Smucker, and 2.) not jumping on a journalistic soapbox while doing so. ... Also in the CSM, it looks like Daniel Schorr is tempted to jump on the journalistic soapbox, but he wisely doesn’t, concluding that there are many tough journalistic questions out there, i.e. ‘And there is no easy answer.”
Gratitude. That’s it: We interrupt this war to bring you this nice op-ed piece in the Globe on the subject of gratitude. That’s it. Gratitude. Why the Globe ran this now, I don’t know. And I don’t care. But I’m glad they did. Read it. It’s not about the war. ...
Now back to the war ...
Now back to the war ...
The war -- the Boston front: Clearly, the war isn’t going as planned. Iraqi resistance, for whatever reasons, was underestimated going into the conflict, a serious mistake/blunder to make in any war. ... But what’s great about this Herald story is that many members of Massachusetts’ Congressional delegation, which was overwhelmingly against the war, aren’t hitting the military/moral panic button. Nor are they trying to use the setbacks for political advantage. A sampling:
U.S. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Lowell) on Gen. Tommy Franks: “General Franks has an excellent plan, and it's a flexible plan. ... I think they're implementing it quite well. ... I think people should be patient.”
U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville) on the military and critics: ``(Troops are) doing a very excellent job. ... They (critics) want it all solved in a half-an-hour sitcom, but this is real life, unfortunately.”
U.S. Rep. James McGovern (D-Worcester): “My own preference would have been not to go to war. ... (But) I don't think anyone in this Congress, whether for or against the war, was under the impression that this would be quick and easy.”
I sort of disagree with McGovern’s last sentence, for there were indeed people (and I assume many in Congress) who thought it would be a ‘cake walk.’ But McGovern shows class for not hopping on the They-Hyped-An Easy-Victory bandwagon. More on the ‘critics’ and ‘resistance’ issue below.
But, first, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank says we should be concentrating on post-war issues. Which leads to ...
U.S. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Lowell) on Gen. Tommy Franks: “General Franks has an excellent plan, and it's a flexible plan. ... I think they're implementing it quite well. ... I think people should be patient.”
U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville) on the military and critics: ``(Troops are) doing a very excellent job. ... They (critics) want it all solved in a half-an-hour sitcom, but this is real life, unfortunately.”
U.S. Rep. James McGovern (D-Worcester): “My own preference would have been not to go to war. ... (But) I don't think anyone in this Congress, whether for or against the war, was under the impression that this would be quick and easy.”
I sort of disagree with McGovern’s last sentence, for there were indeed people (and I assume many in Congress) who thought it would be a ‘cake walk.’ But McGovern shows class for not hopping on the They-Hyped-An Easy-Victory bandwagon. More on the ‘critics’ and ‘resistance’ issue below.
But, first, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank says we should be concentrating on post-war issues. Which leads to ...
It’s the post-war UN/American foreign policy, stupid: A lot of attention is now heaped on the role of the UN in administering humanitarian aid, reintroducing UN weapons inspectors into Iraq, and overseeing Iraq after the war, whenever it ends, however it ends. ...
But the real issue is not so much the UN’s short-term involvement in those issues, but the US and UN’s long-term relationship with one another. As the Christian Science Monitor nails it in this story: “ ...This time, as before, the debate really transcends Iraq and comes down to questions about the US, and whether the US alone or an international collective system will be the leading arbiter of security and power in the world.”
Hub Blog’s view? As MK would say: Don’t rush me! Still sifting through all the arguments. I’m tempted to beat the administration over the head for the fun of it, for they’re once again arguing, behind the scenes, about the UN and American unilateralism -- even though neocons will scream in public if you frame the debate in that ‘unilateralist’ way. I.e. It’s the same type of schizophrenic debate we saw before the war. But the UN, via France and Germany and Russia, has also really discredited itself. Secretary of State Colin Powell on the UN’s involvement in postwar Iraq: ''We didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future.”
Bottom line: Don’t rush me! Which leads to ....
But the real issue is not so much the UN’s short-term involvement in those issues, but the US and UN’s long-term relationship with one another. As the Christian Science Monitor nails it in this story: “ ...This time, as before, the debate really transcends Iraq and comes down to questions about the US, and whether the US alone or an international collective system will be the leading arbiter of security and power in the world.”
Hub Blog’s view? As MK would say: Don’t rush me! Still sifting through all the arguments. I’m tempted to beat the administration over the head for the fun of it, for they’re once again arguing, behind the scenes, about the UN and American unilateralism -- even though neocons will scream in public if you frame the debate in that ‘unilateralist’ way. I.e. It’s the same type of schizophrenic debate we saw before the war. But the UN, via France and Germany and Russia, has also really discredited itself. Secretary of State Colin Powell on the UN’s involvement in postwar Iraq: ''We didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future.”
Bottom line: Don’t rush me! Which leads to ....
That ‘criticism’ of ‘resistance’ and ‘timetables’: There’s absolutely no doubt: The administration, on the whole, underestimated Iraqi resistance. Vice President Dick Cheney said as much, as the Globe notes. Of course, the administration -- and its critics -- will be singing a different tune, predictably, hypocritically, if the war were to suddenly stop in the next day or two. Then watch for the ‘I told you so’ arguments to be pulled off the shelves by the politicos. ...
... But don’t pay attention to the politicos, for now. Listen to what some military leaders, on the ground in Iraq, have to say. A reader sent in this great link to a web site run by Phil Carter, a former military officer, journalist and UCLA law student. In a link to a WaPo story, Carter provides this gem of a quote from a military commander in northern Iraq: ‘I personally underestimated the willingness of the Fedayeen to fight, or maybe overestimated the willingness of the Shiites to rise up.’ ... Case closed. If the troops are saying it, it’s true. But if the troops are also saying they’re not overly concerned about it and still have faith in themselves and in their leaders, that’s the key.
... But don’t pay attention to the politicos, for now. Listen to what some military leaders, on the ground in Iraq, have to say. A reader sent in this great link to a web site run by Phil Carter, a former military officer, journalist and UCLA law student. In a link to a WaPo story, Carter provides this gem of a quote from a military commander in northern Iraq: ‘I personally underestimated the willingness of the Fedayeen to fight, or maybe overestimated the willingness of the Shiites to rise up.’ ... Case closed. If the troops are saying it, it’s true. But if the troops are also saying they’re not overly concerned about it and still have faith in themselves and in their leaders, that’s the key.
Derrick Jackson, take a bow: We interrupt this war to let Derrick Jackson and Brian McGrory beat the shit out of the NCAA for its lousy record on ‘student athlete’ graduation rates. McGrory notes that Jackson deserves the credit for harping on this issue -- and he does deserve the credit. ...
Now, back to the war. ...
Now, back to the war. ...
Ah, some good news and other war tidbits: Good news: John Ellis is back blogging and has a great quote from Tiger on the war. ... Good news: The sleazy business deals of Richard Perle have forced him to step down as chairman of the influential Defense Policy Board. ...
... Jules Crittenden has another great battlefield story over at the Herald, answering the big question, among other things, about how GIs bathe in the middle of a war. He ends the story with this quote from a company commander about Iraqi fighters and about his troops who are little bummed they haven’t seen action yet:
``There is a war going on and there is an enemy out there, and he's feeling a little cocky because he has not yet felt the full might of our forces. But when he does, he won't know what hit him. ... Our day will come, and it will be intense. ... These guys will be shaken, and they will learn what it means to be a soldier.''
Yikes. Sounds like something out of ‘We Were Soldiers Once. ...’ And it’s happening today. History. Gotta love it.
... Jules Crittenden has another great battlefield story over at the Herald, answering the big question, among other things, about how GIs bathe in the middle of a war. He ends the story with this quote from a company commander about Iraqi fighters and about his troops who are little bummed they haven’t seen action yet:
``There is a war going on and there is an enemy out there, and he's feeling a little cocky because he has not yet felt the full might of our forces. But when he does, he won't know what hit him. ... Our day will come, and it will be intense. ... These guys will be shaken, and they will learn what it means to be a soldier.''
Yikes. Sounds like something out of ‘We Were Soldiers Once. ...’ And it’s happening today. History. Gotta love it.
Thursday, March 27, 2003
‘These cats are fighting hard’: A vivid, dramatic CSM battlefield report of the near constant fighting around Najaf in recent days. The Americans were, at one point, running out of fuel and ammo because of the intensity of the fighting. Said one GI of the Iraqi resistance, ‘These cats are fighting hard.’ But my favorite quote came from another GI: “‘I'm mad,’ said Sergeant Ositis, who lost his tank. ‘Blowing up my tank was like blowing up my home. I've lived there for three months. The photos of my wife were in there.’”
Andrew Sullivan has some thoughts on how and why we underestimated the resistance going into Iraq. Hint: It has something to do with totalitarianism. Good point. The first person, I’ve seen, to raise the issue. Of course there are other reasons: The thuggish threats by the Fedayeen against conscript soldiers and civilians; the fanaticism/desperation of the true Baath Party believers who know they have no future without Saddam; early indications that outsiders, like Saudis and Chechens, are getting involved in the fight; and, well, average soldiers patriotically defending their homeland. We can't/shouldn't underestimate that last reason. ... I’m definitely one of those who believes the muted reaction of many, if not most, Iraqis to being ‘liberated’ is caused by remaining fear of Saddam and doubts about the outcome of the war. But let's not fool ourselves completely: When Germany and Japan were 'liberated,' the reaction of civilians was often sullen resentment as GIs occupied their towns. We didn't win them over until we proved we knew how to win the peace.
Andrew Sullivan has some thoughts on how and why we underestimated the resistance going into Iraq. Hint: It has something to do with totalitarianism. Good point. The first person, I’ve seen, to raise the issue. Of course there are other reasons: The thuggish threats by the Fedayeen against conscript soldiers and civilians; the fanaticism/desperation of the true Baath Party believers who know they have no future without Saddam; early indications that outsiders, like Saudis and Chechens, are getting involved in the fight; and, well, average soldiers patriotically defending their homeland. We can't/shouldn't underestimate that last reason. ... I’m definitely one of those who believes the muted reaction of many, if not most, Iraqis to being ‘liberated’ is caused by remaining fear of Saddam and doubts about the outcome of the war. But let's not fool ourselves completely: When Germany and Japan were 'liberated,' the reaction of civilians was often sullen resentment as GIs occupied their towns. We didn't win them over until we proved we knew how to win the peace.
Daily Update from Armchair Gen. Savin Hill: Here it is --
“Day 7:
“* The Iraqis Blew It: They could have taken advantage of the weather to slam into our 3rd Infantry Div. over the last 36 hours, and the most they could muster was an attack near Najaf that killed an estimated 750 Iraqis and a scattering of armor. That ‘1,000’ vehicle column turned out to be a minor move of supporting units. I smell a paper tiger beginning to burn.
“* ‘Phantom Columns’ in the south: That ‘column’ heading out of Basra, the British tell us, were press-ganged units rounded up by Baathist militia (who held their families hostage). The columns (there were 2) of armored personnel carriers ambled out of Basra ...on main roads, in plain view -- and were promptly wiped out by British artillery and air striking Harriers and Tornadoes. Poor bastards.
“* I don't see any evidence of command and control here. Desultory attacks by press-ganged units, an unwillingness or inability to move in force in times of obvious advantage -- these guys are toast. The most they can do is a ‘fighting retreat’ to Baghdad.
