It’s not as if there are a lot of good arguments for war against Iran, but Broder has constructed what has to be the worst. Duss does the necessary demolition work. Prepping for war against Iran in order to improve the economy is not unlike staying in on a 2-7 offsuit in order to maximize your chances for a straight flush.
Archive for October, 2010
The bailout of Detroit has indeed worked out even better than it could have been hoped — and I was optimistic.
Jon Stewart does not consider himself to be doing “politics,” but I believe his closing remarks at the rally today (beginning at the 2:15 mark) will one day be considered among the greatest political speeches of our country’s history.
According to NPR, the “great debate” in the hours before the big luau on the National Mall was whether people were coming to the rally for politics or comedy:
When Jon Stewart announced his Washington, D.C., Rally to Restore Sanity, he inspired much joy among fans of his Daily Show.
But he has also sparked a fierce debate among pundits over whether Stewart really has comedy or politics in mind for the event. It is scheduled for Saturday afternoon on the National Mall.
“I have had the growing suspicion that the participants in this rally don’t entirely think of it as a comedy show,” Timothy Noah of the online magazine Slate says. “I think that they are mistaking … participation in this rally for some sort of political statement. That confusion troubles me.”
A cursory glance at the rally signs suggested Timothy Noah is missing an important point: to blend comedy and politics. And people clearly didn’t come all for the same reason or all with the same politics. Read more…
Friday Cat Blogging… Starbuck and Nelson
Today’s “terrorist” “incidents” don’t seem too terrifying:
The rare military escort for a civilian flight heightened the drama of the still unfolding terrorism investigation, as officials isolated cargo planes at two other American airports and searched a delivery truck in Brooklyn for packages said to have been sent from Yemen to addresses in the United States.
None of those packages proved to be dangerous, but officials in Dubai found one that contained explosive material, and another — the first one to be discovered, in Britain — contained a device that appeared similar to an improvised bomb but contained no explosives.
Nevertheless President Obama held an impromptu news conference to discuss these barely newsworthy events. Obama is in a Catch-22 situation here: On the one hand if he acts like a grownup he will be excoriated from the right for not being taking The Existential Threat We Face from Islamoterrofascism seriously. On the other, we can be pretty sure that the next couple of days will feature lots of speculation regarding whether this whole thing has been trumped up by the administration for electoral purposes (it will be interesting to see if any GOP establishment mouthpieces pick up this theme).
Many right-wing bloggers were remarkably “successful” in finding ways to justify Rand Paul’s goons stomping on a defenseless woman’s head. The Christine O’Donnell case presents a similarly difficult problem: how do you blame the Democratic Party for a story put out on an apolitical gossip website that has earned nearly universal condemnation from liberals and Democrats? Col. Mustard rises to the challenge with some Grade A hackwork:
I don’t believe for a second that the criticisms of Gawker by most of the left-blogosphere are genuine.
These are crocodile tears from people who are afraid that the backlash will help O’Donnell politically, so they are pretending to unite in her defense on this limited point. Just read almost any of their posts, and they condemn Gawker while taking pains to point out that O’Donnell still is crazy and dangerous.
The left-blogosphere and media enabled Gawker, and if there is any justice, the monster they created will come back to bite them in the voting booth on November 2.
He goes on to claim that liberals “cheered on” Gawker for sexist attacks on Sarah Palin, while carefully omitting any evidence for the assertion.
The problem here, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, is that there isn’t the slightest contradiction between believing that O’Donnell is “crazy and dangerous” (in the sense of having crazy political positions) and believing that the Gawker post was sexist. The fact that O’Donnell advances a lot of reactionary (including anti-feminist) ideas isn’t a license to engage in sexist attacks. Indeed, I would argue that people whose commitment to feminist principles (unlike that of Jacobson and most other right-wing bloggers) doesn’t begin and end with insulating female Republican politicians from both legitimate and illegitimate attacks have rather more credibility on the subject.
Relatedly, I have some further thoughts on why attempts to justify Gawker’s actions by invoking “hypocrisy” won’t fly. My position on this goes a lot farther than, for example, Jill’s; even if the story was less overtly sexist, it would still be irrelevant.
On the first point, Paul’s post on Kagan and the legal establishment is obviously relevant. I just wonder if Tribe actually believes the highly implausible claims that Kagan will make Kennedy more liberal or if he was just telling Obama what he thought he wanted to hear to promote a colleague.