alternative hippopotamus

If I were General Petraeus I wouldn’t work so hard. For example, I see this quote from the Washington Post:

[Petraeus] “is expected to report to Congress next month that there are some signs of progress in Iraq and that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal could be disastrous.”

Why bother with the heavy-duty Republican spin words like “precipitous”? Petraeus might as well submit a single page titled: “What I did on my summer offensive.” The body of the report could be something like: “I could quote some meaningless statistics. But does it really matter what I say?”

The answer to that obviously rhetorical question is an equally obvious “No.” It doesn’t matter. Every couple of months Bush is going to say, “Gimme $50 billion.” And, in the end he’ll get the money with no strings attached. Sometimes through a filibuster, sometimes through a veto. Sometimes out of resignation the Dems won’t even bother to try to kick the football that Lucy’s holding.

Just for fun I looked up synonyms to “precipitous”. Here’s what I found:

abrupt, breakneck, brief, frantic, harum-scarum, hasty, headlong, heedless, hurried, ill-advised, impatient, impetuous, impulsive, indiscreet, madcap, plunging, precipitant, precipitate, quick, rapid, rash, reckless, refractory, rushing, subitaneous, sudden, swift, unanticipated, uncontrolled, unexpected, unforeseen, violent, willful

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t those words that describe the invasion, not the proposed withdrawal?

One of the more difficult aspects of life in our fair city is dealing with the crazies. By the crazies I mean the zealots of both the right and the left.

For example, ANSWER is organizing an anti-war rally for Sept 15. You may remember that ANSWER was one of the organizers of the big anti-war rally in DC 2 years ago. I thought it was a good event, I just don’t think that any group should own the anti-war protest franchise. So, I’m going to sit this one out. But it’s not just the ownership issue. It’s also ANSWER’s obsession with utility boxes.

As guerilla marketers of all stripes know, there’s a wide variety of places you can put up fliers. One place you can’t put up fliers is on public utility boxes found on your local streets. For the September 15 event, ANSWER is making a point of using only public utility boxes. On Connecticut Ave., pretty much every utility box has an ANSWER flier glued to it. And, when they got fined for doing this they replied with a popular hand-gesture meaning, in polite terms: “not on your life.”

So, there’s crazies like ANSWER. But there’s also crazies like the Gathering of the Eagles:

But unlike the 60s and 70s, the anti-war lemmings will not have the streets or the political stage to themselves. This time, Eagle Americans — we who support our troops, understand the stakes in the War on Terror and the true nature of our enemy, who aren’t blinded by an insane hatred of our way of life and our form of government — will also be in Washington, D.C., to show Congress that we will not tolerate another betrayal of our own forces or our allies.

Eagles will land in Washington to protect our monuments from desecration, show overwhelming support for our troops and their mission, and ensure that Gen. Petraeus knows he has an army of loyal supporters here at home.

Eagle Americans, give me a freaking break. Oh, and please stay away from the monuments. If you really feel you need to guard something, try the utility boxes.

I think it’s time we started to call it what it is. This isn’t “supporting the troops.” It’s defending the right of American exceptionalists to declare themselves an empire. On the subject of which Chris Bowers is making a good point:

The cost of Empire to America is extreme, and transforming the country from an Empire to a Republic will be one of the greatest, long-term struggles of the progressive movement for at least the next half-century (it is right up there with the struggle over pluralism and the fight for renewable energy). The struggle over the Iraq war is just one step in that larger fight. Of course, since the war started under the auspices that Iraq was somehow a threat to us, and we would solve that problem by invading them and causing them to adopt our values, it is difficult to find a better example since, say, Vietnam, of how our desire for Empire got us into real trouble. The National Priorities Project offers a simple comparison for what we, as a Republic, could have done to improve the quality of lives of our citizens instead of invading Iraq. Of course, we didn’t do it, because as a nation we decided we wanted to be an Empire instead.

The damage that our invasion of Iraq goes beyond the disaster we’ve caused there. It’s also evident in what we’ve gone without here, such as health care or affordable college tuition.

The problem is that we keep giving Bush his $50 billion incrementals, afraid that Rush Limbaugh will call us “surrender monkeys.”

Freedom’s Watch, a group championing “a powerful fight against terror, especially in Iraq,” has created a series of ads supporting US continued presence in Iraq. Powerline, Time magazine’s 2004 blog of the year, describes the ads as: “well done, and convey the simple message that the Iraq war is important and winnable, and that we should allow our troops to see the mission through.”

Certainly, if the mission is to confuse 9.11 and Iraq, then these ads are well done, and they may help to win the mission. Propaganda, like that catapulted by the MSM and Time’s 2004 blog of the year, is one of the most effective agents for change. Or, in the case of the occupation of Iraq, agents for not-change. Agents for staying the course. Agent’s for manipulating people to support things they ordinarily wouldn’t support if the issues of 9.11 and Iraq hadn’t been confounded.