“* This doesn't mean the war will be over soon. Next comes the phase where we fight through the RG divisions, then the encirclement, then the bringing up of reinforcements, then the taking of an urban ‘lodgement’ -- then taking Baghdad proper.”
Hub Blog’s response: Dan Kennedy, in an item appropriately entitled 'The face of evil,' has flagged a NYT article about Saddam’s henchmen forcing conscripts into the slaughter. It’s just outrageous. These are true Nazi/Stalinist-like tactics. Where is the world outrage? Next up: Chemical attacks? The Brits have evidence it may be coming. ...
Jules Crittenden has another great battlefield story over at the Herald.
Update - 5: 10 p.m. -- Here's a reference to the looming Karbala showdown that Armchair Gen. Savin Hill mentioned a few days ago.
“Day 7:
“* The Iraqis Blew It: They could have taken advantage of the weather to slam into our 3rd Infantry Div. over the last 36 hours, and the most they could muster was an attack near Najaf that killed an estimated 750 Iraqis and a scattering of armor. That ‘1,000’ vehicle column turned out to be a minor move of supporting units. I smell a paper tiger beginning to burn.
“* ‘Phantom Columns’ in the south: That ‘column’ heading out of Basra, the British tell us, were press-ganged units rounded up by Baathist militia (who held their families hostage). The columns (there were 2) of armored personnel carriers ambled out of Basra ...on main roads, in plain view -- and were promptly wiped out by British artillery and air striking Harriers and Tornadoes. Poor bastards.
“* I don't see any evidence of command and control here. Desultory attacks by press-ganged units, an unwillingness or inability to move in force in times of obvious advantage -- these guys are toast. The most they can do is a ‘fighting retreat’ to Baghdad.
“* This doesn't mean the war will be over soon. Next comes the phase where we fight through the RG divisions, then the encirclement, then the bringing up of reinforcements, then the taking of an urban ‘lodgement’ -- then taking Baghdad proper.”
Hub Blog’s response: Dan Kennedy, in an item appropriately entitled 'The face of evil,' has flagged a NYT article about Saddam’s henchmen forcing conscripts into the slaughter. It’s just outrageous. These are true Nazi/Stalinist-like tactics. Where is the world outrage? Next up: Chemical attacks? The Brits have evidence it may be coming. ...
Jules Crittenden has another great battlefield story over at the Herald.
Update - 5: 10 p.m. -- Here's a reference to the looming Karbala showdown that Armchair Gen. Savin Hill mentioned a few days ago.
House budget debate: This isn’t a classic case of what Steve Bailey was warning about yesterday (i.e. a 'Jo Moore' alert), but it’s close enough. From a reader:
“While no one was watching, the House Leadership pushed through a restriction on their own budget debate. The bill in the linked article will require all members suggesting budget increases to link them with specific cuts. This should serve to limit debate and/or encourage brutal infighting between different interest groups. This should be really fun.”
Hub Blog’s response: I can’t really say I hate the idea. Sounds, well, logical. The timing of it, though, is classic Finneran.
“While no one was watching, the House Leadership pushed through a restriction on their own budget debate. The bill in the linked article will require all members suggesting budget increases to link them with specific cuts. This should serve to limit debate and/or encourage brutal infighting between different interest groups. This should be really fun.”
Hub Blog’s response: I can’t really say I hate the idea. Sounds, well, logical. The timing of it, though, is classic Finneran.
The war: The Boston Front -- And Howard Dean: It’s corny, but Mitt is out there -- and there are a lot of National Guard troops and family members who will remember it. ...
... But Mitt’s rallying of the troops is a mere sideshow. The real political game in town yesterday was swirling around the 2004 presidential race (though Mitt may be looking ahead to 2008), specifically: Howard Dean, who was in town yesterday to greet supporters and to stick it to John Kerry. Dean may deny it, but he’s now the liberal antiwar candidate of choice, an early and mini Eugene McCarthy, if you will. Joan Vennochi lets Dean ramble a bit before she pins him against the wall: He is the antiwar candidate of the day. How the war will play out politically in 2004, no one knows. The election is still a long time from now. But, like the National Guard troops and family members, liberal antiwar activists will remember, too. ...
But what I found fascinating in Dean’s appearance yesterday was how some antiwar liberals, though not all, are trying to impose a new litmus test on Dean, to wit: Does he support bringing the troops home NOW? Dean is wisely saying ‘no,’ though you can tell he’s hedging his bets in case the war drags into a dreaded ‘quagmire.’ Dean’s playing his own version of Having It Both Ways. Kerry’s people should be blasting holes in his logic, but they aren’t and can’t because, well, Kerry is playing his own version of Having It Both Ways. ...
... All of which leads to this about Dean, to a degree, and the hard-core antiwar types, definitely: They’re still protesting the war -- and some of them are calling for the troops to come home. What’s wrong with this? What’s wrong is that IT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. They are arguing a moot point. We’re in there, we can’t and won’t pull the troops out, Bush ain’t going to budge. And again, it’s a moot point -- unless the war bogs down into a long quagmire, which I wouldn’t bet on. ...
What is the point? Glad you asked. While left-wing antiwar activists play out their romantic protests and self-glorifying dramas in the streets, the real ideological debate is playing out, quietly, on a separate domestic front. It has to do with post-Iraq and the future of American foreign policy.
Which leads to my next item ...
Reader No Nickname replies:
“I really liked Howard Dean early on -- I thought a fiscally conservative, universal healthcare, pro-gun Democrat could really be a breakout general election candidate in some of the states where Democrats have not won in awhile. Unfortunately, the anti-war schtick, while a great Iowa (and possibly other primaries) strategy, is a guaranteed general election fiasco. Voters do not trust the Democratic party on national security issues, and Dean just contributes to that. His only hope (strategically, not implying that he wants this) is a miserable, prolonged, bloody war (to prove him right), and I don't think most Americans will vote for that. I defy anyone to come up with an electoral college map that has Dean beating Bush.”
... But Mitt’s rallying of the troops is a mere sideshow. The real political game in town yesterday was swirling around the 2004 presidential race (though Mitt may be looking ahead to 2008), specifically: Howard Dean, who was in town yesterday to greet supporters and to stick it to John Kerry. Dean may deny it, but he’s now the liberal antiwar candidate of choice, an early and mini Eugene McCarthy, if you will. Joan Vennochi lets Dean ramble a bit before she pins him against the wall: He is the antiwar candidate of the day. How the war will play out politically in 2004, no one knows. The election is still a long time from now. But, like the National Guard troops and family members, liberal antiwar activists will remember, too. ...
But what I found fascinating in Dean’s appearance yesterday was how some antiwar liberals, though not all, are trying to impose a new litmus test on Dean, to wit: Does he support bringing the troops home NOW? Dean is wisely saying ‘no,’ though you can tell he’s hedging his bets in case the war drags into a dreaded ‘quagmire.’ Dean’s playing his own version of Having It Both Ways. Kerry’s people should be blasting holes in his logic, but they aren’t and can’t because, well, Kerry is playing his own version of Having It Both Ways. ...
... All of which leads to this about Dean, to a degree, and the hard-core antiwar types, definitely: They’re still protesting the war -- and some of them are calling for the troops to come home. What’s wrong with this? What’s wrong is that IT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. They are arguing a moot point. We’re in there, we can’t and won’t pull the troops out, Bush ain’t going to budge. And again, it’s a moot point -- unless the war bogs down into a long quagmire, which I wouldn’t bet on. ...
What is the point? Glad you asked. While left-wing antiwar activists play out their romantic protests and self-glorifying dramas in the streets, the real ideological debate is playing out, quietly, on a separate domestic front. It has to do with post-Iraq and the future of American foreign policy.
Which leads to my next item ...
Reader No Nickname replies:
“I really liked Howard Dean early on -- I thought a fiscally conservative, universal healthcare, pro-gun Democrat could really be a breakout general election candidate in some of the states where Democrats have not won in awhile. Unfortunately, the anti-war schtick, while a great Iowa (and possibly other primaries) strategy, is a guaranteed general election fiasco. Voters do not trust the Democratic party on national security issues, and Dean just contributes to that. His only hope (strategically, not implying that he wants this) is a miserable, prolonged, bloody war (to prove him right), and I don't think most Americans will vote for that. I defy anyone to come up with an electoral college map that has Dean beating Bush.”
The ideological debate over post-war Iraq: As I said on Monday (in an overly long item) and again yesterday (in a much shorter item), the real ideological/geopolitical debate unfolding is about postwar Iraq and American foreign policy. And as I said in the Monday post, this is going to be a huge debate between conservatives, moderate conservatives, centrists and moderate liberals -- with the far liberal left being out of the loop, again, because of its silly, bankrupt and antiquated antics. ...
The Christian Science Monitor gets it -- and today it’s all over the post-Iraq/foreign policy issue. ... In this CSM article, it makes clear that Tony Blair is now pushing the Bush administration to include the UN in overseeing a postwar Iraq. Needless to say, the hard-core Bushies, who tout unilateralism in private but defensively deny it in public, are resisting. ... Notice how, again, Blair needs Bush to bend in order to help Blair domestically. Hub Blog is very close to reviving my Anything-To-Keep-Tony-Blair-In-Office mantra, not to mention my He's-Botching-It stance. The UN debate is going to be big. And like the pre-war debate we saw in the UN, it may prove to be a moot point: France could stick it to us, veto any UN involvement in postwar Iraq and leave the ‘Anglos’ to clean up the mess. ...
... In another CSM piece (this one an editorial), we’re introduced to John Garner. Who’s John Garner? Get to know him. He may end up being the guy who tries to ‘oversee’ Iraq. Good luck, John! ... Meanwhile, in this CSM op-ed, the author takes a look at the good, the bad and the ugly of occupations.
I know this all sounds rather presumptuous (if that’s the right word) -- talk of post-war Iraq and the future of American foreign policy. The war is still raging. It may yet turn into a ‘quagmire,’ though I seriously doubt it. But there is another very dramatic debate unfolding about historic, long-term issues.
Update -- The NYT is also on the UN story.
Update II -- Jeff Jarvis has an interesting take on the New World Order, comparing it to an Internet router. His tentative nickname for it: 'Network Diplomacy.'
The Christian Science Monitor gets it -- and today it’s all over the post-Iraq/foreign policy issue. ... In this CSM article, it makes clear that Tony Blair is now pushing the Bush administration to include the UN in overseeing a postwar Iraq. Needless to say, the hard-core Bushies, who tout unilateralism in private but defensively deny it in public, are resisting. ... Notice how, again, Blair needs Bush to bend in order to help Blair domestically. Hub Blog is very close to reviving my Anything-To-Keep-Tony-Blair-In-Office mantra, not to mention my He's-Botching-It stance. The UN debate is going to be big. And like the pre-war debate we saw in the UN, it may prove to be a moot point: France could stick it to us, veto any UN involvement in postwar Iraq and leave the ‘Anglos’ to clean up the mess. ...
... In another CSM piece (this one an editorial), we’re introduced to John Garner. Who’s John Garner? Get to know him. He may end up being the guy who tries to ‘oversee’ Iraq. Good luck, John! ... Meanwhile, in this CSM op-ed, the author takes a look at the good, the bad and the ugly of occupations.
I know this all sounds rather presumptuous (if that’s the right word) -- talk of post-war Iraq and the future of American foreign policy. The war is still raging. It may yet turn into a ‘quagmire,’ though I seriously doubt it. But there is another very dramatic debate unfolding about historic, long-term issues.
