Christian at Defense Tech has a nice rundown on the “grounded Eagles” problem; if you hadn’t heard, the USAF grounded its entire fleet of F-15s after a plane broke up in flight a couple of weeks ago. Discussion continues as to whether the problem is with the F-15 in general (most of the frames may be at the end of their useful lives, due to some flaws in construction and design), or the specific unit that crashed. Conspiracy theorists have also suggested a USAF attempt to push for more F-22s to replace the F-15.
Matt says he’s reading this book defending Eisenhower’s record on race. I haven’t read it, so maybe it makes the case. But I would be skeptical on several fronts that the book would need to be overcome:
- I think there is, in fact, good reason to believe that Eisenhower’s appointment of Warren was not a result of a steadfast commitment to civil rights. Eisenhower, after all, promised Governor Warren an appointment after he agreed to deliver California’s delegates to him at the convention, and the fact that he was made Chief was just a fluke created by Fred Vinson’s sudden death (the first indication Felix Frankfurter ever had that there is a God); I think the patronage factor was more important. And while Warren was certainly a liberal Republican, I’m not sure that there was a strong basis for believing in 1952 that a prime author of the internment of Japanese citizens was especially progressive on race in particular. The appointment of Brennan, similarly, was almost certainly about appealing to the Catholic vote. To see these appointments as being about Eisenhower’s commitment to civil rights is to project the currents ways in which presidents select Supreme Court justices onto a previous era.
- Although I accept the limitations of rhetoric in re: a comparison with JFK’s all-hat-no-cattle approach to civil rights, Eisenhower hanging the Supreme Court out to dry after Brown actually matters. Rhetoric is, after all, part of a president’s job. Nor, as far as I can tell, was his lukewarm-at-best reaction to desegregation inconsistent with his privately expressed thoughts on the matter. The fact that he informed Warren that southerners were not bad people, just concerned lest their “sweet little girls be seated alongside some big black bucks” also makes me question his staunch commitment to civil rights, and Nichols seems to concede that he wasn’t especially progressive in his personal views. (The “black bucks” phrasing is also relevant to Reagan’s rhetoric on the subject.)
- The favorable comparison with Truman seems especially strange. Given that Truman actually desegregated the armed forces while Eisenhower testified against integration in Congress, to primarily credit the latter strikes me as bizarre. Under Truman, the federal government also started aggressively favoring civil rights in the federal courts by filing amicus briefs.
- It is true, as Nichols repeated in his NYT op-ed, that LBJ watered down civil rights legislation in 1957 (and given that it was that or nothing, he was right to do so.) On the other hand, as Robert Caro points out (pp.918-9) Ike was himself unfamiliar with key provisions of his own bill, and in private correspondence said that some of its provisions were “too broad” (while reiterating his skepticism about Brown and his lack of objections to the glacial pace of desegregation.) In fairness, I am willing to believe that, like a lot of moderates, Eisenhower became more sympathetic to civil rights after Little Rock.
- In the description, it says that Nichols “attributes Lyndon Johnson’s actions to his presidential ambitions.” This may be true, but it is also entirely irrelevant to anything. If were evaluating presidents on their records — as Nichols would like — LBJ’s is so vastly better than Ike’s that the comparison is ridiculous. Whatever motivated him — and it’s clearly silly to reduce it to any one factor — LBJ did more for civil rights than every other president of the century combined while Ike’s record was highly unimpressive.
None of this is to say that Eisenhower was especially bad for a public official of his era; he was more of a squish than an active opponent of civil rights. But it’s also true that on the crucial question of Brown, Ike hid under the covers and whimpered until violent resistance forced his hand. And while I might agree that he and JFK differed more on rhetoric than results — although I think the rhetoric is more important than he allows — to favorably compare Eisenhower with Johnson on civil rights borders on the obscene.
I’m also glad that they reminded us about Giuliani canceling a press conference because the family wasn’t wealthy enough to be a Potemkin front for the upper-upper class tax cut he was advocating…
Since when did wingnuts begin ripping-off Belle Waring’s famous pony-asking thing?
Here. Have a look-see:
It’s difficult to tell what Newsbusters wants from CBS. Impartiality? The same attack on Clinton that they’ll make on Giuliani? I want a pony . . .
What’s certain is that Newsbusters wants their Republican readers to be outraged. I’ll tell you what will really outrage me: I’m never going to get a pony.
I don’t think the gag makes as much sense coming from a blogger at Ace O’ Spades, much like Lenny Bruce monologues would fall flat in the hands of Andrew “Dice” Clay.
A couple of days ago, Paul Mirengoff announced that he was going to be doing some “good, old-fashioned hard reporting” from New Hampshire. Whenever conservative bloggers start yodeling about the incompetence of “the MSM” while cheering on the blogosphere for cutting through the bullshit, I’m just going to remind them of Mirengoff’s first offering, which is an apparent non-parody of campaign journalism.
The Straight Talk Express is divided into two segments. The first consists of eight comfortable chairs. This is where the campaign staff works. The second, separated from the first by a curtain, consists of a round semi-circular sofa. It’s there, with journalists squeezed onto the sofa with him, that McCain holds court, taking question after question and not ducking any of them.
The “campaign” is essentially absent at “court.” Occasionally a staffer will stand by the curtain and listen in, but they don’t impinge on the proceedings. I recall McCain interacting with the campaign on the bus only three times yesterday. Once he asked a staffer to remind him to call the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq. Once a staffer brought a blackberry and showed McCain a message. He said he’d deal with it later. Once, as we were boarding the bus after a stop, the Senator and his top confidante Mark Salter went to the back for a meeting. It lasted maybe a minute. The rest of the time it was just McCain and us.
