Ahhhh ... We called it ... Leno moving back to 11:30

By J. Thomas Duffy

Oh boy, did we beam a big smile when the NYT News Alert dropped in the mailbox, shouting "NBC Plan Would Move Leno to Late Nights."

Seems that there be some shakin' up goin' on at 30 Rockefeller, and as the TMZ headline says, "NBC Shakeup -- Jay Leno Comes Out on Top."

The Winter Olympics are going to kill off the 10 pm disaster that Leno helmed, and, when the network comes back, it's "Hereeeeee's Jay" at 11:30.

From Bill Carter at the NYT Media Decoder:

And while NBC officially said no final decision on the plan had been made, two senior NBC executives who had talked to the top management about the moves said that under the plan being discussed, Mr. Leno would definitely shift back to 11:35 but in a half-hour format, while Mr. O’Brien would slide back his start time by a half hour and then produce an hourlong show.

But, in an earlier post, Carter had this:

Mr. O’Brien, meanwhile, has seen his own ratings suffer. He has trailed the CBS late-night star David Letterman by about two million viewers a night. Mr. Leno had easily been the winner in that time period previously.

Me smells the Godfather/Clemenza treatment coming up for Conan:

How's Conan? ... Oh, Conan. You won't see him no more.

Linda Holmes at NPR:

Whether putting Jay Leno back at 11:30, if that's what they decide to do, is the right move or not -- that remains to be seen. It's certainly depressing, content-wise, for those of us who greatly prefer O'Brien's style to Leno's and hoped that when this all went kablooey, Jay would be the one who moved on. In any event, a couple of the network's executives are about to face a giant room full of TV critics, so they're going to wind up having to say something.

Now, The Retro Part (and, remember, from above, Conan's shrinking ratings).

A Safety Valve, Dressed In Jay Leno's Timeslot

But here's the unspoken reason NBC was so hot to do this deal:

They wanted Leno in the house, as a safety valve, should Conan O'Brien crash and burn moving from his off-beat 12:30 am time-slot to the primo 11:30 Tonight Show shrine.

Leno establishes the 10 pm time-slot, makes it workable, and then, after some major ego pampering, and dancing-on-eggshells PR, Leno bumps back to the 11:30 pm Tonight Show to pull it out of the ratings (i.e. losing money) ashes.

[snip]

This time, they're keeping Leno in the house, as a "just in case."

And don't think Conan O'Brien doesn't know it.

Jesus, he has Leno staring at him for an hour before he goes on.

Pressure? ... What pressure?

Now, if the Olympics really end up sucking ...

(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Tsutomu Yamaguchi ... Most fucked person in history dies

By J. Thomas Duffy

Yeah, we know the title is jarring, but, even going that graphic, that in-your-face, doesn't do justice, doesn't begin to come close to what Tsutomu Yamaguchi went through in his life.

His plight, his "lot-in-life," became a wry joke to illustrate just how much a sorry-assed-loser a person might be.

Yet Tsutomu Yamaguchi was anything but a loser:



Tsutomu Yamaguchi, victim of Japan’s two atomic bombs, dies aged 93

He was an impassioned and articulate man, a respected teacher, beloved father and grandfather — but none of these explain the unique distinction of Tsutomu Yamaguchi, who has died in Nagasaki aged 93.

He was the victim of a fate so callous that it almost raises a smile: he was one of a small number of people to fall victim to both of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan.

On August 6, 1945, he was about to leave the city of Hiroshima, where he had been working, when the first bomb exploded, killing 140,000 people. Injured and reeling from the horrors around him, he fled to his home — Nagasaki, 180 miles to the west. There, on August 9, the second atomic bomb exploded over his head.

A few dozen others were in a similar position, but none expressed the experience with as much emotion and fervour. Towards the end of his life, Mr Yamaguchi received another distinction — the only man to be officially registered as a hibakusha, atomic bomb victim, in both cities.

In an interview he did early last year, his only with a British newspaper, Yamaguchi described what happened:

Among them was the young engineer – who was in town on a business trip for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries – who stepped off a tram as the bomb exploded.

Despite being 3km (just under two miles) from Ground Zero, the blast temporarily blinded him, destroyed his left eardrum and inflicted horrific burns over much of the top half of his body. The following morning, he braved another dose of radiation as he ventured into Hiroshima city centre, determined to catch a train home, away from the nightmare.

But home for Mr Yamaguchi was Nagasaki, where two days later the "Fat Man" bomb was dropped, killing 70,000 people and creating a city where, in the words of its mayor, "not even the sound of insects could be heard". In a bitter twist of fate, Yamaguchi was again 3km from the centre of the second explosion. In fact, he was in the office explaining to his boss how he had almost been killed days before, when suddenly the same white light filled the room. "I thought the mushroom cloud had followed me from Hiroshima," Mr Yamaguchi said.

It is nearly incomprehensible, the thought of surviving, not one, but two nuclear blasts.

Was he bitter, did he hate the Americans?

No, he remained a human being.

From Wikipedia:

As he aged his opinions about the use of atomic weapons began to change. In his eighties, he wrote a book about his experiences and was invited to take part in a 2006 documentary about 165 double A-bomb victims called Nijuuhibaku ("Twice Bombed"), which was screened at the United Nations. At the screening he pleaded for the abolition of atomic weapons.

Yamaguchi became a vocal proponent of nuclear disarmament. In an interview he said "The reason that I hate the atomic bomb is because of what it does to the dignity of human beings." Speaking through his daughter during a telephone interview he said; "I can't understand why the world cannot understand the agony of the nuclear bombs, how can they keep developing these weapons?

And this:

"My double radiation exposure is now an official government record," Mr Yamaguchi told reporters.

"It can tell the younger generation the horrifying history of the atomic bombings even after I die."

Yeah, it can tell the younger generation, as well as the current one.

But will they see, will they listen?

Here's hoping Tsutomu Yamaguchi has the absolute best, most tremendous, most peacefully satisfying afterlife ... ever!




(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Britain under snow

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Check out this incredible NASA satellite image of Britain, taken early this morning, from the Telegraph.

As you may have heard, Europe has been hit hard so far this winter, and pretty much all of Britain is covered in snow -- which, you may know, isn't exactly normal.

