alternative hippopotamus

Atrios lists a number of types of people that annoy him. For example:

• Sock Puppeteers - People who think that I, and every other blogger, exist to give voice to your personal issues.
• The Narcissists - People who think politicians exist to cater to them personally.
• The Magical Thinkers - People who speak in semi-riddles, hinting at webs of understood secrets, conspiracies, and truth who actually are just spouting gibberish.
• The Lazies - People who think its my job, or any other blogger’s job, to spend time, effort, and money supporting candidates or causes even though they themselves aren’t actually doing it.

I’m sure there’s some other groups that can be added to the list. Perhaps:

• People who are so uncool. Come back when you’re way cooler, mkay?
• People who are too way cooler. Who needs your attitude?
• People who think they’re smarter than me. Na Ga Ha Pen.
• The slobs. You don’t bring a knife to a gunfight; you don’t bring JC Penney’s to a Members-Only party.
• The snobs. Corollary: you don’t bring Dom Perignon to a tupperware party.
• Anyone who listens to any form of music made between 1975-1986.
• Unconventional people who aren’t best-selling authors.
• All authors.
• Anyone who likes soup.
• Sneezers.
• Everyone else I haven’t already mentioned.

With the assistance of the gang at Drinking Liberally I’ve put together a podcast with some reflections on Ford and the post-Nixon era.

You can check it out here.

I was probably too young to take the bus from Rockville down to Nixon’s second innaugural parade. But, I did anyway. I’m glad I did, as this was the only time I had a chance to see a Vietnam protest first-hand. There were a lot of scary adults dressed up in skeleton customes, joining hands, surrounding the city blocks along the parade route.

It was cold. Unlike today’s Carolinaesque winters, those days, we had real winters, where your nose froze off. So, I waited for an hour or so, shivering from the cold. But, I loved parades, and wanted a chance to see the president. Imagine my dissapointment when it turned out that Nixon decided to do the “parade” from within a closed, and I’m sure warm, limousine. As the limousine zipped along, I could barely make out someone waving at the crowd. I guess it was Nixon, but it could have been anyone in a dark suit.

Later I saw this as a symbol of the Nixon presidency: Us against Them. A nation on the sidewalks shivering, unified in protest of the Vietnam War; a president safe, insulated. Since presidents often have an inate sense of metaphor, I wonder if this was Nixon’s way of sending us a message. Perhaps he was letting us know that America had become that much more closed. Perhaps, as Bush put it, these protestors had no more effect on him than another focus group.

I was in Junior High School when Nixon resigned the presidency. That makes me just old enough to have coherent memories of an announcement over the loudspeakers, and raucous applause from the class (Correction: I was thinking of Agnew’s resignation, when I remembered the announcement over the loudspeakers.). It also makes me too young to have joined in on the frenzied post-resignation parties, which also helps me in the coherent memory department.

Now, at the time, I didn’t understand why everyone was so upset that Ford pardoned Nixon. I didn’t understand why Chevy Chase (the actor, not the suburb) spent so much time making fun of Ford. I also bought into the conventional line that Nixon had somehow got involved with a bungled campaign operation, and was unfairly being made the scapegoat. The line I remember often hearing at the time was: the only way Nixon was different from other politicians, is that he got caught.

Like many, I totally bought Ford’s line about how our national nightmare was now over. The pardon of Nixon was like a magic wand that brought the bad dreams to an end. It hadn’t occurred to me that the national nightmare wasn’t Watergate, at least as far as the Nixons, Cheneys, and Rumsfelds were concerned. To them it was the investigation of Watergate. That was the nightmare. To use a phrase from this time, the threat to the Unitary Executive was now over.

Ford didn’t create the current Bush administration, or the concept of the Unitary Executive. He didn’t even create Don Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney. He was one in a long cast of players that acted as enablers. Enabling what, exactly? This is something I’ve been trying to put my finger on for years.

Since the love of money and power are two of the pillars of the dark side of the human condition, I tend to believe that has something to do with it. Al Franken has perceptively described it as a war on the 1960’s. If he’s correct, what is it about the 1960’s that they object to? Is it about the struggle for and against a hiearchical society, where a small group of elites are calling the shots?