Update -- The NYT is also on the UN story.
Update II -- Jeff Jarvis has an interesting take on the New World Order, comparing it to an Internet router. His tentative nickname for it: 'Network Diplomacy.'
The war: The real front: I know I’m being a little silly by posting so much material from Armchair Gen. Savin Hill. It’s a schtick. I admit it. And maybe I’m overdoing it. But he HAS been right about a lot of things. Yesterday, he sent in this post. Now look at the news from today’s newspapers:
The 173rd Airborne division, out of Italy, has landed in northern Iraq. ... The Republican Guard columns are stupidly leaving Baghdad and heading south and getting chewed up by allied air power ... This Herald story gives a pretty good overview of the war.
Obviously, not everything Armchair Gen. Savin Hill has sent in has been accurate, but he’s been more accurate than not. Hub Blog is impressed with his general knowledge! ...
... In other news, the US and UN are starting to pour in lots of humanitarian aid. America won’t get the credit it deserves in some quarters, of course, as Brendan O’Neill made clear yesterday in his Have It Both Ways arguments. ... Good story in the Globe on the extensive use of Special Forces in Iraq.
The 173rd Airborne division, out of Italy, has landed in northern Iraq. ... The Republican Guard columns are stupidly leaving Baghdad and heading south and getting chewed up by allied air power ... This Herald story gives a pretty good overview of the war.
Obviously, not everything Armchair Gen. Savin Hill has sent in has been accurate, but he’s been more accurate than not. Hub Blog is impressed with his general knowledge! ...
... In other news, the US and UN are starting to pour in lots of humanitarian aid. America won’t get the credit it deserves in some quarters, of course, as Brendan O’Neill made clear yesterday in his Have It Both Ways arguments. ... Good story in the Globe on the extensive use of Special Forces in Iraq.
Two clerks, two jerks: The company that allegedly bought the information should also have the book thrown at them, if you ask me.
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, RIP: This is the type of ‘Jo Moore’ story in reverse that you ache over. Daniel Patrick Moynihan deserves a State Funeral. He was a true American.
Post-war Iraq summit planning?: Recently saw Charles Krauthammer on Fox talking about the Bush-Blair summit today, and Krauthammer speculated that among the topics of discussion were post-war Iraq and whether the UN should help oversee the country. Then I thought of this Globe article from this morning. An excerpt:
'' ‘We don't have a single academic expert in America who understands how Iraqi politics work in 2003, not a clue,' said Augustus Richard Norton, a Boston University professor who specializes in the Middle East.”
Hub Blog’s not going Wobbly, but a lot of unknowns are out there. Literally.
Update -- While you're at it, check out Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo. Lot of good items over there about Turkey, the next phase of the war, and slightly squirming conservatives within the administration. As I said recently, the war-time ideological 'truce' is slowly breaking down and the debate over post-war actions/American foreign policy has quietly begun.
Update II -- Tom Friedman has a new scorecard to tell if we've really won the war -- and postwar peace.
'' ‘We don't have a single academic expert in America who understands how Iraqi politics work in 2003, not a clue,' said Augustus Richard Norton, a Boston University professor who specializes in the Middle East.”
Hub Blog’s not going Wobbly, but a lot of unknowns are out there. Literally.
Update -- While you're at it, check out Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo. Lot of good items over there about Turkey, the next phase of the war, and slightly squirming conservatives within the administration. As I said recently, the war-time ideological 'truce' is slowly breaking down and the debate over post-war actions/American foreign policy has quietly begun.
Update II -- Tom Friedman has a new scorecard to tell if we've really won the war -- and postwar peace.
Hub Blog puts together ‘coalition of the willing’: In response to unprovoked threats from certain blogoshere quarters, freedom fighters from around the blogosphere are rallying around Hub Blog and gaining collective strength and moral purpose by the day. From Armchair Gen. Savin Hill Reader:
“Hub Blog!
“I salute your effort to take on the ‘weapons of mass-media destruction’ from the Phoenix's ‘war blog.’
“Keep in mind that the rarely-seen Phoenix (leader) Stephen Mindich will probably wage a propaganda war against you. ... As your (new) military advisor, I suggest you put some sand bags in your windows -- you never know when the Phoenix will attack. Don't accept any packages from Dan Kennedy.”
“Hub Blog!
“I salute your effort to take on the ‘weapons of mass-media destruction’ from the Phoenix's ‘war blog.’
“Keep in mind that the rarely-seen Phoenix (leader) Stephen Mindich will probably wage a propaganda war against you. ... As your (new) military advisor, I suggest you put some sand bags in your windows -- you never know when the Phoenix will attack. Don't accept any packages from Dan Kennedy.”
Armchair Gen. Savin Hill’s Daily Update: Armchair Gen. Savin Hill writes in response to questions from moi and a couple other readers. Here’s his overview, followed by comments on the coming air campaign:
“1. I've refigured the numbers, and the 3rd Infantry started with about 250 tanks -- but what I didn't take into account earlier was that the Marines (the right flank) started with about 180. I didn't really count these at first because I didn't think the Marines would be an entire mainland-warfare spearhead. I thought for sure they wouldn't go past Basra -- sticking relatively near their amphib, offshore base ships.
“2. Given the dual spearhead, tipped with about 200 tanks each, and as many or more Bradley fighting vehicles, that seems like enough. I was worried about less than 200 taking on at least two entire Republican Guard divisions outside of Baghdad. ...
“3. Plenty of ground-pounders still in ‘reserve.’ The 101st still isn't deployed in strength (I heard a single battalion of the 101st headed north yesterday). I don't know where the hell that brigade of the 82nd is. We know the 173rd (a light ground unit) in Italy is earmarked for deployment, if not on the way. I know another large Army unit (I can't remember now) that's based in Germany is probably in transit. The 101st can be deployed immediately in theater. The 173rd and other light units (not heavy mech.) in probably less than five days.
“4. Rest assured, our Abrams will slaughter Iraqi divisions in the open.
“5. MY BIGGEST WORRY RIGHT NOW: Iraqi columns are heading south to take advantage of the bad weather. If these columns get caught in clear weather, it will be another ‘highway of death’ -- if our air is grounded for the next 48 hours and that force slams into the Marines, boy, will it get nasty. I just don't know how strung out that Marine force is and what's in the vanguard and how much is diverted to holding bridges in Naseriah. It seems like they've been fighting hard to secure those bridges -- which no doubt weakens the spearhead of the advance. I'm not sure (and no one is) how far up the Tigris approach the Marines are. With the 3rd Mech (Army) within 50-60 miles yesterday, I assumed the Marines were comparably close. I don't think that may be the case.
“6. You haven't asked me about what we do once we surround Baghdad.”
To a reader who asked about launching an air campaign while ground forces get into position, Savin Hill writes:
“Nobody in Centcom wanted to give the Iraqis an extra hour to prepare, I assure you. But also, pounding large numbers of ground units from the air is best done up-close and personal with A-10s and Apache Longbows. These are not long-distance hitters, especially the Apaches. You need support bases nearby, the closer the better. ... Dropping guided munitions from high-flying jets makes good video, but it’s inefficient. It just takes too long. In Gulf War I we bombed units geographically clustered in and around Kuwait and its border areas for, what, a month or more? ... We need to hit em up close and personal. Also, the weenies can hide their tanks and armor in urban areas unless we force them to ‘come out and play.’ ”
Hub Blog’s response: I haven’t the foggiest idea if he knows what he’s talking about, but he’s been right in the past. And, OK, Armchair Gen. Savin Hill: what we do once we surround Baghdad? ... I'm sure I'm going to get an answer. Keep it shorter, Armchair Gen. Savin Hill! ... And, as usual, thank you.
Update -- Armchair Gen. Savin Hill writes back with the answer to the question he prodded me to ask: what do we do once we surround Baghdad?
"I have no idea. I can't believe we're still hoping for 'regime collapse' from within while we break for tea and biscuits in our foxholes around Baghdad. Clearly we have the option of going in -- but I doubt we'd go in with the existing force. I'd want another armor division and the whole 101st -- and still I'd want more before going in to Baghdad."
Hub Blog's response: Oh, that's great. That's really encouraging. This 'Invasion Light,' I don't know.
“1. I've refigured the numbers, and the 3rd Infantry started with about 250 tanks -- but what I didn't take into account earlier was that the Marines (the right flank) started with about 180. I didn't really count these at first because I didn't think the Marines would be an entire mainland-warfare spearhead. I thought for sure they wouldn't go past Basra -- sticking relatively near their amphib, offshore base ships.
“2. Given the dual spearhead, tipped with about 200 tanks each, and as many or more Bradley fighting vehicles, that seems like enough. I was worried about less than 200 taking on at least two entire Republican Guard divisions outside of Baghdad. ...
“3. Plenty of ground-pounders still in ‘reserve.’ The 101st still isn't deployed in strength (I heard a single battalion of the 101st headed north yesterday). I don't know where the hell that brigade of the 82nd is. We know the 173rd (a light ground unit) in Italy is earmarked for deployment, if not on the way. I know another large Army unit (I can't remember now) that's based in Germany is probably in transit. The 101st can be deployed immediately in theater. The 173rd and other light units (not heavy mech.) in probably less than five days.
“4. Rest assured, our Abrams will slaughter Iraqi divisions in the open.
“5. MY BIGGEST WORRY RIGHT NOW: Iraqi columns are heading south to take advantage of the bad weather. If these columns get caught in clear weather, it will be another ‘highway of death’ -- if our air is grounded for the next 48 hours and that force slams into the Marines, boy, will it get nasty. I just don't know how strung out that Marine force is and what's in the vanguard and how much is diverted to holding bridges in Naseriah. It seems like they've been fighting hard to secure those bridges -- which no doubt weakens the spearhead of the advance. I'm not sure (and no one is) how far up the Tigris approach the Marines are. With the 3rd Mech (Army) within 50-60 miles yesterday, I assumed the Marines were comparably close. I don't think that may be the case.
“6. You haven't asked me about what we do once we surround Baghdad.”
To a reader who asked about launching an air campaign while ground forces get into position, Savin Hill writes:
“Nobody in Centcom wanted to give the Iraqis an extra hour to prepare, I assure you. But also, pounding large numbers of ground units from the air is best done up-close and personal with A-10s and Apache Longbows. These are not long-distance hitters, especially the Apaches. You need support bases nearby, the closer the better. ... Dropping guided munitions from high-flying jets makes good video, but it’s inefficient. It just takes too long. In Gulf War I we bombed units geographically clustered in and around Kuwait and its border areas for, what, a month or more? ... We need to hit em up close and personal. Also, the weenies can hide their tanks and armor in urban areas unless we force them to ‘come out and play.’ ”
Hub Blog’s response: I haven’t the foggiest idea if he knows what he’s talking about, but he’s been right in the past. And, OK, Armchair Gen. Savin Hill: what we do once we surround Baghdad? ... I'm sure I'm going to get an answer. Keep it shorter, Armchair Gen. Savin Hill! ... And, as usual, thank you.
Update -- Armchair Gen. Savin Hill writes back with the answer to the question he prodded me to ask: what do we do once we surround Baghdad?
"I have no idea. I can't believe we're still hoping for 'regime collapse' from within while we break for tea and biscuits in our foxholes around Baghdad. Clearly we have the option of going in -- but I doubt we'd go in with the existing force. I'd want another armor division and the whole 101st -- and still I'd want more before going in to Baghdad."