I just talked to my mother -- who lives in SE England with my father and sister (my brother lives not too far away from them) -- a short while ago, and the village they live in, up in the Chiltern hills between London and Oxford, is virtually inaccessible except to 4WD vehicles. I've been there in winter, and I'm sure, like always, it's incredibly beautiful, but it's not exactly convenient for those who live there.

Schools are closed everywhere, grocery stores can't get food in, and there just isn't the infrastructure, like the fleet of snow ploughs we have here in Toronto (where we're used to this sort of weather), to dig out the country, which means that rural roads like the ones leading to and from our village haven't been cleared.

And don't say this is evidence that global warming is a hoax. I have no time for such idiocy. Weather does not equal climate, global warming can lead to crazy weather, and I've already addressed this many times before -- including here.

The shameless hypocrisy of Peter King, supporter of terrorism

By Michael J.W. Stickings

No, not that Peter King, that Peter King (who seems to call himelf "Pete," perhaps to distinguish himself from the more famous other Peter King.). Obviously.

**********

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) -- "America's Worst Congressman," according to Alex Massie, who may very well be right -- is one of the leading Republican point men on terrorism and the "war on terror," that is, one of the leading Republican attackers and smearers of President Obama. He's an ardent promoter of torture, and has virtually nothing of value to add to the discussion. There's certainly nothing in the way of constructive criticism, just the militant right-wing line spoken with a distinct New York accent. Basically, he's a bit like Cheney, only seemingly much more stupid.

For example.

When asked by George Stephanopoulos yesterday on Good Morning America to "name one other specific recommendation the president could implement right now to fix" America's policy on terrorism, he responded with this nugget of nonsense:

I think one main thing would be to -- just himself to use the word terrorism more often.

That's it. Nothing more.

As Steve Benen notes, this is "a terrific example of why Republicans aren't taken more seriously when it comes to the substance of public policy... One gets the sense Republicans won't be truly satisfied until Obama develops a tic-like affinity for Bush-era rhetoric." Which is amusing, isn't it? One of the common Republican criticisms of Obama is that he's all talk. Well, here's a leading Republican saying that the "one main thing" the president can do to wage the war on terror more effectively is... talk, and specifically to talk terrorism, as if American can best protect itself with rhetoric.

Now, I'm all for acknowledging reality, and terrorism is terrorism, but King's criticism really is utter nonsense. It's not like Obama is opposed to using the word, and it's not like Obama is hiding behind vague language. If anything, he shows a far more mature and nuanced understanding of reality, and of the reality of the threats America faces, than, say, Peter King, who sees the world in black-and-white, us-versus-them terms.

But, for King, and for Republicans generally, it's all about attacking Obama and the Democrats, and scoring political points, not contributing anything meaningful or helpful -- or supporting their commander-in-chief in a time of war. And in attacking Obama over the use of a single word, King exposed just how lame, desperate, and intellectually bankrupt he and his party are.

But that's not all. As Jonathan Chait notes at his new blog at TNR, citing Massie, King was once (and may still be) an ardent supporter of the (Provisional) Irish Republican Army (IRA), the mass-murdering terrorist organization that plagued Northern Ireland for so long, from 1969 to 1997. (The IRA abandoned its armed campaign for Northern Ireland's independence from the United Kingdom in 2005. While it is still considered a terrorist organization in the U.K., and while it is an illegal organization in Ireland, it is now largely a non-violent political movement. Two offshoot groups, including the so-called Real IRA, still engage in terrorism.) Massie, quoting an old New York Sun article:

In 1980, Mr. D'Amato, then the senator-elect, fulfilled a campaign pledge and went to Belfast on a fact-finding trip, taking Messrs. King and Dillon with him. It was the start of Mr. King's long entanglement with the IRA, and he took to it with the zeal of a convert.

He forged links with leaders of the IRA and Sinn Fein in Ireland, and in America he hooked up with Irish Northern Aid, known as Noraid, a New York based group that the American, British, and Irish governments often accused of funneling guns and money to the IRA. At a time when the IRA's murder of Lord Mountbatten and its fierce bombing campaign in Britain and Ireland persuaded most American politicians to shun IRA-support groups, Mr. King displayed no such inhibitions. He spoke regularly at Noraid protests and became close to the group's publicity director, the Bronx lawyer Martin Galvin, a figure reviled by the British.

Mr. King's support for the IRA was unequivocal. In 1982, for instance, he told a pro-IRA rally in Nassau County: "We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry."

By the mid-1980s, the authorities on both sides of the Atlantic were openly hostile to Mr. King. On one occasion, a judge threw him out of a Belfast courtroom during the murder trial of IRA men because, in the judge's view, "he was an obvious collaborator with the IRA." When he attended other trials, the police singled him out for thorough body searches.

Where he is now militantly anti-terrorist, he was then militantly pro-terrorist. It all depends on context, that is, on his own biases:

• Irish terrorists: good.
• Muslim terrorists: bad.

He could argue, of course, that what really matters is what the terrorists are fighting for. Americans, after all, admire the revolutionaries who fought for American independence from Britain and revile the revolutionaries who, say, support Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. And there's something to that. Not all revolutionaries are the same, just as not all terrorists are the same. But if that's what King means, he should just come out and say so. Instead, he just comes across as a shameless hypocrite who supports terrorism by his own kind and opposes terrorism against his own kind. That makes him a partisan, and consistent in his biases, but also an enthusiastic supporter of terrorism when it suits him.

And, lest we forget, the terrorism he supported was directed not at an enemy of America but at an ally and long-time friend of America, not at some oppressive regime but at a major liberal democracy, at the founder of liberal democracy. I understand that the IRA and its sympathizers saw Britain as an oppressive and unjust state, the British government as an oppressive and unjust regime, and the British military as the primary agent of oppression and injustice of the Catholic population in Nothern Ireland, but the IRA committed atrocious acts of violence not just against political and military targets but against civilian ones as well.

And Peter King was apparently all for such violence, and all for what the IRA was about. Should he not be held to account for what the IRA did? Either way, he should not be lecturing Obama about how to conduct the war on terror, not least when all he has to offer is stupidity.

