:: Golgonooza: A site in mind ::

:: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 ::

I just listened to Bush's statement on gay marriage. Along with all the other blood-boiling issues is this one: Why are conservatives, who scream about smaller government and activist federalism, so quick to impose federal laws on personal conduct?

That's a retorical question, by the way.
:: SJ 1:20 PM [+] ::
...

I'm saddened, but not shocked, by Bush's announcement today of his support for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. Sullivan, with whom I infrequently agree, is the place to go to read about it.

Or, if you have an Irish grandparent, you can check out this link and think about whether you'll need to leave the country.
:: SJ 12:49 PM [+] ::
...

Below, I mentioned how I was unable to respond to a poem put up by Bobbie. I am, however, able to respond to her latest.

I did no rubbing. I did introduce her to Rep. Chris Cox, but not without some kicking. And I can confirm she deserved all the attention and looked better than Mata Hari on the link she provides.
:: SJ 1:42 PM [+] ::
...

It's been nearly a week now, and I haven't been able to come up with an appropriate response to this. To allude to Shelley, these words -- no help!


:: SJ 11:56 AM [+] ::
...

A day late on a story from the NY Times (I've started getting it at home, didn't have time to read it in the morning and didn't want to look online, thus ruining the hardcopy).

The lede: "Several of the biggest political parties in Iraq say they are determined to keep their well-armed militias despite American opposition to the idea."

And the nutgraf: "But less than five months remain until the transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi government, leaving the Bush administration little time to deal with what many officials here consider an incendiary problem."

And a great graf: "All along, the Americans have worried that private armies like the militias could inflame a nation already divided along ethnic and religious lines. Starting in the mid-1970's, militias fought each other in the Lebanese civil war."

See it all here.

So American officials are trying to disarm militias? Hmmm... does that mean the following statement won't be making it into any Iraqi governing document in the near future?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

For those who don't recognize it, that's the Second Amendment. And how can it not apply somewhere America is setting up a government but still apply here? Either that statement is true, or it's false. Which is it?

:: SJ 9:45 AM [+] ::
...

I was sure Kid Rock would be the controversial one post-Super Bowl. It's finally happening. I mean, a flag turned into a poncho? How stupid are you?
:: SJ 12:30 PM [+] ::
...

The gay marriage story may actually drive away Janet's nipple.

But here's what I'm wondering. In his deep, politically and ego-driven heart, what is John Kerry thinking? Is it something like: "Man, it was going to be hard enough for me to be from Taxachusetts, how am I going to win being from Gaymarriageachusetts?"

This can't play well in lots of the country. Here, we support gay rights emphatically.
:: SJ 10:52 AM [+] ::
...

Well, a few things none-personal to talk about.

First, Mike at RadioFreeMike has a response to my earlier post, and I'm happy to get exclamations out of him, and a "Good God" (sans exclamation points). Mike also writes that "Steve... even complains about being misquoted. But I wasn't quoting! I was paraphrasing!"

Now, read my post. Do I ever write "misquoted?" No, I used "mischaracterized." I do understand he was paraphrasing with the "90% perception" point. But, sumavabitch! (I wanted to beat Mike to that word.)

Mike also tries to defy conventional wisdom and suggests a Kerry-Dean (or Dean-Kerry) ticket. But, as widely wrong as the CW has been, I can't imagine an all-New England ticket. It would be suicide. And Dean's likely to do poorly in a week for two reasons: 1. He won't appeal to more conservative Southern and Midwestern Democrats. 2. The most interesting number I've seen coming out of N.H. is how well Kerry did among people who are searching for a candidate who can beat Bush. This from CNN: "Exit polls taken in New Hampshire found that many voters believed Kerry had the best chance of beating Bush in the fall. Of the 33 percent in exit polls who said a candidate's electability was more important to them than the issues, more than half said they favored Kerry." Dean got killed in this category.

Both of those points make his appeal on a national ticket slight, I think.

Now, on to Loudmouths & Dilettantes, where Bobbie bemoans the Puritan mediocrity that is America. Here, Here! I cry. Wait, no. I'll quietly agree that she makes an interesting and worthwhile point, one that deserves more debate.