Example from the ads: “In another one of the spots, a mother of a soldier killed in the war says, ‘We’ve already had one 9-11, we don’t need another.’”

Fortunately, the media corporations that make up our radio and television landscape are reluctant to air pro-administration propaganda. Just kidding. They roll over quicker than a stone without any gathered moss. (Sorry, I’m fresh out of similes today. Maybe if I made it Sharon Stone and Kate Moss…. No, it just doesn’t work.)

That’s why it surprised me that MSNBC and CNBC are refusing to air the ads. Brad Blakeman of Freedom’s Watch writes:

John Kelly Senior Vice-President of NBC News Network Sales 30 Rockefeller Plaza 12th Floor New York, NY 10112

Dear Mr. Kelly,

We understand that MSNBC and CNBC (the “Networks”) are refusing to sell advertising time to Freedom’s Watch (“FW”) to air a series of educational advertisements. It is our understanding that the purported basis for the denial is a Network policy denying access to groups that wish to sponsor advertising on controversial issues of public importance.

Given your recent history of airing such ads (see below), we must wonder if your denial to FW is a subjective decision because the network officials disagree with the FW ads’ message? If you continue to refuse to air FW’s advertisement we request an explanation of your basis in writing or station policy within two (2) days from the date above as time is of the essence.

FW has requested time on your networks to air advertisements discussing the War Against Terrorism. Your reporters and commentators discuss this issue on your programs at every hour of the day so you clearly agree this is an issue of great public importance. FW’s advertisements, to be sure, present a view of this debate that rounds out your coverage. These ads feature Iraq War Veterans and their families discussing their sacrifices in personal terms and their belief that we must allow the military time to complete its mission in Iraq and seek victory. This is a side of this issue that should not be silenced by national cable networks. We believe that rather than censor these American heroes, you should let the American public hear their story.

It’s always exciting for me to hear Republican groups discover the value of hearing different views. I would have preferred they would have made the discovery when Bush was having dissenters chucked out of all his public appearances, but at least they’ve finally showed up at the party. And since, Mr. Blakeman took the time to write, it would be discourteous not to write back.

Dear Brad,

Blah, blah, blah,
AltHippo

If I wrote a biography of VO5 Gonzales, I’d call it: “Rendered Quaint: Rethinking the Bill of Rights for Fun and For Profit.”

However, if Gonzo wrote his autobiography, the options for its title are practically limitless:

• “I do not recall.”
• “Based on what I thought, what I understood was going on.”
• “You’re talking about a series of events that occurred over possibly 700 days.”
• “I was not the person in the Department who had the most information.”
• “I myself was confused, quite frankly.”

You get the idea.

Over the weekend I learned one or two things about the history of Washington. From my uncles, and cousins, mostly, who experienced it first hand, or knew about particular aspects of my grandfather’s and great-grandfather’s life.

I wanted to dig a bit more into particular stories, and I happened to come across the audio book “Personal History,” about the life of Katherine Graham.

There’s no direct connection between my family and the book “Personal History,” I bring this up only in light of the history of that era. On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised if my grandfather knew the Meyer’s or the Graham’s, based on Washington society at that time.

At any rate, I was browsing the racks at Politics&Prose and I came across the audio book “A Personal History,” by Katherine Graham. Well, I thought, I’m glad that someone took the book and made into something you can listen to. The hard part is getting a complex figure, like Katherine Graham, right, and have an actor represent her point of view correctly.

So who does Katherine Graham on the audio book? Well, according to the jacket it’s performed by, well, Katherine Graham.

This surprised me as I had never heard even an interview with the late owner of the Washington Post, much less several hours of her talking about her life. I listened to the whole tape over the weekend, and was completely captivated.

This is a historic document of the Washington Post, and Washington in a former era, and unless I’ve completely slept through it, it’s gone without mention in the press.

Only in the dark age of the Mayberry Machiavellians would the identity of a covert agent be perfectly accessible to media while statistics of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are on a need-to-know basis.

The NYT blogs:

It seems that Ms. Nason has adopted a policy that has blocked virtually all of her staff — including the communications office — from providing any information to reporters on the record, which means that it can be attributed.

As an alternative I was told I could interview Ms. Nason on the record (instead of the expert on the subject of my article). I declined, failing to see how her appointment as administrator — she was trained as a lawyer — made her a expert in that subject.

When I said I would like to talk to Ms. Nason on the record about her no-attribution policy, she was not available.

As the Russians learned, the problem with an open government is that it’s vulnerable to critics. So you adopt a policy of anti-glaznost, and problem solved.

I had never considered the possibility of an Iraq force consisting entirely of Democratic Party membership. I guess I’d be okay with that. I’m just not clear why the Republicans get to go home first:

4. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)

Yes 51%

No 39%

Undecided 10%

Coming back on-line today, I was distressed to see that the Democratic Majority is folding quicker than an origami tiger.