Unholy and Anti-American Trifecta

By Capt. Fogg

The latest proof that "Obama is tearing apart the fabric of America" as Sean "Insanity" Hannity recently observed, hit my in-box with a time stamp only minutes ahead of Urban Legends refutation of the e-mail claiming that our president was the first to hit the "unholy and Anti-American Trifecta." It's claimed he failed to show up at the Army Navy game, or to attend any Christmas religious observance, and stayed on vacation following a terrorist attack.

He must be doing rather well if this is the smelliest crock they can come up with -- and of course and as usual, it is indeed a crock. George W. Bush, the president most often described during his term as the right hand of Jesus missed 5 out of 8 of them. Woodrow Wilson didn't attend a Christmas church service in 1914, nor did Herbert Hoover in 1929, nor Lyndon Johnson in 1968. It would take some research, but I'm willing to bet this isn't unique or uncommon. Presidents haven't always been expected to be examples of public religiosity after all and Christmas was opulently celebrated at the White House this year, even if Fox took pains not to notice.

As to staying on vacation after a failed terrorist attack in which nobody but the attacker was hurt, the claim would require that he had ignored it and had spent the day on the beach, which of course isn't true. The President travels with his flying White House and a large staff, briefings were held, he ordered beefed up security and passenger screenings and ordered a review of the terrorist watch list and made statements to the public.

This being the 21st century, being in Honolulu or being in Washington DC has little bearing on the effectiveness of the president. Certainly jumping on AF 1 and heading as fast and far away from DC, as the previous president did after an actual and successful attack doesn't make the current President look all that bad, nor does the fact that the Republican broke all records for vacation time.

Please do remember, far milder criticism of Bush resulted in cries of treason from the same people who insist that the country is being destroyed and make up lies to prove it. He's here, he's President, he's black. Get the hell over it and stop trying to sabotage my country.


(Cross posted from Human voices)

On a clear day

By Capt. Fogg

"I don’t see a clear angle on the anus." Said Adam's Apple Ann Coulter to Bill O'Reilly Monday night.

Never mind Ann, I think we have a very good angle on an anus right here.


Objecting to the idea of Body scanners at airports, Ann insisted they wouldn't be effective because you can't look up people's rectums or under their foreskins, so those would be a great place to hide bombs. Of course Muslims circumcise their sons but that's OK, nobody expects sanity from Ann and her fans wouldn't know sanity -- or an asshole -- if they saw it.

Terrorism gone wrong

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Presumably these guys weren't the jihadist A-squad.

CNN:

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Fourteen suspected terrorists died Tuesday night when the bus they rigged with explosives blew up prematurely, police said.

The explosion occurred as the suspects were riding the bus in the province of Kunduz, said police chief Abdul Raziq Yaqobi.

Yaqobi said the suspects wanted to attack Afghan police or foreign soldiers.

Do they still get the virgins?

Thunder and lightning

By Carl

Barack Obama showed some stones yesterday.

This shouldn't be news. I suspect the reason it is is the last administration was in woefully short supply of stones, particularly when it made mistakes. "Heckuva job, Brownie!"

After an earlier meeting with his security advisers, President Obama said US intelligence services had enough information to place the Nigerian suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, on a no-fly list, but had failed to connect the dots, adding: "That's not acceptable, and I will not tolerate it".

I should point out that the only person who suffered any consequences of the 9-11 terrorist attacks was Sibel Edmonds. Indeed, the only admission by anyone in authority in the Bush administration with respect to the 9-11 tragedy was from Condi Rice, which she called a "failure of imagination".

As if terrorists bringing four planes down a month after the infamous August 6 PDB was like the release of "Avatar".

But I digress.

President Obama's point yesterday, that we had all the pieces but no one to put the puzzle together, was supposed to be solved by the Department of Homeland Security, set up by "President" Bush and alowed to squander seven years of financing to put on a dog and pony show of protecting Americans' security. We were given rainbows, told tweezers and nail scissors were deadly weapons (perhaps they anticipated an attack by an army of Jackie Chan clones), and asked to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting.

Instead of putting together an infrastructure that would in real time share information between agencies and prevent a lone terrorist from boarding a plane loaded down with explosives. Yes, Bush and his team stopped Richard Reid (for want of a lighter, admittedly on the "no-fly" list. Too bad Reid wasn't.), and then rested on their laurels.

Bush and Rove et al spent those last seven years wetting their pants trying to get us to wet ours, with continual incidents of false flag terror alerts (timed in election cycles, no less).

President Obama's inference, that intelligent people are now running the intelligence services so let's cut the crap, is an even better reaction than expected. Had Abdulmutallab (and I thought Ahmadinejad was hard to spell!) succeeded, I would hope the implication that heads would roll would be carrid out, starting with his own Cabinet pick, Janet Napolitano, who now has to work hard to persuade Americans she can handle what on the surface seems to be a job cut out for her. I'm sure the details are far more complex, however.

2009 was a difficult year for Obama, even tho the end showed glimmers of an administration that can reverse the deep troubles this nation is in. If this kick-off to campaign year 2010 is any indication, this should be a good year for Obama and the Democrats.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Will Ford challenge Gillibrand in New York?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to the Times, "Harold Ford Jr., the former congressman from Tennessee, is weighing a bid to unseat Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand in this fall's Democratic primary."

I wasn't exactly much of a Gillibrand fan when Gov. David Paterson appointed her to replace Hillary Clinton last year, but my sense since then is that she's done fairly well.

And how is she any worse than Ford? (She certainly has her colleague Chuck Schumer's support, and that's huge.)

Does New York need yet another carpetbagger, and a centrist one at that, one with close ties to Wall Street and who is being pushed to run by prominent, NYC-oriented donors and insiders who don't like -- and look down upon -- Gillibrand's upstate credentials?

Well, that will be for New Yorkers to say, should Ford run, but my sense is that sticking with Gillibrand might not be such a bad thing.

France moves to ban "psychological violence" in marriage

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Britain's Daily Mail:

Married couples in France could end up with criminal records for insulting each other during arguments.

Under a new law, France is to become the first country in the world to ban 'psychological violence' within marriage.

