Saint John
"Sometimes I think McCain knows too much and doesn't know how to do sound bites."
-Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC on 3/31/08, explaining Senator McCain's acceptance of the possibility of leaving American troops in Iraq for 100 years
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
Bush Promotes The Chinese Regime
Reuters reports on March 31, 2008 that Senate Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi has asked President Bush to consider boycotting the Olympic Games to be held in Beijing, China. In an interview to be telecast on ABC's Good Morning America on 4/1/08, the longtime critic of the Communist regime is quoted as saying "I think boycotting the opening ceremony, which really gives respect to the Chinese government, is something that should be kept on the table." She stated "I think the president might want to rethink this later, depending on what other heads of state do."
At least one head of state already has decided what to do. Chancellor Angela Merkel has decided against attending the opening ceremony, reminding us of the remarkable turnaround in German government and society since the end of World War II.
There is a strong argument, though little support, for going much further. In her article entitled "Boycott Beijing" posted on slate.com on 3/24/08, Anne Applebaum counters the standard arguments against boycotting the upcoming Olympics. Boycotts may accomplish a great deal, she notes, as in that of South African athletes from international competitions which helped end apartheid. Additionally, the Olympics can be not only a force for good but also for evil, as in the propaganda coup scored by Adolph Hitler when Nazi Germany hosted the 1936 Olympics. And the Games are perhaps the best place for demonstrations, inasmuch as "the modern Olympics were set up with a political purpose: to promote international peace by encouraging helalth competition (among) nations."
But the least the leader of the Free World can do is to skip the opening ceremony. Instead, White House spokesman Emily Lawrimore said the President "has also made it very clear that the Olympics will shine a bright light on China regarding a variety of issues. These games will provide China with an opportunity to put it's (sic) best face forward."
In a rare if unintended display of honesty, the Administration is not even bothering to pretend that the Games will focus attention on the brutal regime in Beijing, its military buildup, its arguably incomparable air pollution, aid to the Sudanese government in support of genocidal militants, or any other characteristic of this near-fascist state. Rather, they are delighted the Red Chinese will enjoy the fruits of valuable propaganda: "an opportunity to put its best face forward." It's a fascinating position for a President who, when speaking of the Persian Gulf, feigns a fondness for democratic states.
Reuters reports on March 31, 2008 that Senate Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi has asked President Bush to consider boycotting the Olympic Games to be held in Beijing, China. In an interview to be telecast on ABC's Good Morning America on 4/1/08, the longtime critic of the Communist regime is quoted as saying "I think boycotting the opening ceremony, which really gives respect to the Chinese government, is something that should be kept on the table." She stated "I think the president might want to rethink this later, depending on what other heads of state do."
At least one head of state already has decided what to do. Chancellor Angela Merkel has decided against attending the opening ceremony, reminding us of the remarkable turnaround in German government and society since the end of World War II.
There is a strong argument, though little support, for going much further. In her article entitled "Boycott Beijing" posted on slate.com on 3/24/08, Anne Applebaum counters the standard arguments against boycotting the upcoming Olympics. Boycotts may accomplish a great deal, she notes, as in that of South African athletes from international competitions which helped end apartheid. Additionally, the Olympics can be not only a force for good but also for evil, as in the propaganda coup scored by Adolph Hitler when Nazi Germany hosted the 1936 Olympics. And the Games are perhaps the best place for demonstrations, inasmuch as "the modern Olympics were set up with a political purpose: to promote international peace by encouraging helalth competition (among) nations."
But the least the leader of the Free World can do is to skip the opening ceremony. Instead, White House spokesman Emily Lawrimore said the President "has also made it very clear that the Olympics will shine a bright light on China regarding a variety of issues. These games will provide China with an opportunity to put it's (sic) best face forward."
In a rare if unintended display of honesty, the Administration is not even bothering to pretend that the Games will focus attention on the brutal regime in Beijing, its military buildup, its arguably incomparable air pollution, aid to the Sudanese government in support of genocidal militants, or any other characteristic of this near-fascist state. Rather, they are delighted the Red Chinese will enjoy the fruits of valuable propaganda: "an opportunity to put its best face forward." It's a fascinating position for a President who, when speaking of the Persian Gulf, feigns a fondness for democratic states.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Rice- Right, But Wrong
In a wide-ranging interview conducted by Nicholas Kralev of the conservative Republican newspaper The Washington Times on March 27, 2008 and published the following day, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke of race in American society, her attraction to George W. Bush, the proposed boycott of the Beijing Olympics, and the foreign policy aims of the remainder of the Bush Administration.