More seriously, it seems an intuitive point. And I'm not sure how to argue against it. I wonder, though, if there is a difference between exhuberance and craziness that she's missing. Was Dean just exhuberant? It seems like a little something more. And, certainly, America loves the wild and crazy -- Russell Crowe, Ashton Kucher, anybody's benders, Madonna, Arnold, explosions in movies, over-the-top Queer Eyes. But maybe that "zeal," as she says, always has to be well controlled. Which makes it what, exactly?
:: SJ 9:46 AM [+] ::
...

OK. One other update. I've gotten a response to an e-mail I sent to the... I can't really think of a non-curse word ... for the proprieter of Ironic Capitalist.

My e-mail included this phrase, which was the main part:

"Bobbie Allen, of Loudmouths & Dilettantes, does in fact have a husband. Moreover, she's quite happily married."

The response? Here it is, printed in its entirety:

"She does? You quite sure it is happily?"

Now, I know when I'm being yanked, and I suspect this kind of stuff happens all the time on the Internet. But it still pisses me off. His e-mail is on his site, if anyone cares.


:: SJ 1:49 PM [+] ::
...

Mike at RFM has a fine response to my last post. And I fully support his hope that his three or four N.H. readers won't be swayed by the talking heads who've turned on Howard Dean faster than Paul O'Neil on Bush.

Separately, his post had me wishing he and I were as popular as Sullivan and Marshall, because then I could go screaming -- heck, Howard Dean-like! -- about Mike's mischaracterization of my writing. No where did I write "politics is 90% perception," as Mike alleges. And then I could make some bogus challenge, and he'd write back, and we'd get famous and live happily ever after, until the end of our days.


:: SJ 1:26 PM [+] ::
...

I have to disagree with Mike at RFM, for agreeing with a fellow at tompaine.com, who says Dean's hilarious outburst post-losing -- ah, why mince words? getting crushed -- in Iowa won't be key to Dean's outcome. Mike notes that Dean has the most detailed positions and the most money.

Well, that most money might help. Unlike someone like Gephardt, Dean can continue on after losing. But details? Policy and position aren't what drive politics, especially on the national level (and not just because the media don't cover them). People are drawn to impressions, feelings, senses and notions about candidates, which can be based on particulars of speeches or policies but are largely drawn from the gut. Through the early debates, Dean struck me as the only one who seemed "presidential." He was forceful, confident, if not obviously a little crazy. Now? Well now he's just crazy.

Is it right or good? Of course not. But politics is like any relationship one has. A moment -- seeing your lover's face scrunched wrongly in a pillow, listening to a friend rant ridiculously at you like Jeffrey Dahmer, hearing your boss say something that's abhorent -- can be a deal-breaker.

Am I predicting Dean won't win? No, althought I'd be surprised if he did. (Doesn't it seem Kerry, Clark, Dean, then Edwards, with maybe Edwards leaping ahead of Dean again?) I'm not following polls closely enough. And I know that as much as politics are like relationships, they are like relationships on a combo of ecstasy and meth. It's super fast, super touchy and almost always ends badly.
:: SJ 7:29 AM [+] ::
...

No more spam? What will we do?
:: SJ 5:00 PM [+] ::
...

So John Kerry blasts Dean out of Iowa. Search the Web and you'll find plenty of naval-perusing about how and why.

Some other points, then. After I told my wife the numbers, she went to the Web to find out more about John Edwards. His campaign site was under heavy traffic. So a lot of people are giving him some kind of look.

Dick Gephardt never had it. I interviewed him for a non-descript story in 1997, alongside one of Missouri's senators, Kit Bond. And Bond impressed me much more.

I've seen elsewhere the idea of Kerry-Edwards, or vice versa. It was among the first thoughts in my mind last night, the old Northeast with South combination. And if Dean gets knocked out for good after N.H., I wouldn't be surprised to see politicians retreat to the old tried and (sort of) true. But then they are ignoring that Dean's campaign crumbled as the Washington endorsements piled up.

And that seems to be one of the two main stories, to me. Where do the Gores, Bradleys and Harkins -- plus all the rest -- go if Dean craters? And why did they do it? Miscalulation? Misunderstanding? How do they switch? And will anyone want their backing, given this showing?

The other is: Despite the media's annoitment of Dean and general downplaying if not near ignoring of Edwards, people seem to have decided for themselves who they want to vote for. Is the media not as influential as the media wants to be, except when they are being criticized by "conservatives" who say they are too influential (and liberal!)? The media did not totally miss the story, because in the final few days they talked about the race tightening... did those stories really make this stunning turn of events? I doubt it. Kerry and Edwards both got too much of the total. And no one predicted anything of that kind. How else did voters get their information?