Hub Blog's response: Oh, that's great. That's really encouraging. This 'Invasion Light,' I don't know.
The hunt for Saddam's hidden treasure: Cosmo has excerpts of his Herald column this morning over at his blog site. The subject: Those missing billions Saddam was supposed to use for food and medicine.
‘Waging politically correct war?’: George Bush can’t win. If he waged a ‘shock and awe’ war, he would have been accused of waging a ‘shock and awe’ war. If he waged a pure ‘Invasion light’ war, he’d be accused of waging an ‘Invasion light’ war. ... Here’s a perfect case in point: Brendan O’Neill, who before the war wrote of his fears of a ‘shock and awe’ and ‘cowardly’ war, is now writing in the Boston-based Christian Science Monitor that the current strategy is actually a ‘politically correct’ war in reverse, i.e. we’re trying to fight a more humanitarian war in order to really cover up our doubts about why we’re fighting. Go figure. Brendan has just taken Hub Blog’s Have It Both Ways Award from John Kerry, who looks positively Churchillian in comparison. ...
... But what about legitimate criticism of the current combo Shock and Awe/Invasion Light strategy? There’s definitely criticism, as shown in this Herald story. ... Andrew Sullivan is admirably expressing his doubts, while also linking to this UPI piece about why the Pentagon is quite confident about its strategy, even though there’s still tough fighting as we approach Baghdad, as this vivid Globe story by Brian MacQuarrie shows.
Hub Blog’s view? I wish they had put a few more troops and Abram tank formations into the fight at the start. But I’m now less of a military Nervous Nelly Hawk; I’ve accepted that the war is going to be longer and more bloody than anticipated -- and that we’ll win in the end. Instead, I’ve become more of a political Nervous Nelly Hawk. The possibility of this war dragging on too long will lead to nothing but trouble. (Already getting a little tired of the TV reporters' Tet-like coverage of recent sharp battles, as if they're shocked there's actual fighting going on.)
... But what about legitimate criticism of the current combo Shock and Awe/Invasion Light strategy? There’s definitely criticism, as shown in this Herald story. ... Andrew Sullivan is admirably expressing his doubts, while also linking to this UPI piece about why the Pentagon is quite confident about its strategy, even though there’s still tough fighting as we approach Baghdad, as this vivid Globe story by Brian MacQuarrie shows.
Hub Blog’s view? I wish they had put a few more troops and Abram tank formations into the fight at the start. But I’m now less of a military Nervous Nelly Hawk; I’ve accepted that the war is going to be longer and more bloody than anticipated -- and that we’ll win in the end. Instead, I’ve become more of a political Nervous Nelly Hawk. The possibility of this war dragging on too long will lead to nothing but trouble. (Already getting a little tired of the TV reporters' Tet-like coverage of recent sharp battles, as if they're shocked there's actual fighting going on.)
'This is a PR guy's dream’: Steve Baily is starting his own local version of Mickey Kaus’ ‘Jo Moore’ Alert, named after the British Labor PR meister who famously noted on Sept. 11 that it was probably a good day to dump really bad information on the public. ... Steve quotes George Regan as saying, ''This is a PR guy's dream.'' Don’t hold it against George for being honest. He’s right. Previously big local stories will get buried in times like these, both good and bad stories. ... Hub Blog’s personal favorite local Jo Moore was the proposed electric rate increase announced last week. Other positive stories, meanwhile, haven’t gotten the attention they deserved, such as the NCAA tournament games held in Boston over the past weekend. ... Bailey joked that he’s on guard for state lawmakers passing a pay increase in coming days. I’m taking the long-shot bet that they go for expansion of the Quinn bill to firefighters.
The MBTA and the Big Dig: Hub Blog interrupts this warblog to bring you this special non-war item -- a good editorial in the Globe about the MBTA’s future in a post-Big Dig Boston. ... One major quibble: Ah, c’mon, don’t friggin’ abandon the Blue Line connection to the Red Line. It’s only a couple hundred yards from the Bowdoin stop to the Charles Street site, for heaven’s sake. ... I hate the Silver Line already. It’s an overestimated, overglamorized BUS service, not a rail service. ... Now back to the war. ...
The war: The Boston front: Oh, God. Paul Cellucci, our former Mass. gov and current ambassador to Canada, is criticizing Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien's lack of support for the US cause in Iraq. Not that Chretien doesn’t deserve criticism. But Paul Cellucci? They say opinion polls show a majority of Canadians support their government's stance against the war. What the opinion polls don’t show is that a majority of Massachusetts residents would rather forget Cellucci was our governor and that local residents would prefer he isn’t linked to us in any way on the world stage. ...
... John Hughes over at CSM also likes what he’s seen from the embedded journalists, a topic I covered (perhaps a bit too much) yesterday. ... John Kerry and Howard Dean are embedded in New Hampshire and fighting it out. ...
The Great House War Resolution Flap is over. The Herald says, fine, move on. But I can’t. It was a good yuck for 24 hours. I just loved the description of the “frenzied meetings, phone calls, and e-mails,” as if they were writing a new constitution or a Gettysburg Address.
... John Hughes over at CSM also likes what he’s seen from the embedded journalists, a topic I covered (perhaps a bit too much) yesterday. ... John Kerry and Howard Dean are embedded in New Hampshire and fighting it out. ...
The Great House War Resolution Flap is over. The Herald says, fine, move on. But I can’t. It was a good yuck for 24 hours. I just loved the description of the “frenzied meetings, phone calls, and e-mails,” as if they were writing a new constitution or a Gettysburg Address.
'America, the destroyer': Some readers have written in, asking why I didn't post this James Carroll column from yesterday. Answer: Because an entire local blog could be dedicated to fisking Carroll columns. I just don't have the time.
... But I shall let one reader comment on it: "I must confess that I've never liked Carroll, generally viewing him as a self-loathing, self-righteous fraud (maybe he's a great guy in person, but I've long despised his 'philosophy'). So I'm not at all surprised by this (latest column)."
... But I shall let one reader comment on it: "I must confess that I've never liked Carroll, generally viewing him as a self-loathing, self-righteous fraud (maybe he's a great guy in person, but I've long despised his 'philosophy'). So I'm not at all surprised by this (latest column)."
Blogosphere tensions mount ... Phoenix launches warblog!: First, Dan Kennedy unilaterally escalates the blogosphere arms race -- and so Hub Blog vowed a response, with an unspoken threat of ‘serious consequences.’ ... Now the Phoenix starts a warblog, actually using the word ‘war’ in its pronouncement by Information Minister Dan Kennedy. ... Hub Blog has yet to respond. Hub Blog realizes he’s, he’s, he’s coming across as ... a medium-power France with no counter measures and alternatives? Ugh. Hub Blog will not waver! ...
... Suggestion to Phoenix (take this as psyops if you want -- heh, heh): Tighten up the prose! The items are too long! Abolish that angst about being pro-American! Where is General Gitell? Where are the archives? Where are the permalinks? Are we to assume the future messages of Peter Kadzis were recorded before the warblog began? Why is the word 'peace' in the title of a 'warblog'?... Hah! And you call yourself a ‘warblog’? ... Hub Blog will retaliate -- after I fix the propeller on my aircraft carrier.
... Suggestion to Phoenix (take this as psyops if you want -- heh, heh): Tighten up the prose! The items are too long! Abolish that angst about being pro-American! Where is General Gitell? Where are the archives? Where are the permalinks? Are we to assume the future messages of Peter Kadzis were recorded before the warblog began? Why is the word 'peace' in the title of a 'warblog'?... Hah! And you call yourself a ‘warblog’? ... Hub Blog will retaliate -- after I fix the propeller on my aircraft carrier.
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
Mickey Kaus senses a pattern!: Lots of good stuff over at Mickey's site, as usual. And more beating the crap out of John Kerry, as usual. Today's beating is just, well ... See it for yourself. I burst out laughing when he started listing Kerry's non-position positions. ... (No permalinks for each item at Kaus Files, so scroll down to find today's Kerry blast.)
Get to know the term ‘Karbala Gap’: Hub Blog put out the call for Armchair Gen. Savin Hill to check in -- and he has. Here’s his update on the war (and, yes, he knows his stuff):
“A few observations:
“* The military campaign in the south, over all, is going extremely well and everyone would do well to remember that. Losses are still ‘light’ -- by any measure.
“* Get to know the term ‘Karbala Gap’ - that's where the next 1 of 2 key armor battles will be.
“* The current sandstorm coinciding with our approach to Republican Guard ‘outter rim’ defense of Baghdad looks to me like it was planned that way. Note Gen. Frank's references to the advance being ‘on our own timetable.’ When the dust clears, we'll be within ‘killing zone’ (Abrams tank main gun range) of dug-in Iraqi forces while air assets pound them and block rear.
“*The sandstorm (in which it was pitch dark by 4 p.m. in Iraq) is PERFECT weather for our deployment of special ops units behind Iraqi lines and into Baghdad.
“* Look for the 101st and other airborne assets to be used as blocking forces in an encirclement of Baghdad.
“*FYI: Found out why Iraqi TV is still on the air. Col. Hunt, a talking head on Fox News, said the Iraqis put a day-care center or kindergarten in the Iraqi TV building. Typical.”
Hub Blog’s response: Interesting, though I have a question: How do you plan a sandstorm? But I think I know what he means in terms of timing. Remember: Armchair Gen. Savin Hill knows his military and military history. This will be another test of his analysis. More later. And thanks to Savin Hill.
Armchair Gen. Savin Hill checks back in:
"Q: How do you plan a sandstorm?
"A: This time of year, they sweep across Iraq about every 10 days. Given good meteorological forecasting, time it right, and you can use em as cover while you maneuver -- which is what I think our forces may have done in front of the Karbala Gap and up the Tigris approaches to Baghdad."
“A few observations:
“* The military campaign in the south, over all, is going extremely well and everyone would do well to remember that. Losses are still ‘light’ -- by any measure.
“* Get to know the term ‘Karbala Gap’ - that's where the next 1 of 2 key armor battles will be.
“* The current sandstorm coinciding with our approach to Republican Guard ‘outter rim’ defense of Baghdad looks to me like it was planned that way. Note Gen. Frank's references to the advance being ‘on our own timetable.’ When the dust clears, we'll be within ‘killing zone’ (Abrams tank main gun range) of dug-in Iraqi forces while air assets pound them and block rear.
“*The sandstorm (in which it was pitch dark by 4 p.m. in Iraq) is PERFECT weather for our deployment of special ops units behind Iraqi lines and into Baghdad.
“* Look for the 101st and other airborne assets to be used as blocking forces in an encirclement of Baghdad.
“*FYI: Found out why Iraqi TV is still on the air. Col. Hunt, a talking head on Fox News, said the Iraqis put a day-care center or kindergarten in the Iraqi TV building. Typical.”
Hub Blog’s response: Interesting, though I have a question: How do you plan a sandstorm? But I think I know what he means in terms of timing. Remember: Armchair Gen. Savin Hill knows his military and military history. This will be another test of his analysis. More later. And thanks to Savin Hill.
Armchair Gen. Savin Hill checks back in:
"Q: How do you plan a sandstorm?