And Iraq. Difficulty rebuilding Iraq, the Secretary claimed, has resulted from "how truly broken the society was." For that, she blamed primarily the Saddam Hussein regime but also argued that now "agriculture is virtually dead in Iraq" as a result of United Nations sanctions.
It would have been naive to expect Ms. Rice to assume for the debacle of Gulf War II any of the blame herself or on behalf of the president she so admires. For a failed Cabinet member trying to establish herself as a political figure in the GOP, it is more convenient to allude to the one success of the venture- overthrow of Saddam Hussein- and blame the United Nations, historically a fun target of the Republican right. Perhaps she is modeling herself after this president in the manner of one of his most enduring traits, the ability to find blame anywhere and avoid looking in the mirror.
In a wide-ranging interview conducted by Nicholas Kralev of the conservative Republican newspaper The Washington Times on March 27, 2008 and published the following day, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke of race in American society, her attraction to George W. Bush, the proposed boycott of the Beijing Olympics, and the foreign policy aims of the remainder of the Bush Administration.
And Iraq. Difficulty rebuilding Iraq, the Secretary claimed, has resulted from "how truly broken the society was." For that, she blamed primarily the Saddam Hussein regime but also argued that now "agriculture is virtually dead in Iraq" as a result of United Nations sanctions.
It would have been naive to expect Ms. Rice to assume for the debacle of Gulf War II any of the blame herself or on behalf of the president she so admires. For a failed Cabinet member trying to establish herself as a political figure in the GOP, it is more convenient to allude to the one success of the venture- overthrow of Saddam Hussein- and blame the United Nations, historically a fun target of the Republican right. Perhaps she is modeling herself after this president in the manner of one of his most enduring traits, the ability to find blame anywhere and avoid looking in the mirror.
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Fellowship And Religion
Joshua Green on 3/26/08 summarized on The Atlantic Monthly's blogsite an intriguing facet of the profile he had written of newly-elected Senator Hillary Clinton in November, 2006. Green describes the association of Mrs. Clinton (who joined after her election in 2001) with The Fellowhip (also known as The Family), a Christian religious group formed in the 1930s to "minister to political and business leaders throughout the world" and headed by Douglas Coe. He assiduously avoids any public profile and archives of the group are locked up and classified at the evangelical Wheaton College in Illinois.
The Fellowship is comprised of several small groups which meet informally for testimony, prayer and discussion. One group, which assembles Wednesday mornings, is led by Coe and includes Clinton among approximately a dozen Senators. Most of the Senators, it appears, are both political and theological conservatives, described by David Kuo (at one time a Bush official in the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives who has since criticized the Administration) as "powerful evangelicals."
These groups, and the individuals which comprise them, scrupulously avoid publicity and I don't know what to make of the involvement of Hillary Clinton- negative, positive, or indifferent. Clearly, though, the lack of attention given to The Fellowship in a presidential campaign in which the leading candidate's relationship with his "spiritual advisor" has become an important issue reflects the media's obsession with avoiding any examination of religion. This is the case unless the matter explodes on YouTube- and even then, there is an allergy to discussion of the actual religious aspect. It is critical, we are told, for a candidate to express "faith"; meanwhile, no insight is offered as to what the faith actually is or the impact it may have on the political positions, or the governing style, of the office-seeker.
Joshua Green on 3/26/08 summarized on The Atlantic Monthly's blogsite an intriguing facet of the profile he had written of newly-elected Senator Hillary Clinton in November, 2006. Green describes the association of Mrs. Clinton (who joined after her election in 2001) with The Fellowhip (also known as The Family), a Christian religious group formed in the 1930s to "minister to political and business leaders throughout the world" and headed by Douglas Coe. He assiduously avoids any public profile and archives of the group are locked up and classified at the evangelical Wheaton College in Illinois.