Update: Avedon has a good point:

His tenure was not marked by any significant horror stories, which left the press corps so bored that they ended up trying to make big stories out of the fact that he occasionally stumbled physically, just like a real person. Ford, a former football player, was no more clumsy than anyone else, and probably more agile than most presidents, but our press corps was never immune from being captivated by trivia, and falsely characterized President Ford as a bumbling buffoon.

We’re all familiar with “serial exaggerator” Al Gore, what with his inventing the internets, and being the inspiration of Love Story. Or, more correctly, how the press took things out of context to create a narrative. For an advanced version of this, see Candy Crowley’s indictment of Kerry for ordering Green Tea at a restaurant (Media Matters). While we on the left are often quick to point to this as a Rovian tactic, perhaps this is more central to the nature of a professional press corps. In lieu of news, they still have to write something.

Also: Bob Woodward’s Ford contribution here. The way I read it, it’s carefully crafted to support an open reading of Ford’s motivations in pardoning Nixon.

The sensational bit is well into the piece:

Haig presented Ford with six options to consider. Nixon could step aside temporarily under the 25th Amendment; he could just wait and delay the ongoing impeachment process; or he could try to settle for a formal censure. In addition, there were three pardon options. Nixon could pardon himself and resign. Or he could pardon the aides involved and then resign. Or, Haig said, Nixon could agree to leave in return for an agreement that the new President Ford would pardon him.

Ford says no deal. Yet he helps to rewrite events in a way that clears Haig of offering a deal. What was going through Ford’s mind, who knows? As a reader, you see how the notion of a pardon was suggested, making it thinkable.

Regular blogging to resume shortly, meanwhile, I wanted to mention something that those of you who live in the DC environs may find interesting.

On Christmas Eve, it’s been the tradition of my family to go to a Mexican restaurant. For the last few years we’ve been going to On the Border on Rockville Pike. After a Dos Equis or two, we started to talk about presents we got for each other. I know that some families actually unwrap presents on Christmas Eve, we just get tipsy and give strong hints.

So, my mother said: “I got a DVD for you that I think you’ll like. From, all places Strosnider’s Hardware.”

“Strange,” I said. “I got a DVD that I think you’ll like, from Politics&Prose.”

A few days earlier I had found what I considered to be an obscure but interesting DVD on the history of Chevy Chase. There’s no way that she could have found the same DVD, but at the same time I knew from the tone of her voice that we in fact had bought the same one.

As it turned out, my hunch was correct. The DVD in question is called: “Chevy Chase, Maryland: A Streetcar to Home.” It’s produced by the Chevy Chase Historical Society, and includes bits of trivia that DC’ophiles will find tantalizing.

For instance, have you ever wondered how Chevy Chase got its name? Or, why Connecticut Ave turns due north at Chevy Chase circle? Or, how come there’s a place called Chevy Chase Lake, but no lake?

More generally, the philosophy of urban development of the earlier decades of the 1900’s, the era of streetcars in DC, is described by those who actually lived through it, some apparently still living in the houses they grew up in.

You may have heard about the NYT op-ed published in a heavily redacted form after a lengthy battle with the CIA. You’re first reaction may have been like mine: that this was about a White House so intent to send a message that they’ll waste time over the piddling things. Then, when someone hands them a briefing called “Bin Laden Determined To Attack US,” it’s just yawn, stretch, crumple, and throw.

Here’s what Leverett (the author of the op-ed) had to say at the Center for American Progress last week: [this shows]“just how low people like Elliot Abrams at the NSC [National Security Council] will stoop to try and limit the dissemination of arguments critical of the administration’s policy.”

But is censorship always wrong? I would submit there are times when it’s appropriate to censor speech. For instance, all the spin, misinformation, and propaganda carried in a typical presidential radio address. I say it’s time we apply the censorship pen. Liberally. We could even call it “Censoring Liberally.”

So, here goes. Let’s rewrite Bush’s December 9 radio address:

“On Monday, I met in the Oval Office with one of Iraq’s most influential Shia leaders, His Eminence Abdul Aziz al Hakim. We discussed the desire of the Iraqi people to see their unity government succeed, and how the United States can help them achieve that goal.