The law would apply to cohabiting couples and to both men and women.

Would this mean no trash talking during fantasy football season?

While it seems initially like a good idea, and while real "psychological violence" can be incredibly abusing and ought to be addressed, I have my concerns. Who is to say what amounts to such violence and what doesn't? That is, who is to say what is criminal and what isn't? Couples fight and shout and say things that shouldn't be said, after all, and sometimes things can get nasty. That's normal, isn't it? Yes, it can go too far, but the risk is that the law could be far too broadly applied, with the state intruding into people's private lives, including into their bedrooms, with heavy-handed Orwellianism.

So while a man or woman should probably have some legal recourse in the event he or she is abused in this way, and while there may be occasion for the state to intervene with criminal charges, this is a delicate area where the state should be careful to tread. The intent may be admirable, but this law, it seems to me, fails to account for the nature of the intense, intimate relationships between consenting adults (if one partner doesn't consent, that's another matter). To the extent that the law is even implementable, it's a potential quagmire of abuse and misuse.

Why conservatives don't like Avatar

By Michael J.W. Stickings

"'Avatar' arouses conservatives' ire," reports the L.A. Times.

Because, of course, conservatives are big on white-on-non-white colonialism and raping the environment, and so hate the movie for its liberalism (because, apparently, it's objectionable to treat non-whites like human beings and to preserve the natural environment as sustainable of human life), and many of them, including those quoted in the article, are cultural simpletons and ideological extremists who wave the flag and push the cross with oppressive glee and domineering, hegemonic enthusiasm.

Seriously.

Sen. Byron Dorgan announces retirement

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) has announced that he will not stand for re-election this year, "creating a major pickup opportunity for Republicans," as Chris Cillizza puts it.

North Dakota is a solidly red state, after all -- despite Dorgan's solid hold on the seat since '92 -- and whoever the Republican nominee is (probably Gov. John Hoeven) will be a heavy favourite to be Dorgan's successor.

So is this "un-spinnably bad news for the Democrats," as Nate Silver puts it? It's hard to think otherwise at this point.

And with a loss likely, Democrats will just have to look elsewhere to pick up a seat to maintain the status quo.

**********

Dorgan isn't the only Democrat stepping down this year. As Cillizza is reporting, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd is "expected to announce he will not seek re-election" at a press conference later today.

The difference here is that the Democrats should hold the seat, with State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal Dodd's likely successor. (Given Dodd's deep unpopularity in his home state, Blumenthal should be a stronger Democratic candidate anyway.)

**********

But back to Dorgan. Through my connections at the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, I published two guest posts by him this past fall, and I encourage you to check them out:

-- Inspector General to investigate Army's response to exposure of U.S. troops to deadly chemicals in Iraq; and

-- Senators answer video questions on health insurance reform.

He was at times too centrist and Republican-friendly for my liking, but he was solidly liberal on many of the issues that really matter, and his retirement will be a loss both for the Senate and for the Democratic Party.

Tiger, Tiger, burning bright

By Carl


In the forest, in the...nude? Well, sort of...:

(CBS) While Tiger Woods remains holed up in seclusion more than a month after his Thanksgiving Day crash, never-before-seen images of the world's No. 1 golfer have surfaced in this month's Vanity Fair, reports CBS News correspondent Jeff Glor.

A bare-chested Woods graces the cover of the magazine -- Woods holding a dumbbell in each hand.

The shots, taken by celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz back in January of 2006, give a rare glimpse into the life of the world's most guarded athlete.

The words I've heard bandied about here are "intense, dedicated, raw".

In other words, practically (save for "dedicated") the opposite of his persona.

There's a lesson here for all of us who admire celebrities: don't.

Don't admire anyone who hires a publicist or a manager or an agent or charge d'affaires. The image you are admiring is likely not what that person really is, and if you have to aspire to a fictional character, then aspire to fiction with your eyes open. Admire Captain Kirk, or Luke Skywalker, or Tess of the D'Urbervilles.

Or admire what Woods could have been, because it's clear he is not whom he was presented to be.

I have often wondered why we swallow these images whole. Part of me thinks it goes back to the Bible, and those tales of superhuman endurance and semi-divine men and women who walked our planet and left footprints that by rights we are unworthy to follow, but who probably were human to begin with.

Even Jesus had a temper, in other words, but we are offered him as a God who was perfect, which we should aspire to even tho we are guaranteed to fail. Similarly, we conflate heroism on humans, taking a talent or small act and assuming the entire soul follows in those footsteps. And vice versa. We assume evil is evil through and through, even if simple observation of the people around us shows that people are neither good nor bad, but a mix, so even saints and devils must have a little of both.

It's clear that Woods was not the ultranice citizen of the world he claimed to be. In these photos, he shows a complete narcissistic side of himself, a man in love with being Tiger Woods, a man who gives flinchingly to others of whom he is.

Ask Elin if you don't believe that last bit. In exchange for selling his soul, his essence, he signed a bondage agreement with a wife, his sponsors and a sport that values dignity and comportment above improved play or score. The scary bit is, what's going on in that sport that is going on in other sports, that golf is not talking about openly? How different will golf's image be once the steroid and amphetamine scandals erupt from the clubhouses?

How will golf survive? It won't attract the kind of sponsors it does now, upscale investment banks and luxury cars, and it won't be able to assume an image that's more down to earth (maybe if the LPGA was forced to play in bikinis and have implants, and the PGA was forced to play in Speedos and have full contact).

And maybe it shouldn't. Golf has always tried to walk a fine line between sport and diversion. Golf is a sport the way walking is a sport: it's a fine way to pass time if you've got gobs of it to waste, but to sit and watch someone engaging in it is an even bigger waste of time. In this regard, setting up a webcam on a busy street ought to be classified as sport.

And it dumbs down the definition of sport while it debases its true nature. Fractally, this reflects in Woods' own persona. He's dumbed himself down in order to fit into a sport that denies his true nature. The most interesting comment I've heard on the entire mess was on the Today Show this morning, when some yahoo told him to show up at the Masters riding a Harley, tattoos all over his arms, unshaven, win the tournament, throw away the green jacket and hook up with the first woman he comes across in the press tent after demolishing the competition.