The Fellowship is comprised of several small groups which meet informally for testimony, prayer and discussion. One group, which assembles Wednesday mornings, is led by Coe and includes Clinton among approximately a dozen Senators. Most of the Senators, it appears, are both political and theological conservatives, described by David Kuo (at one time a Bush official in the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives who has since criticized the Administration) as "powerful evangelicals."
These groups, and the individuals which comprise them, scrupulously avoid publicity and I don't know what to make of the involvement of Hillary Clinton- negative, positive, or indifferent. Clearly, though, the lack of attention given to The Fellowship in a presidential campaign in which the leading candidate's relationship with his "spiritual advisor" has become an important issue reflects the media's obsession with avoiding any examination of religion. This is the case unless the matter explodes on YouTube- and even then, there is an allergy to discussion of the actual religious aspect. It is critical, we are told, for a candidate to express "faith"; meanwhile, no insight is offered as to what the faith actually is or the impact it may have on the political positions, or the governing style, of the office-seeker.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Alan Greenspan, Really?
In a recent meeting with the Editorial Board of the Philadelphia Daily News, Hillary Clinton recommended a "high-level emergency group" to address the issue of high-risk mortgages. She suggested that the members might include Robert Rubin (a supporter of hers), Paul Volcker (a supporter of Barack Obama), and Alan Greenspan (a supporter of John McCain). When Greenspan spoke before the Credit Union National Association 2004 Governmental Affairs Conference, Washington, D.C. on February 23, 2004, he stated:
American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage. To the degree that households are driven by fears of payment shocks but are willing to manage their own interest rate risks, the traditional fixed-rate mortgage may be an expensive method of financing a home.
He also has been a champion of deregulation. When he gave the Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress (before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate on March 7, 2002), Greenspan declared:
Both deregulation and innovation in the financial sector have been especially important in enhancing overall economic resilience. New financial products—including derivatives, asset-backed securities, collateralized loan obligations, and collateralized mortgage obligations, among others—have enabled risk to be dispersed more effectively to those willing to, and presumably capable of, bearing it.
So Senator Clinton was asked by the Editorial Board about her recommendation of the nation's most important economist, who promoted adjustable rate mortgages and deregulation of the financial industry and failed to recognize the housing bubble. She replied:
Not only that, but the Fed didn't act while he was there. But he has a calming influence still to this day on Wall Street -- don't ask me why because I never understand what he's saying -- but nevertheless people respond to that Delphic oracle approach. I think it would be wise to include him. And recently he's come out, and very smartly so, that we have to deal with housing and maybe we need to have some kind of buyout mechanism for mortgages. So he's moved on his understanding and depth of the problem -- but you know you could pick three others. You just have to have some demonstrable involvement of presidential leadership...
We've gone through seven years of an Administration which, with the help of the Congressional Medal of Honor, rewards incompetence at every turn. Calling on a guy who helped bring on the mortgage debacle is no way to address the nation's housing crisis.
In a recent meeting with the Editorial Board of the Philadelphia Daily News, Hillary Clinton recommended a "high-level emergency group" to address the issue of high-risk mortgages. She suggested that the members might include Robert Rubin (a supporter of hers), Paul Volcker (a supporter of Barack Obama), and Alan Greenspan (a supporter of John McCain). When Greenspan spoke before the Credit Union National Association 2004 Governmental Affairs Conference, Washington, D.C. on February 23, 2004, he stated:
American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage. To the degree that households are driven by fears of payment shocks but are willing to manage their own interest rate risks, the traditional fixed-rate mortgage may be an expensive method of financing a home.
He also has been a champion of deregulation. When he gave the Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress (before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate on March 7, 2002), Greenspan declared:
Both deregulation and innovation in the financial sector have been especially important in enhancing overall economic resilience. New financial products—including derivatives, asset-backed securities, collateralized loan obligations, and collateralized mortgage obligations, among others—have enabled risk to be dispersed more effectively to those willing to, and presumably capable of, bearing it.
So Senator Clinton was asked by the Editorial Board about her recommendation of the nation's most important economist, who promoted adjustable rate mortgages and deregulation of the financial industry and failed to recognize the housing bubble. She replied:
Not only that, but the Fed didn't act while he was there. But he has a calming influence still to this day on Wall Street -- don't ask me why because I never understand what he's saying -- but nevertheless people respond to that Delphic oracle approach. I think it would be wise to include him. And recently he's come out, and very smartly so, that we have to deal with housing and maybe we need to have some kind of buyout mechanism for mortgages. So he's moved on his understanding and depth of the problem -- but you know you could pick three others. You just have to have some demonstrable involvement of presidential leadership...