Washington Post: “And now the Democrats, along with wavering Republicans, will face an advertising blitz from Bush supporters determined to remain on offense. A new pressure group, Freedom’s Watch, will unveil a month-long, $15 million television, radio and grass-roots campaign today designed to shore up support for Bush’s policies before the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, lays out a White House assessment of the war’s progress. The first installment of Petraeus’s testimony is scheduled to be delivered before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees on the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a fact both the administration and congressional Democrats say is simply a scheduling coincidence.”

Josh Marshall: “It’s like a very sad version of a sixty year old falling for that dingbat head fake ten year olds used to play when I was a kid in elementary school in which Kid A says he wants the football, Kid B says, ‘Fine, but if you take the football, you’re gay.’ And then Kid A stalks off hopelessly bamboozled and unable to parry this paralyzing riddle.”

For reasons that are doubtlessly clearer to him than they are to me, Chairman Bunnypants is speechifying that Vietnam taught us that we shouldn’t pull out of Iraq, at least until January 2009. I guess the reason he’s using Vietnam as a basis of comparison is that many of the die-hard right-wing believe that we should have stayed in Vietnam “until the job was done.” What was the job, and what would it look like when it was done? Who knows. It’s the same questions we’re asking about Iraq. If Cheney has his way we’ll be asking the same questions about Iran.

One rhetorical difference between Vietnam and Iraq is the notion of un-dead Islamo-fascist guerilla warriors traveling to the US and drown us in our swimming pools (or some other primal fear that Gerson copped from Nightmare on Elm Street).

As the Left Coaster asks: “As for Vietnam, if your claim is that they will follow us home if we leave Iraq too early, and are equating that to Vietnam, when exactly did the Viet Cong land in San Francisco?”

Woof, woof! What’s that sound you hear? Why it’s a Bush Dog Democrat playing fetch with his Republican overlord. Open Left has the details.

Speaking of Open Left, co-founder Chris Bowers is going to be at the Dupont Circle Libation Society (also known as the DC chapter of Drinking Liberally) tomorrow night. Maybe he can explain why the worst president evah, always gets his Dem.

Scott died peacefully at his home in Gaithersburg, MD this afternoon. My mother said “Goodbye.” Scott waved goodbye with the fingers of his hand. And he left us.

I want to spend a little more time talking about what Scott meant to me. But, that’s going to need to wait for another day.

Update: I want to thank everyone who commented here, emailed, called, etc. It really means a lot to me.

If there was a single most cathartic moment it was talking to my cousin Dick, a Methodist minister, now retired. He’ll be doing the memorial service this coming Saturday. I knew that he was going to ask me about Scott, and things he should say in the service. What caught me off guard was when he asked what from scripture would be most appropriate. While that sounds like the kind of question you might expect, I hadn’t really thought about it.

While I was driving down Rockville Pike a couple of days ago, looking at the sights I knew from my childhood and adolescence, I started to think about Scott, and remembered one of my favorite quotes from Genesis: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” I told Dick that that’s what’s Scott’s life meant to me. Answering that question.

Dick was quiet for a moment and then said: “Well, that really cuts through the whole thing, doesn’t it?”

It does. It goes to myself and Scott. It goes to what our relationships are like with each other, and it goes to where we are right now as a society. Am I my brother’s keeper?

As an example, Scott, a 51-year-old man with Downes Syndrome, lived a respectable life in a group home in Montgomery County, MD. He had a job, he had friends, and a rich life. He participated in the special olympics, in basketball, bowling, and towards the end of his life became an accomplished painter. The painting in the picture above is one he had just sold. And when he died, the money that he earned from his job was able to pay the costs of his funeral.

This didn’t happen by accident. It was largely through programs that President Kennedy, who also had a sister with Downes Syndrome, started because he took the question “Am I my brother’s keeper?” seriously.

It’s much too nice outside today to dwell on the political machinations of Czar Bunnypants or the Czariness-to-be or her sister, not-Czariness-to-be.

But I noticed this thread at the Huffington Post that had some interesting comments. The point of the original post was to alert people to the initiative in California to use proportional voting in the electoral college. If this change is implemented before the 2008 election, well… let’s just say we don’t want to go there.

Hawthoria points out that if you look at the last few presidential races, proportional representation across the board, meaning all states and DC, would have swung votes to the Republicans. That’s certainly counter-intuitive. Shouldn’t the percentages be the same as the popular vote count?

Well, no. The whole purpose of the Electoral College is to statistically weight rural states to even out states that have large urban areas. The effect of this is that if you live in NYC, Boston, Philadephia or DC your vote doesn’t count as much as those that come from Befuddle Creek, Idaho, Beaverbelt, Arkansas, or Veryflat, Kansas. At least when you’re voting for President.

Now how good an idea was this? It was such a great idea that no other newly formed democracy would ever again consider it. Don’t you think it’s interesting, for instance, that when we invaded Iraq we established a parliamentary form of government?