"A: This time of year, they sweep across Iraq about every 10 days. Given good meteorological forecasting, time it right, and you can use em as cover while you maneuver -- which is what I think our forces may have done in front of the Karbala Gap and up the Tigris approaches to Baghdad."
More on ‘embedded’ journalists -- and CSM is kicking ass: Now here’s a smart analysis of ‘embedded’ journalism and media coverage of the war, by Dante Chinni over at the Christian Science Monitor. He likes it, but cleverly compares embedded reports to watching a football game by focusing on only one player -- or watching a football game through a videocam attached to one linebacker’s helmet. What’s vital: Context and constant perspective. ... Compare Chinni’s commentary with the op-ed written by Jerry Lanson, also in this morning’s CSM. I wrote about Lanson’s whiny/push-a-cause analysis of war coverage earlier this morning. ... Note: Thanks to Quebec Reader for alerting me to the Chinni commentary.
.... Speaking of the Christian Science Monitor, its coverage of the war is just great today. Scan the site’s front page. Which story/item do you choose? It’s like a candy store for war junkies. Oh, here’s a funny war cartoon by Pulitzer Prize-winner Clay Bennett. ... And, oh, there’s a fascinating story about ‘Classroom Neutrality’ in times of war (a big issue in Maine, by the way -- with a very ugly incident of school personnel allegedy harrassing students of National Guard troops). Lots of great stuff over at CSM today.
.... Speaking of the Christian Science Monitor, its coverage of the war is just great today. Scan the site’s front page. Which story/item do you choose? It’s like a candy store for war junkies. Oh, here’s a funny war cartoon by Pulitzer Prize-winner Clay Bennett. ... And, oh, there’s a fascinating story about ‘Classroom Neutrality’ in times of war (a big issue in Maine, by the way -- with a very ugly incident of school personnel allegedy harrassing students of National Guard troops). Lots of great stuff over at CSM today.
A new blogger on the Boston front: A relatively new blogger is blogging away in Boston, 'Thoughts, rants and observations.' Check it out. He's got some real local zingers over there. ... He also has some comments about my post below on 'Bain and higher ed.'
Call it ‘Tip,’ Mitt: Governor, name the damn tunnel after Tip O’Neill. Besides rightly honoring one of the great men who made the Big Dig possible, naming it after O’Neill means we’ll get to nickname it ‘Tip’s Tunnel.’ ... I thought Brian McGrory was too hard on Mitt at the end, but he did make great points about the banality of the proposed new name: “And it's not just that the Liberty Tunnel connecting to the Freedom Bridge could be in Cincinnati or Charlotte, if there's anything in those cities worth driving under or over. ... The name Liberty Tunnel isn't dumb, but it fails to enchant or provoke. It's amorphous in a white-bread kind of way, has little local flavor, and with the bell and the statue the Liberty theme is pretty well covered.” ...
... This is another opportunity for the gov to ‘admit a wrong’ and move on. ... While we’re at it, Hub Blog thinks one of the new surface parks should be called ‘Salvucci Park,’ after another great man who made the Big Dig possible. Perhaps the park nearest to the North End? Just throwing out an idea. ... Hope the banality of the name ‘Liberty Tunnel’ doesn’t indicate the future quality of the parks we’re going to get.
... This is another opportunity for the gov to ‘admit a wrong’ and move on. ... While we’re at it, Hub Blog thinks one of the new surface parks should be called ‘Salvucci Park,’ after another great man who made the Big Dig possible. Perhaps the park nearest to the North End? Just throwing out an idea. ... Hope the banality of the name ‘Liberty Tunnel’ doesn’t indicate the future quality of the parks we’re going to get.
If it’s good enough for Ted ...: Idiocy over naming a tunnel, and now idiocy over in the Massachusetts House about a resolution proclaiming support for our troops and president in the middle of a war. Ted Kennedy voted for virtually the same resolution in the U.S. Senate, and Kennedy added these personal words the same day:
“Our thoughts and our heartfelt prayers are also with our president. ... We join our president in pledging our commitment to victory, to disarm Saddam and to bring freedom and opportunity to all the people of Iraq.”
That type of class is why Kennedy will be remembered as one of the great liberal titans of the U.S. Senate -- and why the liberal Statehouse peons blocking the House resolution will be remembered as liberal Statehouse peons. ... P.S. Note how the Globe story came right out and told us who these people are, i.e. ‘liberal’ lawmakers. Simple. Accurate. Fair. Gives perspective up high as to who they are. Now, can we have the same simple, accurate and fair approach in describing ‘antiwar protesters’ in future antiwar stories?
“Our thoughts and our heartfelt prayers are also with our president. ... We join our president in pledging our commitment to victory, to disarm Saddam and to bring freedom and opportunity to all the people of Iraq.”
That type of class is why Kennedy will be remembered as one of the great liberal titans of the U.S. Senate -- and why the liberal Statehouse peons blocking the House resolution will be remembered as liberal Statehouse peons. ... P.S. Note how the Globe story came right out and told us who these people are, i.e. ‘liberal’ lawmakers. Simple. Accurate. Fair. Gives perspective up high as to who they are. Now, can we have the same simple, accurate and fair approach in describing ‘antiwar protesters’ in future antiwar stories?
‘Michael Moore’s fictions’: Daniel Lyons, a student at Harvard Law School, goes after Michael Moore, a true lout, in this Globe op-ed. Excerpt: “One reporter asked whether Moore was afraid of being blacklisted in Hollywood as a result of his behavior. He responded: ‘I don't work in Hollywood. I'm funded by Canadians and others who don't live here.’” And keep in mind Moore was earlier asserting as a defense, “I am an American.” ...You know he's made a fool of himself when even Hollywood squirms in embarrassment.
Margery Eagan also goes after Moore. Alas, the Herald piece is for subscribers or pay-to-read.
Margery Eagan also goes after Moore. Alas, the Herald piece is for subscribers or pay-to-read.
The Turkey problem, guerrilla tactics and other war notes: Tom Oliphant smacks another one out of the park today, focusing on northern Iraq and concluding the Kurds aren't going away: “That is why the unfolding situation near Iraq's border with Turkey is so crucial -- less to the outcome of the war than to its aftermath.”
... Excellent overview story in the Christian Science Monitor on the changing nature of the war in Iraq, i.e. the Fedayeen’s brutal, guerrilla-like tactics; talk of Saddam flooding potential battlefields as allied troops approach Baghdad, etc. The article also deals once again with the wisdom of the ‘Invasion light’ strategy. ... Hub Blog is not worried about the outcome of the war, but I am becoming more than a little worried about the political ramifications of a possibly lengthy and bloody war. I’m not too impressed with this ‘Invasion light’ strategy, but what do I know? Armchair Gen. Savin Hill, check in. We need your assessment. ...
... A simple, succinct story from the Herald about the burdens families face at home while troops are overseas. In this case, both parents are serving in the military -- and grandma and grandpa are drafted into duty.
... Excellent overview story in the Christian Science Monitor on the changing nature of the war in Iraq, i.e. the Fedayeen’s brutal, guerrilla-like tactics; talk of Saddam flooding potential battlefields as allied troops approach Baghdad, etc. The article also deals once again with the wisdom of the ‘Invasion light’ strategy. ... Hub Blog is not worried about the outcome of the war, but I am becoming more than a little worried about the political ramifications of a possibly lengthy and bloody war. I’m not too impressed with this ‘Invasion light’ strategy, but what do I know? Armchair Gen. Savin Hill, check in. We need your assessment. ...
... A simple, succinct story from the Herald about the burdens families face at home while troops are overseas. In this case, both parents are serving in the military -- and grandma and grandpa are drafted into duty.
Using phony objectivity to promote a cause: Jerry Lanson, chair of the Department of Journalism at Emerson College in Boston, writes in CSM about journalism ethics and duties in times of war, blah, blah, blah. He says the media should show gruesome war scenes on TV. Not necessarily for truth and objectivity, as he makes clear in between the lines. Then why? “War is hell, and unless we see that with some regularity when it's being fought, we may well make the mistake of pursuing it over and over again.” ...Ah, now I see. So it will turn public opinion toward his opinion. He also notes:
“Who can forget the picture of a girl, screaming, as she ran naked down a Vietnam road, her body doused in napalm? What image better defined divisions at home during Vietnam than the picture of a young woman kneeling in despair over the body of a Kent State protester slain by America's own National Guard?”
Some generals, as the saying goes, are always fighting the last war. The same could be said about some journalists.
“Who can forget the picture of a girl, screaming, as she ran naked down a Vietnam road, her body doused in napalm? What image better defined divisions at home during Vietnam than the picture of a young woman kneeling in despair over the body of a Kent State protester slain by America's own National Guard?”
Some generals, as the saying goes, are always fighting the last war. The same could be said about some journalists.
The one-year anniversary of Alex Beam’s April Fool’s-column is near: Hub Blog can’t figure out the intent and purpose of this column by Alex. He’s clearly making fun of the Internet as a tool for covering the war, through his ‘do-it-yourself coverage’ schtick. Then he starts talking about how some of the mainstream journalists’ battlefield coverage has been simply great. No doubt about it. It’s been great. Awesome at times, in fact. ... But why doesn’t he come right out and say bloggers/Internet coverage is totally inadequate for the same task? Or maybe that wasn’t his point. I don’t know. He doesn’t quite say why he set up the contrast between ‘do-it-yourself coverage’ and mainstream coverage. Maybe he pulled a punch, remembering what a silly fool he made of himself a year ago when he fell for an April Fool's joke in a column he wrote about blogging. ...
Actually, a serious column about blogging during the war would have been quite interesting. Recent blogging, I think, has shown the medium definitely has its inherent shortcomings. Perhaps more on this later. The argument over/assessment of blogging during a war was first raised last week by Mickey Kaus.
Actually, a serious column about blogging during the war would have been quite interesting. Recent blogging, I think, has shown the medium definitely has its inherent shortcomings. Perhaps more on this later. The argument over/assessment of blogging during a war was first raised last week by Mickey Kaus.
Bain and higher ed: Don’t know much about academia and how public higher-ed is structured in Massachusetts. Sounds like Bain’s controversial review of the higher-ed system raises some intriguing points that need to be debated. But coursing through this report, I think, is a fundamental misunderstanding about the purpose of public higher education. For instance: The fact that UMass-Boston’s graduation rate is very low -- a point raised in the Bain study -- doesn’t surprise me at all. Nor does it bother me at all. ... UMass-Boston is largely a commuter and/or part-time school, meaning students take a few classes here, a few classes there, and students often have to juggle their school schedules with work in order to pay for courses here and there, etc. Bottom line: There’s a lot to like about some of the higher-ed reform proposals, but there’s also a lot that leaves you scratching your head about the administration's motives and plans for a higher-ed overhaul.
A reader responds: Reader Mark of Westborough (aka blogger Thoughts, rants and observations) writes in:
"Thanks for the link to the story about UMass-Boston. I'm a product of that school. I tell you, the thing that gets to me about Romney and his ilk is their utter contempt for public education.
"More UMass grads stay in the state (and pay more taxes) than the private schools -- a pretty good investment. At UMB, there may be a lot of people who take years, even decades, to graduate. But there are also many adults, like me, who get through there in 3 years.
"It is tough being a puny public university in the shadow of the private schools in this state."
A reader responds: Reader Mark of Westborough (aka blogger Thoughts, rants and observations) writes in:
"Thanks for the link to the story about UMass-Boston. I'm a product of that school. I tell you, the thing that gets to me about Romney and his ilk is their utter contempt for public education.