We've gone through seven years of an Administration which, with the help of the Congressional Medal of Honor, rewards incompetence at every turn. Calling on a guy who helped bring on the mortgage debacle is no way to address the nation's housing crisis.
John McCain, Expert
John McCain has a reputation (largely undeserved) for "straight talk" and, in fact, he has been honest in one area: his knowledge of economics. Here area few of his hits:
- In an article by Jonathan Chait of The New Republic, published on 1/21/00 and posted that date by the conservative freerepublic.com: "I didn't pay nearly the attention to those issues in the past. I was probably a `supply-sider' based on the fact that I really didn't jump into the issue..."
- In the 12/18/07 column "Political Intelligence" by Boston Globe writer Sasha Issenberg posted on boston.com: "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book."
- In the 11/26/05 online issue of The Wall Street Journal, from an interview by the paper's editorial board: "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."
And McCain's brilliance "about military and foreign policy issues?" In Jordan on 3/18/08, according to The Washington Post's blog "The Trail," McCain stated it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." Or at least, would be unfortunate if it were true, as McCain acknowledged seconds later after Joe Lieberman whispered into his ear. A careless error, or lack of knowledge? The Trail reports "he said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq." (And the day before he had told syndicated conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt "as you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they’re moving back into Iraq.")
Economics, foreign policy. How about culture? As this youtube video entitled "The Real McCain" indicates, on the Hardball College Tour, on October 18, 2007 Senator McCain told host Chris Matthews and the live student audience "gay marriage should be allowed." Eleven minutes later, after a commercial break, he stated "gay marriage should not be legal." Asked by George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week about civil unions, John McCain is seen as stumped for a few seconds.
John McCain has a reputation (largely undeserved) for "straight talk" and, in fact, he has been honest in one area: his knowledge of economics. Here area few of his hits:
- In an article by Jonathan Chait of The New Republic, published on 1/21/00 and posted that date by the conservative freerepublic.com: "I didn't pay nearly the attention to those issues in the past. I was probably a `supply-sider' based on the fact that I really didn't jump into the issue..."
- In the 12/18/07 column "Political Intelligence" by Boston Globe writer Sasha Issenberg posted on boston.com: "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book."
- In the 11/26/05 online issue of The Wall Street Journal, from an interview by the paper's editorial board: "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."
And McCain's brilliance "about military and foreign policy issues?" In Jordan on 3/18/08, according to The Washington Post's blog "The Trail," McCain stated it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." Or at least, would be unfortunate if it were true, as McCain acknowledged seconds later after Joe Lieberman whispered into his ear. A careless error, or lack of knowledge? The Trail reports "he said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq." (And the day before he had told syndicated conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt "as you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they’re moving back into Iraq.")
Economics, foreign policy. How about culture? As this youtube video entitled "The Real McCain" indicates, on the Hardball College Tour, on October 18, 2007 Senator McCain told host Chris Matthews and the live student audience "gay marriage should be allowed." Eleven minutes later, after a commercial break, he stated "gay marriage should not be legal." Asked by George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week about civil unions, John McCain is seen as stumped for a few seconds.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Quote Of The Week
"If freedom-loving people throughout the world do not speak out against China's oppression in China and Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world."
-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on March 21, 2008, while speaking to thousands of Tibetan exiles at the Dalai Lama's headquarters in Dhamsala, India
"If freedom-loving people throughout the world do not speak out against China's oppression in China and Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world."
-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on March 21, 2008, while speaking to thousands of Tibetan exiles at the Dalai Lama's headquarters in Dhamsala, India
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Missing the Point, Intentionally
I'm not going to make the obvious crack that Meghan McCain, daughter of the late senator John McCain, is herself a vile, abhorrent, pig...
-
Party Of Deception The Huffington Post, gushing about the Kennedy memorial service in Boston last night, exclaimed that Senator Orrin Hatch...
-
In April, President Donald Trump asked French President Emanuel Macron "why don't you leave the EU?" The same month,...
-
Since the Obama Administration, a few voices on the right lamented the apparent erosion of the concept of the USA as a nation of laws a...