On Thursday, I had breakfast with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. We discussed the sectarian violence in Iraq and the need to confront extremists inside Iraq and throughout the region. The Prime Minister explains it this way: “The violence is not … an accident or a result of faulty planning. It is a deliberate strategy. It is the direct result of outside extremists teaming up with internal extremists — al Qaeda with [the] Sunni insurgents, [and Iran with] Shia militia – to foment hatred and thus throttle at birth the possibility of non-sectarian democracy.”

The Prime Minister and I also discussed the report I received this week from the Iraq Study Group, chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. Their report provides a straightforward picture of the grave situation we face in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group’s report also explicitly endorses the strategic goal we’ve set in Iraq: an Iraq that can “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.”

The report went on to say, “In our view, this definition entails an Iraq with a broadly representative government that maintains its territorial integrity, is at peace with its neighbors, denies terrorism a sanctuary, and doesn’t brutalize its own people. Given the current situation in Iraq, achieving this goal will require much time and will depend primarily on the actions of the Iraqi people.”

I agree with this assessment. I was also encouraged that the Iraq Study Group was clear about the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The group declared that such a withdrawal would “almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence” and lead to “a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy.” The report went on to say, “If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.”.

The Iraq Study Group understands the urgency of getting it right in Iraq. The group also understands that while the work ahead will not be easy, success in Iraq is important, and success in Iraq is possible. The group proposed a number of thoughtful recommendations on a way forward for our country in Iraq. My administration is reviewing the report, and we will seriously consider every recommendation. At the same time, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the National Security Council are finishing work on their own reviews of our strategy in Iraq. I look forward to receiving their recommendations. I want to hear all advice as I make the decisions to chart a new course in Iraq.”

Somehow it feels like spying on an another country, but every so often I like to check out the blogs at Le Monde. The site includes blogs both from Le Monde correspondents, as well as readers.

Corine Lesnes, Le Monde’s DC correspond, keeps a blog called Big Picture. Here’s from a recent post on Time’s Person of the Year: (babelfish translated, thus phrases such as “I will turn video with my cat”)

In English:

The Time magazine did not succeed in deciding. The man-woman of the year, is neither Ahmadinejad, neither Al Gore, nor a person in particular. It is everyone and nobody. You. - “You” Yes, you, author-commentator of blog. You who make Wikipedia, YouTube, MySpace - the “digital democracy” You who you say, hold, instead of looking at Fort Boyard, I will turn video with my cat. victory200px.gif All old media that it is, Time pays homage to the citizens of Web 2.0 - “For seizing the kidneys of the total media, digital For founding and framing the new democracy, For working for nothing, and beating the pros At to their own game, TIME’ S Person of the Year for 2006 is you”. Friends readers, still cheer. You show again some the “pro” and you do all that free… Time is with you.

Original:

Le magazine Time n’a pas réussi à décider. L’homme-femme de l’année, n’est ni Ahmadinejad, ni Al Gore, ni une personne en particulier. C’est tout le monde et personne. Vous. - “You” Oui, vous, auteur-commentateur de blog. Vous qui faites Wikipedia, YouTube, MySpace - La “digital democracy“ Vous qui vous dites, tiens, au lieu de regarder Fort Boyard, je vais tourner une video avec mon chat. victory200px.gif Tout old media qu’il soit, Time rend hommage aux citoyens du Web 2.0 - “For seizing the reins of the global media, For founding and framing the new digital democracy, For working for nothing, and beating the pros at their own game, TIME’s Person of the Year for 2006 is you”. Amis lecteurs, encore bravo. Vous en remontrez aux “pro” et vous faites tout cela gratuitement… Time est avec vous.

I’m currently watching the Naked Archeologist, a series on the History Channel International. If you haven’t seen it, it’s a tongue in cheek look at archeology. At the same time, it’s a very serious look at history vis a vis religion. It’s completely in the spirit of this blog in that the host takes an alternative hypothesis to popular beliefs, in this case in the field of archeology, and then tries to prove it, or in the lack of proof, leaves you with a feeling of inquisitiveness.

This week he’s taking on the subjects of subjects: who wrote the bible. Pretty good question, yes?