"More UMass grads stay in the state (and pay more taxes) than the private schools -- a pretty good investment. At UMB, there may be a lot of people who take years, even decades, to graduate. But there are also many adults, like me, who get through there in 3 years.
"It is tough being a puny public university in the shadow of the private schools in this state."
Monday, March 24, 2003
'More 'protester' idiocy': A reader sends in a link for this photo, with a message: 'Note the coin slot has been jammed with glue.' ... Minor, yes. Typical, definitely. Hopefully they won't grow more desperate as their cause runs out of steam.
Update - 9:30 p.m. -- Heh. Away for a few hours and what happens? Get emails on the above item. God, do people despise ‘antiwar protesters,’ i.e not the legitimate protesters, but the professional protesters who might be right One of These Wars. Again, as I said the other day, they remind me of the Hare Krishnas who Robert Stack smacked out of the way as he marched through the airport terminal in the movie “Airplane.” ... Anyway, one reader, Steve of Arlington, notes ‘a.) see how much time they took printing up the stickers - premeditated b.) they went after the (wrong) people.’ What he meant was: Parking meters pay for city services, not the “war machine.” ... Oh, well. Another couple hundred dollars down the drain, per glue-filled meter, in order for some college BRATS to win their PC Protest Merit Badge. ... And, yes, this apparently happened in Boston. Reminder: Minor, yes. Typical, definitely.
Update - 9:30 p.m. -- Heh. Away for a few hours and what happens? Get emails on the above item. God, do people despise ‘antiwar protesters,’ i.e not the legitimate protesters, but the professional protesters who might be right One of These Wars. Again, as I said the other day, they remind me of the Hare Krishnas who Robert Stack smacked out of the way as he marched through the airport terminal in the movie “Airplane.” ... Anyway, one reader, Steve of Arlington, notes ‘a.) see how much time they took printing up the stickers - premeditated b.) they went after the (wrong) people.’ What he meant was: Parking meters pay for city services, not the “war machine.” ... Oh, well. Another couple hundred dollars down the drain, per glue-filled meter, in order for some college BRATS to win their PC Protest Merit Badge. ... And, yes, this apparently happened in Boston. Reminder: Minor, yes. Typical, definitely.
Tom Friedman and Andrew Sullivan: Friedman and Sullivan are exchanging more emails over at andrewsullivan.com. It's a civil discussion about unilateralism. The ideological 'truce' I mentioned earlier today has definitely broken down, but it's encouraging they're not throwing mud at each other. ... Wonder how Howell Raines feels about Tom conversing with Andrew. Not that three-time Pulitizer Prize winning Tom gives a shit.
'Cheering along like a bloodthirsty Dallas cowboy': Leave it to a Brit journalist to write one of the funnier, more informative 'war diaries' I've seen yet. Or at least the ending is funny. The rest is just sharp and informative writing.
‘And let’s not go wobbly ...’: Armchair Gen. Savin Hill Reader writes in with some quickie observations. Keep in mind Armchair Gen. Savin Hill has been right about a lot of issues lately, based on his original post on Hub Blog and subsquent articles that confirmed his original observations. From Savin Hill:
“People seem confused by reports of US troops ‘securing’ southern urban areas, followed by reports of ambushes and skirmishes in those areas. This makes some think we went in, occupied a city, and then somehow Iraqis went on the offensive and attacked. Not so.
“The southern strategy is primarily a dash to Baghdad while securing key transport points (bridges and intersections) along the way. We are not clearing southern cities house-by-house. Where key transport routes intersect with urban areas we are encountering some resistance. However, we are ‘cleaning out’ thoroughly umm Qasr because we need to get that port going.
“And let's not go wobbly over not seeing crowds of cheering Iraqis. Long before the first US tank crossed into Iraq, Saddam sent large numbers of the Fedayeen (paramilitary death squads) into southern cities for the exact purpose of making sure there weren't cheering crowds -- and to set up ambushes. So where are the civilians? Doing what they always do in wars – staying low.”
“People seem confused by reports of US troops ‘securing’ southern urban areas, followed by reports of ambushes and skirmishes in those areas. This makes some think we went in, occupied a city, and then somehow Iraqis went on the offensive and attacked. Not so.
“The southern strategy is primarily a dash to Baghdad while securing key transport points (bridges and intersections) along the way. We are not clearing southern cities house-by-house. Where key transport routes intersect with urban areas we are encountering some resistance. However, we are ‘cleaning out’ thoroughly umm Qasr because we need to get that port going.
“And let's not go wobbly over not seeing crowds of cheering Iraqis. Long before the first US tank crossed into Iraq, Saddam sent large numbers of the Fedayeen (paramilitary death squads) into southern cities for the exact purpose of making sure there weren't cheering crowds -- and to set up ambushes. So where are the civilians? Doing what they always do in wars – staying low.”
The post-war ideological war has quietly begun: After the war in Iraq (and I hope it ends with a quick and decisive American victory), there’s going to be a HUGE debate about the future of the war on terrorism -- and the future of American foreign policy in the 21st Century. The debate has already begun, quietly, if you detect it, despite the professions of a ‘truce’ as American GIs slug it out in Iraq.
... This is going to be a debate between conservatives, moderate conservatives, centrists, and moderate liberals -- and the political/ideological battle lines are going to be very, very blurry indeed. Forget about the far political left in America -- they’re bankrupt, irrelevant, silly, a curious mix between pre-WWII appeasement and Vietnam nostalgia.
To me, the postwar political/ideological skirmishing became apparent over the weekend -- and the ideological sparring spilled into today’s newspapers and blogs as well. On Sunday, Tom Friedman wrote a column, daring to use the word ‘unilateral’ in his piece, which was immediately met with a counter-blast from Andrew Sullivan, who basically argued that there’s no ‘unilateralism’ under way in Iraq, citing the ‘coalition of the willing.’ Friedman countered back today, sending an email to Sullivan explaining what he meant. Friedman then threw in this zinger at unilateralist conservatives, who are almost schizophrenic about touting unilateralism while angrily attacking people who accuse them of unilateralism. From Tom to Andrew:
“Quite seriously, I don't understand the sensitivity of conservatives on this issue. It seems to me that conservatives want it both ways. They want to praise Bush for deciding not to be shackled by the U.N. and France in the end, and, at the same time, want to insist that this is still a multilateral war.”
In Boston, the post-war debate over long-term American foreign policy was evident in the Globe’s Sunday ‘Ideas’ section, which ran two articles on the subject -- ‘Operation Anglosphere’ and ‘The World Pushes Back’ ... Now, Hub Blog, a self-described ‘moderate conservative,’ doesn’t agree with everything in both articles, which appear to have been written by what I would call ‘moderate liberals,’ if I’m reading between the ideological lines correctly. But the two articles DO raise important points that I agree with. A quick overview of the two Globe stories:
‘Operation Anglosphere’:
‘Anglosphere’ is not a phrase made up and pushed by non-unilateralist left-wingers. It is a phrase used, regularly, continually, by some conservative pundits and bloggers, such as Andrew Sullivan, who believe the United States, Britain, Australia etc. can and should form some sort of, well, a new geopolitical bloc, i.e. a loose Churchillian-like alliance of English speaking people. ... The article’s credibility is hurt, badly, by its initial focus on how many backers of an American-dominated ‘Anglosphere’ are ironically non-native Americans. It’s a curious fact, for sure, but not vital since there are many other American-born pundits proudly using the same phrase and pushing roughly the same concept. ...
... But ‘Anglosphere’ is really not the point: The point is there ARE people within conservative circles pushing for an imperial-like American foreign policy, motivated by a desire to advance American-style democracy, ideas and interests across the world. They don’t like the UN, don’t really like/trust alliances, and, yes, they regularly use the dreaded ‘unilateralist’ word amongst themselves, even though they wince and whine when their critics accuse them of being unilateralists. It should be stressed: Not all conservatives believe in an ‘American Empire.’ There is a big debate under way between classic conservatives and neo-conservatives and a lot of other conservatives in between. ... Also notice how there’s even a debate within imperial/unilateralist conservative circles about whether they should openly use the word ‘Empire.’ ... Now think of Tom Friedman’s zinger to Sullivan this morning. Makes more sense now, right? ... By the way, Max Boot, who’s a proponent of a vague American-style form of imperialism and who is mentioned in the Globe story, is performing somersaults in this Washington Post column, defending and denying unilateralism at the same time etc. He ends the column with a quote from Rudyard Kipling. Fascinating.
‘The World Pushes Back’:
Again, Hub Blog doesn’t agree with everything in this article. I’m a long-time proponent of using unilateralism and multilateralism together, in conjunction with one another. This article tilts a little too much in the ‘mulilateralist’ direction for my taste. But the article, also again, does raise great points. I really don’t think the gung-ho unilateralists/Paul Wolfowitz types have really thought through the ramifications of their ideas. ... The article makes clear that the world, generally, has tolerated the existence of a lone American Superpower, largely because America has been -- and
rightly so -- seen as a benign, non-aggressive power. But the pre-emptive strategy/pronouncements of the Bush administration is changing things. The rest of the world is becoming alarmed -- and not just France and Russia and China. Future competition between the United States and others probably/likely won’t result in a ‘hard’ confrontation in the near future. But there are ‘soft’ ways the rest of the non-American world can truly make life miserable for us, including switching the trading of oil (now conducted in dollars) to euros and how the EU economically could draw much closer to Russia. The issue of oil really concerns non-Americans -- and it doesn’t help that some Americans are now openly talking about punishing the French and Russians for not helping us in Iraq. Their punishment weapon of choice? Oil. Think the French and Russians -- who certainly don’t have clean hands when it comes to propping up Saddam and cutting oil deals with him -- are going to just sit back and let America use oil as a weapon against them? I don’t think so.
Ah, there’s other evidence of the post-Iraq debate starting up, such as this Joseph Nye op-ed in the Globe this morning. ... Mickey Kaus is jumping into the neoconservative debate today over at Kaus Files. ... One could argue that Tom Oliphant was jumping into the issue, quietly and indirectly, in his excellent column over the weekend about the debate over ‘shock and awe’ vs. ‘Invasion light.’ (The military strategy is not exactly tied into the debate over ‘unilateralism vs. multilateralism,’ but Richard Perle, a huge backer/mentor of Wolfowitz’s now famous policy paper on a more pre-emptive/unilateralist America, has pushed hard for the ‘Invasion light’ option, a ‘nimble’ military strategy backed by people who think America will be throwing its weight around a lot in future years.)
Conclusion: Shhhhhhhhh. Don’t say it too loud. We’re all supposed to be honoring a ‘truce’ while the boys are fighting in Iraq. But, clearly, undeniably, the ideological war is heating up again. The ‘truce’ is falling apart.
... This is going to be a debate between conservatives, moderate conservatives, centrists, and moderate liberals -- and the political/ideological battle lines are going to be very, very blurry indeed. Forget about the far political left in America -- they’re bankrupt, irrelevant, silly, a curious mix between pre-WWII appeasement and Vietnam nostalgia.