I concur, actually. Be who you are, Tiger. Stop pleasing everyone else around you. You are the most talented golfer on the planet, and you shouldn't have to lower yourself to some image that others have of you.

Does it really matter if you earn $100 million a year or $50 million a year? Endorsements will come simply because of the talent. It may take a while, but you're very young and eventually people will not only forgive you, they'll come to see your point of view.

Fuck redemption. Teach the world a lesson about getting the fucking sticks out of its collective ass.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Joan Rivers, national security threat

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This is rather amusing. From Think Progress:

The New York Daily News reports that comedian Joan Rivers was among the many travelers to get snared in the heightened-security frenzy that overtook airports after the December 25th failed terrorist attack. Rivers wasn't allowed on her Newark-bound flight in Costa Rica this past weekend by a "jittery Continental Airlines gate agent" who thought the two names on her passport, which reads "Joan Rosenberg AKA Joan Rivers," seemed "fishy." Rivers wrote of her experience.

"If I were going to make up an alias, I wouldn't pick Rosenberg. I'd pick Jolie or Pitt... Do terrorists wear Manolo Blahniks? I can tell you Donna Karan does not make anything that hides a bomb... I tried the tears; they didn't work. I tried reasoning. I couldn't bribe because I didn't have any money. I said 'I'm going to have a heart attack over this,' so the woman called the paramedics."

Rivers, who comes across as a pretentious bitch -- sorry, but wearing Manolo Blahniks doesn't make you a special person -- ultimately made it to San Jose, Costa Rica's capital, where she caught a flight home. Now, sure, there's a lot of craziness over security these days, heightened against post-12/25, and I certainly think a more sensible approach is preferable to suspect-everyone paranoia and panic.

But I'd say the system seems to be working just fine, don't you? Rivers, after all, is a threat to good taste and common decency everywhere. I'm just surprised it's her name the gate agent found "fishy." Why not her lack of facial expression beyond the one that's frozen there? Why not that she looks like an unnatural freak? Why not that she calls herself a comedian but isn't, and has rarely ever been, even remotely funny?

All good questions. Maybe she should be sent to Yemen for questioning.

Fox News likes spanking children

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Fox News -- surprise, surprise -- is playing up a new study purportedly showing that "[y]oung children spanked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit."

That is to say, that corporal punishment is good for you -- so just bend over and take it. This, presumably, is the message, firm and clear, that Fox wants you to take away from this.

I must add, though, that the study was conducted by Marjorie Gunnoe, a psychology professor at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Calvin College is a conservative Christian college:

We pledge fidelity to Jesus Christ, offering our hearts and lives to do God's work in God's world,

the college states in its Mission Statement. It's a college full of Republicans. President Bush even gave the Commencement Address there in 2005.

I must add that John Calvin, after whom this college was named, was hardly known to be soft with respect to violence and punishment.

I must add that perhaps America's leading proponent of corporal punishment of children is James Dobson, a leading evangelical Christian.

Finally, I must add that other studies refute the results of this one. In 2002, for example, a psychologist at Columbia University, Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff published "a large-scale meta-analysis of 88 studies" on relationship between corporal punishment and positive/negative behaviours in children. As George Holden of the University of Texas put in in a commentary that accompanied the study, Gershoff's findings "reflect the growing body of evidence indicating that corporal punishment does no good and may even cause harm."

I cannot comment specifically on Gunnoe's study, nor on what motivates her. She may be doing what she thinks is "God's work in God's world," or she may be a serious academic engaging in serious, meaningful work. (There are some seemingly serious academics who have disagreed with Gershoff's findings, and I suppose we ought to take their findings seriously, even if we oppose corporal punishment.) I just find the above connections rather curious.

What I don't find curious is Fox's enthusiasm for the story, and for the findings of Gunnoe's study, given its enthusiasm for brutality (i.e., bombing, torturing) generally.

Between Iran and a hard place

Guest post by Ali Ezzatyar and Bryan A. Tollin 

Ali Ezzatyar is a U.S.-trained corporate lawyer currently practising in Paris. He has taught courses in Political Economy in the International and Area Studies Department of the University of California at Berkeley and has previously published articles about Iran in the L.A. Times.

Bryan A. Tollin is a corporate lawyer currently practising in New York City. He has taught courses in Political Economy in the International and Area Studies Department and in Comparative Politics in the Political Science Department of the University of California at Berkeley.

**********

The engagement crowd is sure feeling uneasy these days. President Obama's message of engagement with the Islamic Republic went over well with many Americans before his election. Recent events in Iran and a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan (and to a certain degree Iraq), though, have tried the patience of Obama supporters and emboldened the neocon crowd that advocates for more direct intervention. At this critical juncture, where relations with Iran are at a boil, it is imperative that engagement with Iran continue to be pursued.

After application of the Bush Doctrine (broadly interpreted as the right to wage preemptive war) failed in Iraq, there seemed to be general agreement about how the next American administration should approach the Middle East's biggest wild card. The process of integrating Iran into the global community with diplomacy and incentives was viewed as the best hope for substantive political change.

Much like Obama himself, however, many of the so-called "doves" in the U.S. foreign policy crowd now find themselves in a difficult policy predicament. While the Islamic Republic has always had fewer fans than naysayers, never before the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did the notion of its illegitimacy carve out such prominence in the psyche of America and the world.

The recent electoral fraud in Iran may have brought about a shift in the balance of power between engagement enthusiasts and isolation advocates. Reactionary measures such as further sanctions and even intervention have made their way back into the discussion. For the doves, general sentiment that they were doing the right thing by Iran's people in supporting Obama's policy has turned to doubt, and the notion that they may be undermining Iranians inside Iran who were against the Ahmadinejad government has set in. Consider recent chants by green crowds in Iran's capital that Obama is either "with us or against us."

Productive diplomatic strategy must take into account Iranian psyche and historical context: Iran already suffers from a highly contentious diplomatic history with the U.S. compounded by damaging U.S. sanctions that reach back decades.