And this is what I love about the show, he’s starting with the hypothesis that the Old Testament, or at least the first five books was actually written by Moses. As he points out, in the field of archeology, that’s an uncoventional view.

What we learn is that the conventional view, the “documentary hypothesis,” is that the books of Moses are written by a group of people, and truth be told, that’s where I’d put my money. We also learn that there are texts predating the Dead Sea Scrolls that have passages the same as the books of Moses. Interesting, but of course, not enough to verify the original hypothesis. The elan of the series is delightful, but not convincing.

Again, I’m not sure if the aim is to convince. I think it’s to elicit the question. And to make biblical history, well, fun.

I saw this excerpt of the Bush press conference on the Huffington Post:

I’m going to work hard. I’m going to sprint to the finish. And we can get a lot done.

And you’re talking about legacy. Here, I - I know - look, everybody’s trying to write the history of this administration even before it’s over. I’m reading about George Washington still.

What to make out of this?

My first thought was: does Bush in his private hours compare himself to the great men of history? Does he see himself as an equal among them, or at least believe he won’t come out too badly in the final analysis?

Another possibility is that this comes out of defiance towards the press. In this light, he’s saying: I don’t really care what you think about me. I’m more like George Washington than you’ll ever be because I’m president.

Again she demonstrates that the Applebaum never falls far from the Bush:

BERLIN — On the day James Baker’s Iraq report was published, I gritted my teeth and waited for the well-earned, long-awaited, Franco-German “Old Europe” gloat to begin. I didn’t wait long. “America Faces Up to the Iraq Disaster” read a headline in Der Spiegel. In the patronizing tones of a senior doctor, Le Monde diagnosed the “political feverishness” gripping Washington in Baker’s wake. Suddeutsche Zeitung said the report “stripped Bush of his authority,” although Le Figaro opined that nothing Baker proposed could improve the “catastrophic state” of Iraq anyway.

Say, ya think that you keep calling them Old Europe, that might be part of the failure we have to communicate? It’s kind of like how Bush likes to refer to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party. Language talks, and the EU walks.

Also, this: (emphasis mine)

Presumably they didn’t notice that the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, held a “Holocaust denial” conference in Tehran last week — not, perhaps, the clearest signal that he wants to make friends with bien-pensant Europeans — or that the French president, Jacques Chirac, recently declared that his views on Syria exactly matched those of his American counterpart.

Since the highlighted bit isn’t a quote, I can’t verify it. Doing a google search of key words, I can’t come up with anything like that. You sure you aren’t pulling a Krauthammer on us? That’s when you say “it’s widely recognized that…”. or in your case “presumably they didn’t notice that…” followed by something you just made up.

Right now I’m watching the biography channel’s bio of Tim Lahey, author of the Left-Behind Series.

As I’m learning from watching the show Tim Lahey’s novels were the Genesis of groups like Concerned Women for America, a vocal anti-abortion group.

For that alone, it’s important to keep track of these guys. Think about it, someone writes a series of sensational novels, and that becomes the basis for a conservative religious movement.

I do see a tactic, that I think is important to point out. The basic idea is that you focus on a flaw in some doctrine in the scientific community, and use that to undermine the comunity as a whole. It’s basically the same approach that right-wing sites use to defame legitimate criticism of the Bush administration. The sites that I often link to (NRO, Powerline, Malkin) are great examples of this.

There’s almost nothing in our civilization that can’t be undermined with those of a fallacious turn of mind. That’s why I object to people like Jonah Goldberg, for instance. I believe that he puts a face on idiosyncratic arguments, and I believe we need to say uniformly that it’s not okay for him to do what he does.

All scientific ideas have flaws. There’s not a single idea that I’m aware of, that doesn’t have a counter-argument. I’ve never heard it put this way before, but I’ll put it out there: Science is not an exact science.

I think what Lehay does is particularly reprensible. He takes advantage of our fear of death, and what happens after death, to construct an imaginary world where people who are members of particular sects of Christianity, lord it over the rest of humanity. What his motivations are, I have no idea. I do suspect that he resents the idea that over time, people have developed expertise in various areas, and delights in the idea that he can create his own reality, to use a phrase from Ron Suskind.