To me, the postwar political/ideological skirmishing became apparent over the weekend -- and the ideological sparring spilled into today’s newspapers and blogs as well. On Sunday, Tom Friedman wrote a column, daring to use the word ‘unilateral’ in his piece, which was immediately met with a counter-blast from Andrew Sullivan, who basically argued that there’s no ‘unilateralism’ under way in Iraq, citing the ‘coalition of the willing.’ Friedman countered back today, sending an email to Sullivan explaining what he meant. Friedman then threw in this zinger at unilateralist conservatives, who are almost schizophrenic about touting unilateralism while angrily attacking people who accuse them of unilateralism. From Tom to Andrew:
“Quite seriously, I don't understand the sensitivity of conservatives on this issue. It seems to me that conservatives want it both ways. They want to praise Bush for deciding not to be shackled by the U.N. and France in the end, and, at the same time, want to insist that this is still a multilateral war.”
In Boston, the post-war debate over long-term American foreign policy was evident in the Globe’s Sunday ‘Ideas’ section, which ran two articles on the subject -- ‘Operation Anglosphere’ and ‘The World Pushes Back’ ... Now, Hub Blog, a self-described ‘moderate conservative,’ doesn’t agree with everything in both articles, which appear to have been written by what I would call ‘moderate liberals,’ if I’m reading between the ideological lines correctly. But the two articles DO raise important points that I agree with. A quick overview of the two Globe stories:
‘Operation Anglosphere’:
‘Anglosphere’ is not a phrase made up and pushed by non-unilateralist left-wingers. It is a phrase used, regularly, continually, by some conservative pundits and bloggers, such as Andrew Sullivan, who believe the United States, Britain, Australia etc. can and should form some sort of, well, a new geopolitical bloc, i.e. a loose Churchillian-like alliance of English speaking people. ... The article’s credibility is hurt, badly, by its initial focus on how many backers of an American-dominated ‘Anglosphere’ are ironically non-native Americans. It’s a curious fact, for sure, but not vital since there are many other American-born pundits proudly using the same phrase and pushing roughly the same concept. ...
... But ‘Anglosphere’ is really not the point: The point is there ARE people within conservative circles pushing for an imperial-like American foreign policy, motivated by a desire to advance American-style democracy, ideas and interests across the world. They don’t like the UN, don’t really like/trust alliances, and, yes, they regularly use the dreaded ‘unilateralist’ word amongst themselves, even though they wince and whine when their critics accuse them of being unilateralists. It should be stressed: Not all conservatives believe in an ‘American Empire.’ There is a big debate under way between classic conservatives and neo-conservatives and a lot of other conservatives in between. ... Also notice how there’s even a debate within imperial/unilateralist conservative circles about whether they should openly use the word ‘Empire.’ ... Now think of Tom Friedman’s zinger to Sullivan this morning. Makes more sense now, right? ... By the way, Max Boot, who’s a proponent of a vague American-style form of imperialism and who is mentioned in the Globe story, is performing somersaults in this Washington Post column, defending and denying unilateralism at the same time etc. He ends the column with a quote from Rudyard Kipling. Fascinating.
‘The World Pushes Back’:
Again, Hub Blog doesn’t agree with everything in this article. I’m a long-time proponent of using unilateralism and multilateralism together, in conjunction with one another. This article tilts a little too much in the ‘mulilateralist’ direction for my taste. But the article, also again, does raise great points. I really don’t think the gung-ho unilateralists/Paul Wolfowitz types have really thought through the ramifications of their ideas. ... The article makes clear that the world, generally, has tolerated the existence of a lone American Superpower, largely because America has been -- and
rightly so -- seen as a benign, non-aggressive power. But the pre-emptive strategy/pronouncements of the Bush administration is changing things. The rest of the world is becoming alarmed -- and not just France and Russia and China. Future competition between the United States and others probably/likely won’t result in a ‘hard’ confrontation in the near future. But there are ‘soft’ ways the rest of the non-American world can truly make life miserable for us, including switching the trading of oil (now conducted in dollars) to euros and how the EU economically could draw much closer to Russia. The issue of oil really concerns non-Americans -- and it doesn’t help that some Americans are now openly talking about punishing the French and Russians for not helping us in Iraq. Their punishment weapon of choice? Oil. Think the French and Russians -- who certainly don’t have clean hands when it comes to propping up Saddam and cutting oil deals with him -- are going to just sit back and let America use oil as a weapon against them? I don’t think so.
Ah, there’s other evidence of the post-Iraq debate starting up, such as this Joseph Nye op-ed in the Globe this morning. ... Mickey Kaus is jumping into the neoconservative debate today over at Kaus Files. ... One could argue that Tom Oliphant was jumping into the issue, quietly and indirectly, in his excellent column over the weekend about the debate over ‘shock and awe’ vs. ‘Invasion light.’ (The military strategy is not exactly tied into the debate over ‘unilateralism vs. multilateralism,’ but Richard Perle, a huge backer/mentor of Wolfowitz’s now famous policy paper on a more pre-emptive/unilateralist America, has pushed hard for the ‘Invasion light’ option, a ‘nimble’ military strategy backed by people who think America will be throwing its weight around a lot in future years.)
Conclusion: Shhhhhhhhh. Don’t say it too loud. We’re all supposed to be honoring a ‘truce’ while the boys are fighting in Iraq. But, clearly, undeniably, the ideological war is heating up again. The ‘truce’ is falling apart.
Blogging the war: Hiawatha Bray has a piece about professional and non-professional journalists blogging from Iraq, including Time’s Joshua Kucera and Kevin Site’s now abandoned blogging at CNN and Salim Pax’s blogging from Baghdad (assuming he is who he says he is). See the story for all the links. ... Hub Blog's opinion? I haven't been impressed with most war blogging -- whether it's coming from here or overseas. Events are moving too fast. It's hard to get your hands and thoughts around what's happening. ... A nice quote from Kucera in Hiawatha's story: ''I'd never heard of a blog until a few weeks ago, when a friend of a friend contacted me and offered to set it all up. ... I liked the idea of having freedom to write what I wanted in my style, not that of any particular publication.'' ... Know the freedom feeling, Josh.
... It’s not about blogging, but it is about the web: Joe Dwinnell at MetroWest Daily News has seen the video of the captured American troops on a French TV web site (he provides the link; I won’t). Dwinnell, understandably, seemed shocked at what he saw and shocked French TV is running it. Hub Blog doesn’t plan to watch it. Not out of Geneva Convention concerns/principles etc. I just can’t stand the thought of being in their position.
... It’s not about blogging, but it is about the web: Joe Dwinnell at MetroWest Daily News has seen the video of the captured American troops on a French TV web site (he provides the link; I won’t). Dwinnell, understandably, seemed shocked at what he saw and shocked French TV is running it. Hub Blog doesn’t plan to watch it. Not out of Geneva Convention concerns/principles etc. I just can’t stand the thought of being in their position.
No time to panic -- and it’s not a ‘quagmire’: It was clearly a bad day yesterday -- the capture of American GIs, battles in cities we thought we had secured, the lack of Iraqis cheering our troops on etc. This Globe overview story doesn’t hit the panic button. Nor does it use the dreaded ‘quagmire’ word. But it does, well, sound a pessimistic note based on yesterday's events. Yet I suspect -- repeat: suspect -- the war is unfolding in a slightly different (and slightly more positive) way than yesterday’s dramatic video footage/stories suggest. In an editorial, the Christian Science Monitor seems to agree. ...
... Meanwhile, the Herald’s Jules Crittenden is with troops as they push north toward Baghdad. There’s plenty of tension, but not much action. I suspect this is what most GIs are experiencing. ... P.S. Crittenden has a real ear for GIs’ dialogue.
... Meanwhile, the Herald’s Jules Crittenden is with troops as they push north toward Baghdad. There’s plenty of tension, but not much action. I suspect this is what most GIs are experiencing. ... P.S. Crittenden has a real ear for GIs’ dialogue.
‘Invasion light’ from a Bostonian’s armchair perspective: Below are some good stories from local papers that I found helpful in explaining the key issues/battlefield sectors/questions surrounding the war. Hope they clear things up for you, too:
The ‘Invasion light’ southern strategy:
The Christian Science Monitor examines the ‘island hopping’ southern strategy -- or ‘urban hopping,’ as Savin Hill Reader has called it -- and whether it’s working as well as expected. Conclusion: Not quite, since there’s still surprising (and duplicitous) Iraqi resistance in pockets in the south. ...
The Globe tackles the same issue regarding the ‘bypassed’ southern cities and, specifically, the surprise battle yesterday in the port city of Umm Qasr. ...
... Why aren’t Iraqis welcoming us as liberators in the southern sector? The lack of enthusiasm is a little disturbing, for one of the moral arguments for going to war was to liberate Iraq. The Iraqis are not acting like happy liberated citizens, alas. There’s a number of explanations for this, among them, well, people generally root for their own country and don’t like being invaded, even when they hate their own leader. Another explanation comes from the same Globe story above:
“ ‘They (Iraqi citizens) do not want to put their eggs in one basket; they already tried the American basket and had a bad experience,’ said Abdul-Reda Assiri, professor of political science at Kuwait University, referring to the US failure to support local rebellions after the 1991 Gulf War. ‘I think they are holding their breath.’ ”
The Northern strategy:
The Globe, once again, provides excellent coverage of what’s happening to the Kurds in northern Iraq, American involvement there, and the tensions with Turkey. Turkey’s refusal to let us use their territory to launch a northern front has really hurt our efforts there. It’s not a disaster in northern Iraq. But it’s definitely in flux and not a ‘secure situation,’ as they say. ...
Speaking of Turkey, the Christian Science Monitor has a really GOOD story about Turkey’s seemingly odd behavior. The lede of the CSM article says it all: “To understand Turkey's vote supporting its right to send troops to northern Iraq, look no further than Kirkuk and Mosul, two oil-rich cities that tell the story of Turkey's own manifest destiny.”
A Hub Blog correction/clarification etc.: I’ve been openly praising the Globe’s war coverage. And it definitely deserves the praise. But I’ve also been noting how Anthony Shadid has been making great contributions to its coverage from Baghdad. One problem: Shadid recently left the Globe and is now writing for the Washington Post. I just didn’t notice Shadid's switch until I read about it over at Dan Kennedy's site. Well, all I can say is: The Globe has the common sense to keep running his stories.
Update -- William Safire has a column on Turkey's foot dragging.
The ‘Invasion light’ southern strategy:
The Christian Science Monitor examines the ‘island hopping’ southern strategy -- or ‘urban hopping,’ as Savin Hill Reader has called it -- and whether it’s working as well as expected. Conclusion: Not quite, since there’s still surprising (and duplicitous) Iraqi resistance in pockets in the south. ...
The Globe tackles the same issue regarding the ‘bypassed’ southern cities and, specifically, the surprise battle yesterday in the port city of Umm Qasr. ...
... Why aren’t Iraqis welcoming us as liberators in the southern sector? The lack of enthusiasm is a little disturbing, for one of the moral arguments for going to war was to liberate Iraq. The Iraqis are not acting like happy liberated citizens, alas. There’s a number of explanations for this, among them, well, people generally root for their own country and don’t like being invaded, even when they hate their own leader. Another explanation comes from the same Globe story above:
“ ‘They (Iraqi citizens) do not want to put their eggs in one basket; they already tried the American basket and had a bad experience,’ said Abdul-Reda Assiri, professor of political science at Kuwait University, referring to the US failure to support local rebellions after the 1991 Gulf War. ‘I think they are holding their breath.’ ”
The Northern strategy:
The Globe, once again, provides excellent coverage of what’s happening to the Kurds in northern Iraq, American involvement there, and the tensions with Turkey. Turkey’s refusal to let us use their territory to launch a northern front has really hurt our efforts there. It’s not a disaster in northern Iraq. But it’s definitely in flux and not a ‘secure situation,’ as they say. ...