The Iranian people have not forgotten America's involvement in the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, a democratically-elected nationalist who took back control of Iranian oil fields from the British Empire, nor the brutal regime that subsequently replaced him, again with U.S. support. And while Iran has had success in recent years adapting to U.S. sanctions, such sanctions have tended more to penalize the population than yield a turnabout in political behavior by the ruling class. There is no shortage of replacement customers in the global marketplace for Iranian crude -- the revenue for which flows directly to the state. Banning the import of Persian rugs and caviar, on the other hand, seems merely to put seamstresses and fishermen out of work. The dilemma of how to proceed, both for the U.S. government and for those in favor of engagement is a challenging one, but the fundamental calculation for America remains unaffected.

President Obama's preference for engagement was not and should not be premised on the popular legitimacy of the Iranian regime. The central consideration is a function of who yields power in Iran. American efforts to court the opposition and isolate the conservatives have failed time and again since the inception of the revolution, from Iran-Contra onwards.

Too much American pressure inclining towards confrontation could further set back recent inroads the Islamic Republic has made with the international community and give Iran the excuse it is seeking to back out of multi-lateral negotiations on disarmament. Having been caught red-handed illegally enriching uranium and subsequently pressured into accepting a deal backed by its ally Russia to export Iranian uranium, the regime is backpedaling, fearful that its diplomatic leverage will vanish along with its ability to threaten the surrounding region with nuclear weapons. Now that internal dissatisfaction with the regime is building to a head, the U.S. must avoid blowing a good thing by not channeling its inner "Cheney" when, invariably, the diplomatic path becomes bumpy.

Ironically, the growing sense of isolation the Iranian regime is feeling both inside and outside of Iran presents a golden opportunity for America. Never before has Iran seen this level of popular discontent paired with a splintering clerical establishment. In turn, the upper-strata of Iran's power structure, including the Supreme Leadership and the Presidency, will need to find a way to restore some measure of confidence and legitimacy. Continuing the sort of brutal suppression tactics the regime has employed of late, witnessed around the world thanks to the same modern technologies that have enabled the opposition in the first place, will only serve to erode further the regime's clutch on power.

Advocates for change should continue to support President Obama's policy of engagement with Iran. As the Green opposition movement's support grows in legitimacy and pressures the regime internally, America's role should not change. That role is to demonstrate a willingness to welcome Iran as a stakeholder in the international community, building consensus so that the international community speaks with one voice to Iran and clearly communicates its expectations. Such an engagement strategy would make accusations by the Iranian regime of external interference ring hollow abroad and leave it nothing to hide behind at home.

What up, Parker Griffith?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So Parker Griffith, an Alabama Democrat in the House of Representatives, switches to the Republican Party and pretty much right away loses both his consulting team and his entire staff. As his now-former chief of staff put it:

I appreciate Congressman Griffith's being a very dedicated congressman. But we believe he made a mistake -- a well-intentioned but misguided mistake that is not in the interest of the great people of North Alabama who elected him a year ago as a Democrat. As his staff, we wish him only the best, and we all remain committed to the citizens of the Tennessee Valley. But we cannot, in good conscience, continue working for him.

That's probably putting it nicely. As a conservative Democrat, Griffith likely thought that a switch made sense, not least given the possibility of losing his seat to a Republican in the next election. But now he seems to be all on his own. Steve Benen:

It hasn't quite been two weeks since Griffith joined the GOP, but by any reasonable measure, the transition hasn't exactly been a smooth one. He's lost his staff, his campaign team, several campaign contributions from those who feel betrayed by his switch, and his ability to influence legislation in advance of the election. On the other side of the aisle, Griffith still has a phalanx of right-wing primary challengers; he hasn't received an official endorsement from the NRCC; and far-right activists in his district are just as anxious to defeat him now as they were when he was a Democrat.

I suspect Griffith expected this to be easier.

Yes, probably so. But for a guy who (as Steve notes, referencing Ed Kilgore) ran "in 2008 to join Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi in D.C." and who turned on his party and supporters, including his own staff, after just a year in office, he's just reaping what he has sown.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Allen Quist

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This pretty much speaks for itself:

Allen Quist, a Republican who is seeking to defeat Rep. Tim Walz in southern Minnesota's First Congressional District, told attendees of the Wabasha County Republicans Christmas Party in mid-December that beating the "radical" liberals in Washington, D.C., is a bigger battle than beating terrorism.

"Our country is being destroyed. Every generation has had to fight the fight for freedom... Terrorism? Yes. That's not the big battle," he said. "The big battle is in D.C. with the radicals. They aren't liberals. They are radicals. Obama, Pelosi, Walz: They're not liberals, they're radicals. They are destroying our country."

Quist also railed against the health care reform bill. "This is the most insidious, evil piece of legislation I have ever seen in my life... Every one of us has to be totally committed to killing this travesty... I have to kill this bill."

Quist, who has a background as a religious right figure, has been working to align himself with the Tea Party movement.

I wonder if all those who lost loved ones on 9/11, and then in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, realize that Democrats are the real enemy, not al Qaeda.

Funny, though, eh? When Democrats criticized Bush after 9/11, Republicans called them traitors. But when Republicans like this moron not just criticize Obama but hurl completely unfounded attacks and accusations both at Obama and at leading Democrats, well, that's just fine.

Isn't attacking the president like this akin to giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

Now, to be fair, this is just one Republican, and a rather insignificant one at that. But make no mistake, he is far from alone in thinking this way, and in thinking these things, and we've seen how Republicans, significant ones, seem to put much more effort into and take much greater sense of purpose from attacking Obama and the Democrats than they do working constructively to combat terrorism. Recently, some conservatives even seemed to express open glee at the prospect of a terrorist attack on the U.S. on Obama's watch, seeking to score political points in response to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's near-successful underwear bombing. Did they wish the attack had succeeded? No, maybe not. But their overriding concern seems to be partisan gain, not the security of the American people.

And so I take Quist to be representative of his party, which, lest we forget, has become an extremist party of the paranoid right, populist-theocratic in orientation and viciously illiberal and anti-liberal -- and un-American -- in ideological and political outlook.

This is what Quick would bring to Washington, where he'd join up with like-minded fellow Republicans who have taken it upon themselves not just to kill health-care reform -- and it should hardly surprise us that Quick is knee-jerkingly against it -- but to turn their weapons on their own government.