If folks in Iowa, and perhaps N.H., as well, are actually able to come to their voting conclusion without relying on the media, then the voting process, which has been under some siege, should stay as it is. I can't imagine a vote in California turning out so differently from the conventional wisdom.

So, to add my voice to the overused of the day: Stunning. Shocking. A new day.
:: SJ 7:26 AM [+] ::
...

This series of stories sums up the Bush II administration nearly perfectly. Because Bush wants to send folks back to the moon and then to Mars, the Hubble telescope is being doomed to an early death.

The Hubble, after its shaky start, has been an amazing success. But Bush knows better, apparently. It's like his tax cut when the economy was faltering. Nevermind that the machine had been plugging along with unprecedented power. Bush and his folks know better. They just can't leave well enough alone.

And that may be their least fault and sin.

In other news, no word from the "Ironic Capitalist."
:: SJ 9:35 AM [+] ::
...

I suppose I should be among the crowds crowing opinions about Mars, Paul O'Neil and Pakistan. But, somehow, I don't quite feel up to it.

Something else is certainly on my mind. My wife apparently has been propositioned online. And while I don't want to provide the person traffic, I suspect some proof is necessary. Read down to the bottom, past the rather obscure -- for good reasons, if you read it -- Wilde poem. (I'm having some trouble getting it to come up cleanly; it's at the bottom of the page as I grab it.

Anyway, I've sent the SOB -- which may be going too far for someone who can't know she's married -- an e-mail, announcing myself.

Ah, what tangled webs we weave, when we practice bloggery. Or something like that.
:: SJ 9:50 AM [+] ::
...

I feel so sick of myself. This may be the most cynical thing I've thought yet, but here it is none the less:

I think the Iranian "found alive" 13 days after the horrific quake in Bam isn't real. Note the NYT's language here, which is typical of such stories: "A 57-year-old man buried by rubble in an earthquake was rescued 13 days later by workers in the southeastern city of Bam, state television news reported Thursday."

State tv reported, eh? And the government, which has gotten some harsh reaction to refusing to take the U.S. up on an offer of aid, wouldn't have any reason to fake a piece of good news, right?

Shoot, for good measure I like this report from Australia better: "A man was fighting for his life, having been rescued 13 days after a massive earthquake struck Bam, as Iran's supreme leader said US aid to victims of the tragedy has not improved ties."

That really gets the whole story, huh?

CNN, interestingly, has a different source: "Thirteen days after being buried underneath earthquake rubble, a 56-year old man was found alive but in poor health in the southeastern Iranian city of Bam, an International Red Crescent spokesman said."

I just don't believe it. It's like our government, oh, I don't know, saying we've landed on Mars and next we'll send people there.

WHAT?!

Oh, and drink of the day is now the best winter drink there is.
:: SJ 10:47 PM [+] ::
...

Now this is interesting. While the AlJazeera story is based on a Time mag report, the opening graf is insightful:

"In a probe linked to discredited claims made about Iraq's nuclear ambitions, US investigators are reportedly preparing to force journalists to reveal confidential sources who may have leaked a CIA operative's identity."

The final three grafs are more fun:

"On Tuesday, US Attorney General John Ashcroft stepped aside from the politically charged investigation into the leak, taking himself off the case.

The move was seen by some as reducing White House interference in the investigation into whether Bush officials tried to silence Wilson's rejection of their claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions.

But others have dismissed Ashcroft's move as insufficient, or worse, a ruse."

Ruse. It's not a word you see terribly often in American media.

Oh, and Happy New Year.


:: SJ 2:59 PM [+] ::
...

This story in the Post is disturbing, again.

One of many money grafs: "Whether or not the Iraqi opposition is waging a long-planned war, there is no question that enemy attacks on U.S. troops and their foreign and Iraqi allies are increasing in scope, intensity, sophistication and frequency."

We suggested that something similar might happen in the U.S. Is it possible that's next?
:: SJ 7:39 AM [+] ::
...

Andrew Sullivan is taking Josh Marshall to task for a contest he ran to find the best example of the White Housing suggesting Iraq posed an "imminent" threat to the United States.