Speaking of Turkey, the Christian Science Monitor has a really GOOD story about Turkey’s seemingly odd behavior. The lede of the CSM article says it all: “To understand Turkey's vote supporting its right to send troops to northern Iraq, look no further than Kirkuk and Mosul, two oil-rich cities that tell the story of Turkey's own manifest destiny.”
A Hub Blog correction/clarification etc.: I’ve been openly praising the Globe’s war coverage. And it definitely deserves the praise. But I’ve also been noting how Anthony Shadid has been making great contributions to its coverage from Baghdad. One problem: Shadid recently left the Globe and is now writing for the Washington Post. I just didn’t notice Shadid's switch until I read about it over at Dan Kennedy's site. Well, all I can say is: The Globe has the common sense to keep running his stories.
Update -- William Safire has a column on Turkey's foot dragging.
Sunday, March 23, 2003
The Globe’s shock-and-awe war coverage: For the third morning in a row (and as I noted yesterday), newspapers are kicking television’s butt in the following areas: A.) Providing new facts about the war B.) Sorting out the facts about the war. C.) Providing context, summary and perspective to the facts about the war. In particular, the Boston Globe has unleashed its own shock-and-awe campaign with great precision and success. Excellent battlefield reports and outstanding home-based analysis. I also have to say that Armchair General Savin Hill Reader, who wrote an item yesterday for Hub Blog, was right on target on many of his observations about the military strategies and tactics now unfolding in Iraq. Here are some highlights of the coverage:
Northern Iraq, the Kurds, Turkey:
The Globe’s Charles M. Sennott and David Filipov give a terrific account about the significance of northern Iraq in the war; the tensions between Turkey and the Kurds there; the importance allied commanders attribute to northern Iraq and what we can and can’t do there right now; and the connections between Ansar al Islam, a militant group apparently responsible for the killing of a Western journalist there yesterday, and Iraq and the Al Qaeda terror network.
The same article notes that the U.S. Fourth Infantry Division is now being rushed south to Kuwait, via cargo ships, something Armchair Gen. Savin Hill noted yesterday. ... Pay attention to northern Iraq. It’s a very tense situation there that could lead to both military and humanitarian disasters if not handled well.
‘Invasion light’ vs. the ‘Powell Doctrine’:
The lede on John Aloysius Farrell and Anne E. Kornblut’s Globe story is a little off, but the story is great. It’s about the revolutionary (and controversial) war strategies and tactics being used in this war, including ''shock and awe'' air campaigns, ''effects-based'' attacks, ''desert light'' warfare and ''psyops'' psychological warfare. Some think the new strategies are brilliant, others are not so sure. From the story:
'' ‘I am not comfortable with it [‘invasion light’]. There doesn't seem to be much margin of error, and there is not much operational flexibility,’ says former Marine General Bernard Trainor, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'It's enough probably to do the job - if you put your trust in an assumption that the Iraqis are not going to fight hard, that all the high-tech is going to work nicely, and you trust in airpower doing the work.’'' ... Armchair Gen. Savin Hill raised some of the same points and concerns yesterday.
On the same subject, Tom Oliphant gives a really brilliant behind-the-scenes account of the pre-war debate within the administration over ‘shock and awe’ vs. ‘invasion light.’ Richard Perle, a civilian, comes across as a scary/brilliant figure within the administration, depending on your point of view in the argument. Oliphant shows how President Bush split the difference between the warring factions within the administration. From Tom:
“The result of all this will put US forces on the outskirts of Baghdad in no time, at which point we can all hope their numbers are sufficient. For President Bush, the lesson is that either/or choices are not always mutually exclusive. Both the invasion light and the shock and awe advocates had something to contribute; Bush has so far benefited from the best points on each side.”
Basara and the march to Baghdad:
The Globe’s Scott Bernard Nelson gives a vivid account about events unfolding in southern Iraq, particularly near Basara. He also notes how some troops are remaining behind in southern Iraq, mopping up and negotiating with remaining Iraqi units, while the rest of the allied forces dash north to Baghdad. ... Armchair Gen. Savin Hill mentioned this split-the-forces scenario, with some concern.
All in all, really insightful battlefield/analysis coverage from the Globe this morning. ... And Hub Blog, a Nervous Nelly Hawk, agrees with Oliphant: I’m impressed with Bush selecting the best of both strategies. The outcome of the war is not in doubt; the nature and timing of its end, as well as the political ramifications, remain a big unknown.
Northern Iraq, the Kurds, Turkey:
The Globe’s Charles M. Sennott and David Filipov give a terrific account about the significance of northern Iraq in the war; the tensions between Turkey and the Kurds there; the importance allied commanders attribute to northern Iraq and what we can and can’t do there right now; and the connections between Ansar al Islam, a militant group apparently responsible for the killing of a Western journalist there yesterday, and Iraq and the Al Qaeda terror network.
The same article notes that the U.S. Fourth Infantry Division is now being rushed south to Kuwait, via cargo ships, something Armchair Gen. Savin Hill noted yesterday. ... Pay attention to northern Iraq. It’s a very tense situation there that could lead to both military and humanitarian disasters if not handled well.
‘Invasion light’ vs. the ‘Powell Doctrine’:
The lede on John Aloysius Farrell and Anne E. Kornblut’s Globe story is a little off, but the story is great. It’s about the revolutionary (and controversial) war strategies and tactics being used in this war, including ''shock and awe'' air campaigns, ''effects-based'' attacks, ''desert light'' warfare and ''psyops'' psychological warfare. Some think the new strategies are brilliant, others are not so sure. From the story:
'' ‘I am not comfortable with it [‘invasion light’]. There doesn't seem to be much margin of error, and there is not much operational flexibility,’ says former Marine General Bernard Trainor, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'It's enough probably to do the job - if you put your trust in an assumption that the Iraqis are not going to fight hard, that all the high-tech is going to work nicely, and you trust in airpower doing the work.’'' ... Armchair Gen. Savin Hill raised some of the same points and concerns yesterday.
On the same subject, Tom Oliphant gives a really brilliant behind-the-scenes account of the pre-war debate within the administration over ‘shock and awe’ vs. ‘invasion light.’ Richard Perle, a civilian, comes across as a scary/brilliant figure within the administration, depending on your point of view in the argument. Oliphant shows how President Bush split the difference between the warring factions within the administration. From Tom:
“The result of all this will put US forces on the outskirts of Baghdad in no time, at which point we can all hope their numbers are sufficient. For President Bush, the lesson is that either/or choices are not always mutually exclusive. Both the invasion light and the shock and awe advocates had something to contribute; Bush has so far benefited from the best points on each side.”
Basara and the march to Baghdad:
The Globe’s Scott Bernard Nelson gives a vivid account about events unfolding in southern Iraq, particularly near Basara. He also notes how some troops are remaining behind in southern Iraq, mopping up and negotiating with remaining Iraqi units, while the rest of the allied forces dash north to Baghdad. ... Armchair Gen. Savin Hill mentioned this split-the-forces scenario, with some concern.
All in all, really insightful battlefield/analysis coverage from the Globe this morning. ... And Hub Blog, a Nervous Nelly Hawk, agrees with Oliphant: I’m impressed with Bush selecting the best of both strategies. The outcome of the war is not in doubt; the nature and timing of its end, as well as the political ramifications, remain a big unknown.
‘You sure you want to do this?’: Fifty antiwar protesters arrested outside Westover Air Force Base in Chicopee, the last fueling stop for military cargo planes flying to the Gulf. Hub Blog repeats: These are NOT legitimate protests. Not now. Not today. Where is the condemnation of these non-First Amendment acts? ... Love the quote in this story from Police Chief John Ferraro Jr. to a protester: ‘You sure you want to do this?’ Answer: Of course he does! He needs his PC Merit Badge.
... The headline on this op-ed by Peter Gomes asks: ‘For those who oppose war, what now?’ Answer: Reverend, check out Seth Gitell’s suggestion over at Dan Kennedy’s site. There’s a lot of good you can do. ... Rev. Gomes’ column doesn’t bother me in the least, otherwise. He’s expressing his doubts and criticisms in a civil, constitutionally protected manner, though I obviously disagree with his overall stance on the war. ... Ellen Goodman, an Extremely-Reluctant-Hawk Dove, is also expressing doubts. Fine. Disagree with most of her points, but fine. Let her criticize and doubt.
... But, ah, this story about hard-core antiwar protesters is incomplete, pull-the-punches, terrified-to-be-called-a-McCarthyite mush. The radical Stalinist A.N.S.W.E.R is at the center of squabbling, as usual, but it’s not identified in the story as a radical Stalinist organization until well into the piece, leaving the impression it’s just another antiwar organization if a reader doesn’t get too far into the piece. ANSWER isn’t a normal group. They’re radical left-wing fanatics, frankly. Meanwhile, some of the other groups aren’t exactly church groups, either, but you’d never know that from the story. This is a political story ultimately, and so it’s usually normal in political stories to use words like ‘right’ and ‘left’ and ‘moderate’ and ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ to give readers a chance to tell where people are coming from. But in this story? Nope. Can you imagine a political story about Mitt vs. Shannon without mentioning ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ etc. in it? So why the political kids-glove treatment in this story? The descriptions ‘radical left,’ ‘less radical,’ ‘moderate liberals’ and ‘mainstream’ and ‘moderates’ were called for and appropriate to distinguish between all the players. If the protesters objected and insisted they were really ‘non-partisan,’ they should have been challenged and called to the mat on it. But, again, nope.
... The headline on this op-ed by Peter Gomes asks: ‘For those who oppose war, what now?’ Answer: Reverend, check out Seth Gitell’s suggestion over at Dan Kennedy’s site. There’s a lot of good you can do. ... Rev. Gomes’ column doesn’t bother me in the least, otherwise. He’s expressing his doubts and criticisms in a civil, constitutionally protected manner, though I obviously disagree with his overall stance on the war. ... Ellen Goodman, an Extremely-Reluctant-Hawk Dove, is also expressing doubts. Fine. Disagree with most of her points, but fine. Let her criticize and doubt.
... But, ah, this story about hard-core antiwar protesters is incomplete, pull-the-punches, terrified-to-be-called-a-McCarthyite mush. The radical Stalinist A.N.S.W.E.R is at the center of squabbling, as usual, but it’s not identified in the story as a radical Stalinist organization until well into the piece, leaving the impression it’s just another antiwar organization if a reader doesn’t get too far into the piece. ANSWER isn’t a normal group. They’re radical left-wing fanatics, frankly. Meanwhile, some of the other groups aren’t exactly church groups, either, but you’d never know that from the story. This is a political story ultimately, and so it’s usually normal in political stories to use words like ‘right’ and ‘left’ and ‘moderate’ and ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ to give readers a chance to tell where people are coming from. But in this story? Nope. Can you imagine a political story about Mitt vs. Shannon without mentioning ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ etc. in it? So why the political kids-glove treatment in this story? The descriptions ‘radical left,’ ‘less radical,’ ‘moderate liberals’ and ‘mainstream’ and ‘moderates’ were called for and appropriate to distinguish between all the players. If the protesters objected and insisted they were really ‘non-partisan,’ they should have been challenged and called to the mat on it. But, again, nope.