Tea and loathing

By Mustang Bobby.

David Brooks rattles off all the reasons why the tea-baggers are the movement of the new decade -- their belief that "big government, big business, big media and the affluent professionals are merging to form self-serving oligarchy — with bloated government, unsustainable deficits, high taxes and intrusive regulation" -- and that this is bad news for the Democrats and the Obama administration. This in spite of the fact that the aforementioned qualities are all hallmarks of every Republican administration since the end of World War II.

The Obama administration is premised on the conviction that pragmatic federal leaders with professional expertise should have the power to implement programs to solve the country’s problems. Many Americans do not have faith in that sort of centralized expertise or in the political class generally.

Then, in typical Brooksian fashion, he comes up with a gross generalization that is supposed to sound like sage wisdom based on historical perspectives.

Moreover, the tea party movement has passion. Think back on the recent decades of American history — the way the hippies defined the 1960s; the feminists, the 1970s; the Christian conservatives, the 1980s. American history is often driven by passionate outsiders who force themselves into the center of American life.

If you accept the premise that those movements defined those decades, then you have to accept that they had the desired results that those movements were seeking. Yet the hippies of the 1960's resulted in the election of Richard Nixon, the feminists of the 1970's helped elect Ronald Reagan, and the Christian conservatives of the 1980's got us Bill Clinton. So if we follow Mr. Brooks' examples, the tea party movement of the 00's will backfire and leave us with the pragmatism of the Obama administration.

In the near term, the tea party tendency will dominate the Republican Party. It could be the ruin of the party, pulling it in an angry direction that suburban voters will not tolerate. But don’t underestimate the deep reservoirs of public disgust. If there is a double-dip recession, a long period of stagnation, a fiscal crisis, a terrorist attack or some other major scandal or event, the country could demand total change, creating a vacuum that only the tea party movement and its inheritors would be in a position to fill.

All of those problems were either caused or exacerbated by Republican leadership in both the White House and the Congress. Laying all of these at the feet of President Obama is a convenient way of of ginning up a rally, but it's not as if he made them all happen the minute he was inaugurated. To his credit, Mr. Obama has been candid about accepting the fact that he and his administration have to deal with them rather than blow sunshine up our asses with prating about "Morning in America." And it also tells you a great deal about the people who were responsible for making the mess in the first place; getting all twitterpated about why it's taking so long for someone else to clean up after them. The tea party movement has been largely created by corporate media interests and the GOP as a ratings booster and a distraction from the devastation that they caused --"Oh, look over there!" -- and used the primal instincts of fear and loathing of the "other" and the unknown to make it work. It's not that hard to do; there's always a willing audience for the conspiracy theories and the self-indulgent mantra of "what's in it for me."

Mr. Brooks is right; the tea-baggers will dominate the GOP and could make life very difficult for them, but he's whistling past the graveyard if he thinks it's just for the near term. After all, look what the hippies did for the Democrats in the late 1960's; to this day, the "dirty f***ing hippies" define the party to some, and the tea-baggers are notoriously proud of their fractious leadership and borderline racism. With any luck, will it take just as long for the GOP to shed the likes of the loons like Michele Bachmann and Dick Armey as it did for the Democrats to go from Abbie Hoffman to Barack Obama.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Truth will out

By Carl

It may take twenty years, but eventually, truth will out:

The year 1989 changed the world. It moved us from a world of division and nuclear blackmail to one of new opportunity and unprecedented prosperity. It set the stage for our contemporary era: globalization, the triumph of free markets, the spread of democracy. It ushered in the great global economic boom that lifted billions out of poverty around the world and established America as the one and only superpower.

Yet it was a dangerous triumph, chiefly because we claimed it for our own and scarcely bothered to fully understand how this great change came to pass. We told ourselves stick-figure parables of defiance and good-versus-evil triumph, summed up in Ronald Reagan's clarion call: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

From the vantage point of 20 years, we should be wiser. The reality is that "our" victory in the Cold War was not what we thought it was, nor did it happen the way we think it did. Most painfully, the myths we spun about it have hurt the world and ourselves.

It was, in truth, a Pyrrhic victory that took more than 40 years to come about, and was more about the edificial nature of the Soviet Union and its weak economy than about America's "strong defense"...altho to be fair that had a large part to play in the drama, certainly in terms of speeding it up.

Meyer raises some interesting points beyond this obvious trope, that the United States and in particular the Reagan administration have been too quick and too self-centered in picking up all the credit.

Indeed, many myths, like populist revolt overthrowing the Warsaw Pact, come into question.

The central point is, the Soviet Union was doomed from the beginning. It was really a matter of time and economics.

Just as the fall of America was ordained in the early days of its creation: one nation was not under God, but several disparate islands of view. White, black, male, female, rich, poor, these groups, history shows, cannot all live under the same roof forever. It really is just a matter of time, as history demonstrates.

But note Meyer's third fallacy that came out of 1989:

A third myth is the most dangerous: the idea of the United States as emancipator, a liberator of repressed peoples. This crusading brand of American triumphalism has become gospel over the past two decades in certain foreign policy circles, especially among neoconservatives.

He has a point: every war we've engaged in, with the exception of one, since 1989 has been a patrician war of "freedom". The sole exception? Preventing ethnic cleansing in the former Warsaw Pact state of Yugoslavia.

Indeed, many of our wars for freedom have ended up oppressing sectors of population worse than before we arrived to fight (the Kurds after Gulf War I spring to mind), and most, if not all, have left the nation we've battled in far worse for the wear and war. This lesson is being demonstrated now in Iraq (and eventually Afghanistan) to our utter embarassment.

Imagine if we had invested that postwar "peace dividend" in our infrastructure, or education, or job retraining, or healthcare, and freed Americans instead of people who meant us no harm, caused us no harm, and whom we could have safely ignored (obviously, the Taliban and Al Qaeda do not fit this profile).

Imagine the trillions we would have shored up our economy with. Imagine actually going in and winning a quick war against Al Qaeda because we weren't tamping down Somalia in the 90s (or worrying ourselves over which orifice of what woman our President was filling, but I digress...).

