| Wulfgar! on the new rightie tactic of blaming torture on Nancy Pelosi: "What they're doing is claiming that they have proof that Nancy Pelosi knew about the use of torture and did nothing...when there was nothing she could do, if she really even knew. And to them, it's the fault of the left that those who couldn't do anything didn't do anything. Blame with no crime, and the butt-butter Republicants think that makes sense."
Dan Savage reacts to the news that the Bush administration used torture to try to create a link between Iraq and al Qaeda: "...but Bush's torturers weren't able to get any of the guys they were torturing to offer up "intelligence" that would establish a non-existent link between al-Qa'ida and Iraq... so that would mean...
"Christ.
"That would mean the Bush administration was just as incompetent at torture as it was at waging war, finding Osama, managing the economy, protecting America from attack, disaster response and relief, and everything else?"
I really like what the White House's new Drug Czar had to say about the "war on drugs": "'Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them,' he said. 'We're not at war with people in this country.'
"Mr. Kerlikowske's comments are a signal that the Obama administration is set to follow a more moderate -- and likely more controversial -- stance on the nation's drug problems. Prior administrations talked about pushing treatment and reducing demand while continuing to focus primarily on a tough criminal-justice approach.
"The Obama administration is likely to deal with drugs as a matter of public health rather than criminal justice alone, with treatment's role growing relative to incarceration, Mr. Kerlikowske said."
On the other hand, Obama's lack of movement on gay rights is p*ssing off a few people (and for good reason). Like, say, Andrew Sullivan :"And what is Obama doing about any of these things? What is he even intending at some point to do about these things? So far as I can read the administration, the answer is: nada. We're firing Arab linguists? So sorry. We won't recognize in any way a tiny minority of legally married couples in several states because they're, ugh, gay? We had no idea. There's a ban on HIV-positive tourists and immigrants? Really? Thanks for letting us know. Would you like to join Joe Solmonese and John Berry for cocktails? The inside of the White House is fabulous these days."
John Avarosis puts into words what I've thought over the years (h/t Wulfgar!): "Chris raises an excellent point about conservatives and free speech. Their version of free speech means they get to talk and you don't. They get their way, and you don't. They get to cram their beliefs down your throat, and if you object, then you're intolerant. Thus, when Miss California went on stage and was asked a question by a judge - knowing full well that the way a beauty pageant works is you get asked a question and then get judged on your answer - because she's a conservative, we're not permitted to judge her on her answer, we're not permitted to exercise our free speech (or even follow the simple rules of judging a beauty pageant) lest we impinge upon her right to 'free speech.'"
Richard Posner: "...it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising. The major blows to conservatism, culminating in the election and programs of Obama, have been fourfold: the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation.
"By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party."
Walter Pincus slaps down contemporary journalism: "But when it comes to editorial content, meaningful news about government, politics, and foreign policy is only one of the saleable elements. Good newspapers have to go back to delivering a daily product that our mass audiences want, and which provides to advertisers a unique means to reach consumers. Like supermarkets, newspapers must deliver quality in all departments.
"Yet at the same time, owners, editors, and reporters should push issues they believe government is ignoring. They should do it factually and in articles short enough to read daily, but spread over time. That is how Americans absorb information-by repetition.
"They should remember that 'newsmakers' are intent on using the media to influence readers, listeners, and viewers to take up their ideas. The electronic and print media today probably have more power over public opinion-and thus government-than they had fifty years ago. But I fear they turn much of that power over to those who create news events to get coverage.
"The press should play an activist role. That's the reason a free press is important. Mine is a romantic and unfashionable view of journalism, but that is why many of us took up the profession in the first place."
Read the whole thing. Awesome.
Chris Hedges also does a job on the media: "The decline of newspapers is not about the replacement of the antiquated technology of news print with the lightning speed of the Internet. It does not signal an inevitable and salutary change. It is not a form of progress. The decline of newspapers is about the rise of the corporate state, the loss of civic and public responsibility on the part of much of our entrepreneurial class and the intellectual poverty of our post-literate world, a world where information is conveyed primarily through rapidly moving images rather than print."
Not sure I agree that there's no value in how information is conveyed nowadays; the problem is that media corporations have used that format to dumb down content in an effort to ramp up profit..
Suburbs? Without cars? It's a German town and mixed-use model, and a "children's paradise..." |