Sullivan comes out looking about as intellectually flacid as he can. He writes that "the fundamental reality also undermines Marshall's case." But he ignores the fundamental argument and concern. It isn't whether the world changed after 9/11. The question is did the White House establish that it knew Saddam was a serious threat to the U.S. and that Saddam cavorted with Osama Bin Laden -- no ifs ands or buts -- when it didn't very solidly know that, or, even worse, when it knew otherwise.

There seems ample reason to think that, for whatever cause, the White House stretched the truth in order to go into Iraq. That is the "fundamental reality" we all need to deal with -- especially as soliders continue to die for it. And Bush needs to come clean about why he really started this war.

Mike at RFM says largely the same.
:: SJ 2:15 PM [+] ::
...

Super quick: I just read a story with clearly "liberal" sources in it. And it occurred to me what, more than Fox News or Bush or anything, is the matter with the "Left." Their simpering. The quotes I read had me just wanting to smack them, give them the old dope slap.

You wanna slap O'Reilly for a different reason.
:: SJ 5:36 PM [+] ::
...

OK, quickly again. All the fires in Southern California. Would it be a good terrorist attack to set a bunch of blazes? It wrecked a day of air travel; it's killed people; it's destroyed homes. Economic and emotional hurt.

Would seem pretty successful. And so horrible. That such a thought even occurs shows a lot about where we are today...


:: SJ 12:12 PM [+] ::
...

Quickly, as I'm still on work-related lockdown.

Which is it?

Post reports today on "blistering" report from Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that will blame mistaken intelligence on the "intelligence community," aka the CIA and George Tenet.

Sounds good, right? Those incompetent spooks. But, what's really going on? Right, the blame falls squarely away from the White House and all those people who need to win an election to stay in office.

Hersh has the opposite take in the latest New Yorker. He writes about how the Rumsfelds and Cheneys of the world demanded non-vetted reports and then ran with them, even if no one in the CIA really believed them.

A major screw-up by someone. Which is it? Career spies or career politicians?
:: SJ 6:13 PM [+] ::
...

Here's quick thoughts on the recall:

Noticed all the Kennedys, right? Everyone's holding their breath to see if Arnold switches.

But more likely is a possible switch in the GOP here in California with the election of a moderate, somewhat Libertarian Republican to the state's highest office.

In Orange County still, and in parts of Ventura County, we tend to hear a lot from the socially conservative wing of the party who argue that the only way for Republicans to get back in power is to get back to their conservative roots.

But aside from Orange County, those roots aren't terribly deep or profound in California. Instead, it was the libertarian wing of the party that blossomed here, flowering during Ronald Reagan's governorship, and again with the passage of Proposition 13.

Then, Republicanism from the South, with its focus on moral issues and a base in more conservative Christianity, swept through the party nationally and in California (admittedly, a condensed version of events). Under this Republicanism, we had a proposition on Tuesday's ballot about race-based identification, a far cry from the anti-tax and anti-government "Prop. 13."

Schwarzenegger, in the meantime, was campaigning against the "car tax." Could he really be Reagan and the leader of the old-school California Republican Party?

:: SJ 6:57 AM [+] ::
...

I'm taking a work-forced break from blogging for a while, which is disappointing given the recall. Then again, what else is there to say? Doonesbury lampooned thoughts of a recall of Arnold -- I've heard of it as serious talk in Democratic circles.

Oh, and if you hadn't heard, Orrin Hatch has proposed a Constitutional amendment to allow people who have been citizens for 20 years to be eligible for the White House. Guess who's been a citizen for 20 years now?

But my main return is the Nobel Prize for Literature. This year's winner, South African J.M. Coetzee.

Every year, I expect Thomas Pynchon to get the nod, and he never does. Maybe he needs one more great novel beyond Gravity's Rainbow; I, personally, think Mason & Dixon is underrated. It's not a great American novel; I don't think it's supposed to be. It strikes me as the great 18th Century novel (more British than American). Maybe he's too privileged and obvious (although that sounds vaguely true of Coetzee, too). So, whatever.
:: SJ 7:06 AM [+] ::
...

I've managed to avoid mentioning the whole "Queer Eye" thing much. But it's a fabulous show, and here's a fun interview with its fun and wine guru. Enjoy.
:: SJ 9:50 AM [+] ::
...