After a leg or two, we run out of questions, so “court” becomes a conversation about politics and public policy. By the final leg, the conversation has drifted into away from politics and public policy, and into history and sports. McCain sprinkles the conversation with anecdotes – some about his travels; some about famous people he’s known. He also asks a trivia question or two.
Sweet bleeding Jesus. Really, it’s enough to make the reporting of Elisabeth Bumiller seem like a black-site interrogation. I’m almost embarrassed for these guys. I mean, did Mirengoff save the juice box McCain offered him? Did he get the trivia questions right? Who was the most famousest person McCain’s ever met? Is he ever going to be able to wash his right hand again?
Mirengoff concludes the piece with an incoherent meditation on why McCain’s chummy relationship with bloggers and reporters somehow makes him more capably presidential. Nowhere does he surrender any specifics about the questions that McCain bravely refuses to duck, none of which I suspect pertained to the dead kid whose mother he was supposed to console. But hey, the furniture was comfy and the trivia was flowing like grape Hi-C, so why spoil a pleasant bus ride?
In 1841, a previously unsuccessful British adventurer named James Brooke arrived in Brunei. Having served in the army twenty years before, Brooke had decided to purchase a schooner with his inheritance and make his career as a trader. At this he was less than fully successful, but his arrival in Brunei would open the door to a new career. The Sultan of Brunei was in the midst of difficulties with interior tribesmen, and Brooke found himself in a position to assist. The grateful Sultan, after some intimidation, named Brooke the Rajah of Sarawak, the territory of which made up most of the north and west of the Sultan’s domain. Brooke would steadily annex more territory from Brunei, eventually rendering his kingdom much larger than its mother country.
When Brooke died in 1868, he was succeeded by his nephew Charles Anthony Brooke. The Brookes made some administrative reforms and assisted in the fight to quell piracy, but their authority lay lightly over native institutions. In 1888, Charles Anthony Brooks accepted a British protectorate over Sarawak, formally incorporating the state in Britain’s Far East security scheme. Some infrastructure investment made possible the discovery and exploitation of oil, and the establishment of a parliament.
Charles Vyner Brooke succeeded his father in 1917, and continued to rule as his predecessors. The expansion of rubber production in Sarawak further benefited the local economy, but the presence of both oil and rubber would make Sarawak a tempting target. In December 1941 Japan invaded, and Brooke fled to Australia with his family. Small numbers of Sarawakan and Indian troops were quickly overrun, and the Japanese administered Sarawak until 1945. The merchant marine of Sarawak was incorporated into the British war effort, however, including the royal yacht, SS Vyner Brooke. SS Vyner Brooke picked up a contingent of injured soldiers and Australian nurses from Singapore just before the city fell. Unfortunately, Japanese artillery shelled and sank the ship, killing many of the nurses and soldiers. A large group of survivors escaped the wreck and arrived on Banka Island, which was also controlled by the Japanese. While a contingent from the ship left to try to surrender to the authorities, a squad of Japanese soldiers encountered the main encampment. They proceeded to shoot or bayonet all of the wounded soldiers, then machine gunned the 23 remaining nurses. One nurse survived, was eventually captured, and gave war crimes testimony against the Japanese in 1947.
After the war, Charles Vyner Brooke returned to Sarawak and briefly reassumed the throne. The war had wrought serious political changes in Southeast Asia, however, and in 1946 Brooke decided to cede his claim on Sarawak to the British government. In return, he and his three daughters received a substantial pension. Prospects for a restoration to the throne are virtually nil. Anthony Brooke, the current heir, has renounced all claims on the throne. Also, Sarawak has ceased to exist as an independent state, having been incorporated into Malaysia. While some dissent against British (eventually Malaysian) rule existed in the past, a return to independence is unlikely, and independence under the Brooke family almost unthinkable.
Trivia: The two primary pretenders to which throne are respectively the manager of a corporate home shopping branch, and a history professor?
The Great War ended 89 years ago today; I continue to prefer concrete remembrance of that war to the abstraction that is Veterans Day. Depending on how you count, there are currently between 22 and 31 surviving veterans of the First World War, up to nine of whom live in the United States. Five are British, including Henry Allingham, the only living survivor of the Battle of Jutland.
The Warm Personality of Bill Belichick, The Mad Skillz of Norv Turner
In light of the failure of even scheduling two service academies to put a mild veneer of respectability on this marvelous Notre Dame season, I would strongly recommend picking up this highly prescient book, which I saw advertised on ESPN and I’m sure is just as persuasive as when it was published. I’m disappointed that Amazon isn’t packaging it with Bush Country, however…
Rich Cohen grows a Toothbrush, otherwise known as the Hitler Mustache:
I went out. In the street, some people looked at me, but most looked away. A few people said things after I passed. One man gave me a kind of Heil, but it was lackadaisical, and I am fairly certain he was being ironic. (People can be so mean!) Even friends said nothing until I asked, or else acted embarrassed for me. A woman said, “I think you were more handsome without the mustache.” I had been worried someone might try to hurt me. I imagined toughs from the Jewish Defense League attacking with throwing stars—Jewish throwing stars! But it turns out, when you shave like Hitler, you follow the same rule you follow with bees: They’re more scared of you than you are of them. Because either you really are Hitler, or you’re a nut. So people do with little Hitlers what people always do with lunatics in New York, the harmless or dangerous—they ignore, they avert, they move away. If you want to fly coach without being hassled, grow a Toothbrush mustache.
The whole piece — which is mostly a social and political history of the Toothbrush ‘stache — is really interesting. Evidently, Americans first introduced it to Germany in the late 19th century, when the ferocious and ornate kaiserbart dominated the nation’s upper lip. As Cohen points out, the blowback from that innovation was quite profound.