It's a shame that it takes history to give us wisdom, that we do not learn from the mistakes of our ancestors or even from our elders, who fought and beat a hegemonic empire, likely the most powerful on the planet, to win our freedom. Practically by ourselves (the French helped).

Wouldn't we be ashamed if some other nation, say, Italy, came here and fought for our freedom for us?

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Nigeria upset over new U.S. security measures

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to the AFP, Nigeria has "branded new security measures for passengers flying to the United States unfair and said they amounted to discrimination against its 150 million people." Nigeria, home of failed underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, is one of 14 countries from which all air travellers to the U.S. will be "subjected to extra checks including body pat-downs."

I tend to agree with Nigerian Information Minister Dora Akunyili that "Abdulmutallab's behaviour is not reflective of Nigerians and should therefore not be used as a yardstick to judge all Nigerians." After all, "[h]e was not influenced in Nigeria. He was not recruited or trained in Nigeria. He was not supported whatsoever in Nigeria."

Besides, if terrorists want to enter the U.S. by air, they just won't try to do so from one of those 14 countries. So, yes, this seems like fairly arbitrary discrimination. I understand that Nigeria is one of those "countries of interest" identified by the Transport Security Administration (TSA) -- as it isn't a state-sponsor of terrorism -- but whether it actually deserves to be is another matter, and it probably shouldn't be, unless the U.S. wants to broaden its definition of "countries of interest" to pretty much any non-western country. Although, again, given that Islamic terrorists have been active in countries like Spain and the U.K., where should the line be drawn? It seems to be that a more nuanced approach to fighting terrorism is preferable to broad vilifications of entire countries.

Then again, maybe the Nigerians should stop sending all those "you've won a billion dollars, send all your personal information" spam e-mails if they want to win some goodwill from Americans (and the rest of us).

And, while they're at it, maybe they should stop selling cat food to the prawns in exchange for weapons. That's really not helping.

White House: "caught off guard" by terror criticism

By Creature

Seriously, folks, is there not a TV in the White House tuned to FOX News. Cheney's been itching to pounce for a year.

What a field day for the heat

By Capt. Fogg

Tourism is big business in Florida and in these weak-dollar days, much of it is from abroad. Of course it's not what it used to be and one of the reasons I've heard from regular visitors from Europe is the hassle of entry. Fingerprinting, revealing financial records, confiscation of computers are amongst the stories I hear and I've met people who have their Florida Winter houses and condos up for sale, because they're tired of being treated as insurgents.

Arriving on the Queen Mary in Queens' Grill class, you may feel in the lap of luxury, but one foot in the good old USA and you may feel that bad old cold war Soviet bloc vibe. It's going to get worse and yes, it's because the terrorists have won again without having to blow up anything.

General Thomas McInerney USAF (Ret.) said on Fox this weekend that we should strip search Muslim men entering the US and he may get his wish.

"every individual flying into the US from anywhere in the world traveling from or through nations that are state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of interest will be required to go through enhanced screening."

says the TSA. All passengers flying into the United States from abroad will be subject to random screening. Starting today, there will be a lot of patting down of brown behinds because although there are only four countries listed as "State Sponsors of Terrorism:" Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria, an unnamed Administration official told Politico today that passengers from other countries like Nigeria, Pakistan and Yemen will be searched as well. Think that's going to stop them? I don't either. One would-be attacker with a Canadian or UK passport will force us to put everyone up against he wall - and what about an American citizen with a surname like Jones -- or McVeigh? Think the TSA is relieved we won't be hosting the Olympics in Chicago? Me too.

Our policy of acting incrementally and only in response to specific provocation makes it all too easy and particularly when no plot need actually succeed in doing anything but costing us more and making us panic. Why not simply recruit some passionate fool and give him a defective device when there's less chance of retaliation and it still hurts us so much? Face it, terror is the objective of terrorism and they just won again.

(cross posted from Human Voices)

The Obama-Biden photo idiotically deconstructed 'round the conservative blogosphere

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Really? This is how conservatives are wasting their (and our) time? (Over)analyzing a photo of Obama and Biden, coming up with ridiculous interpretations to attack the president?

Here's the photo.

Glenn Reynolds tells us to "[a]nalyze the body language."

And then: "No, I don't think Obama’s facial expression is just a fluke of when the shutter went off. His eyes aren't closed, as some with poor displays seem to think."

And then: "Obama's showing contempt -- or so it seems to me -- for the guy he picked as his running mate."

Yeah, so it seems to him -- so it seems through a lens of vicious right-wing partisanship. This ranks with the stupidest posts you'll find from conservative bloggers, and that's saying something. (Really, Glenn, you think you're saying something intelligent here?)

Andrew Sullivan is right, this is "photo-smearing Obama." Now, I don't see this as a racial/racist issues, with Obama "condescending to a white man," as Andrew thinks the conservative reading might be, and I don't necessarily think that's what (all) conservatives see here.

For what's funny is that there's no consistency to what conservatives are saying. Reynolds again: "It's interesting to read the comments, where what people see is very different depending on who's posting. Well, Obama did say that he had cultivated the ability to be a blank screen onto which people could project things.

So, then, what? He takes a cheap shot at Obama here -- couldn't a photo of anyone be "a blank screen"? -- but the point is that different people have different perspectives, and different interpretations. So why bother making much ado about a single photo, telling us to interpret body language and facial expression in complete absence of context?

Thankfully, there is a tiny shred of common sense on the right. As my friend Ed Morrissey puts it: "I'm sure that all is well between the two, and that this is just a fluke of photography." Now, he goes on to rip Biden, who from all accounts is a major player behind the scenes in the White House, and a trusted advisor to the president, but, he concludes, "why not have a little fun with this?"

Well, fine. We've all done those write-your-own-caption things before -- and this photo lends itself to that. So, then, have some fun, and don't try to make the photo mean something terribly profound, something to use as a partisan weapon, something you "analyze" to fit your partisan prejudices. For if you do, like Reynolds and others do, acting like a postmodernist without any qualifications whatsoever, without any bases for your "analyses," you'll just end up embarrassing yourself, proving yourself to be the desperate, demented partisan hack you really are.