Uzbekistan Evicts US from Airbase
we were just talking about this in the comments to this post.
i told you so.
...and andy asks some interesting questions about what this will bring over at the argus.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Friday, July 29, 2005
priceless
i just read the transcript of steve reynolds' (aka spin dentist's) appearance on MSNBC's "the situation." as i mentioned yesterday, richard cranium (another member of the all spin zone) has been rattling the media cage about the disappearance of latoyia figueroa.
anyway, steve's part on the MSNBC transcript doesn't start until almost halfway down the rather long transcript. i suggest you do an in-text search (ctrl-f on a PC or open apple-f on a mac) and search for latoyia figueroa. that should bring you right to the beginning.
the whole interview is quite funny, especially if you accidentally start a little early like i did:
then after steve is introduced as "a man who believes race is playing a major role in the media coverage" steve utterly refuses to be tucker's monkey.
later, tucker tries again to put words in steve's mouth:
------
FULL DISCLOSURE: i know steve. he's one of my drinking liberally drinking buddies. i hope he doesn't mind my using his real name for this post. i figure he basically outed himself when he posted a link to the transcript in this post.
...speaking of which, go read steve's post to see his own perspective of how the interview went. i hadn't read the bit below the fold when i wrote this post. now i have. you should too.
anyway, steve's part on the MSNBC transcript doesn't start until almost halfway down the rather long transcript. i suggest you do an in-text search (ctrl-f on a PC or open apple-f on a mac) and search for latoyia figueroa. that should bring you right to the beginning.
the whole interview is quite funny, especially if you accidentally start a little early like i did:
CARLSON: You-- you're a great man, G. Gordon Liddy.that part cracks me up. "you're a great man, G. Gordon Liddy" is a perfect way to set the tone for the whole interview.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Still to come, a tale two of missing young women. Natalee Holloway and Latoyia Figueroa still haven't been found. Coming up next, I'll talk to a man who believes race is playing a major role in the media coverage of those two stories.
then after steve is introduced as "a man who believes race is playing a major role in the media coverage" steve utterly refuses to be tucker's monkey.
CARLSON: ...Now, Mr. Reynolds, summarize for me why you think there's been this disparity in coverage between the Holloway case and now the Figueroa case?so much for tucker's intro. luckily, he doesn't give up all that easily
STEVE REYNOLDS, BLOGGER, ALLSPINZONE.COM: Well, West Philly isn't quite as exotic as Aruba. And I'm not likely to take a vacation there. But Latoyia Figueroa is one of our neighbors. Philadelphia is a town that gives back. We wanted that kind of coverage that was given to Natalee Holloway to be given to Latoyia Figueroa.
CARLSON: But...
REYNOLDS: That's all there is. Now, is it race? Is it socioeconomic reasons that she didn't get covered? I'll leave it to you. You're the media expert.
CARLSON: I mean, it seems--it seems--well, I suppose you watch the press probably more carefully than I do. It seems to me obvious that one some in one of these women, Natalee Holloway, comes from a more affluent background than Ms. Figueroa does. And I think it's obvious that does play a factor, that the people who make these decisions about news coverage decide their viewers have more in common with Natalee Holloway than with Latoyia Figueroa. I think you're right. However...this tucker guy is hilarious. first, he says that steve pays more attention to the media than he does. so then steve illustrates tucker's point by quoting tucker's own words back at him--words in which tucker himself seemed to acknowledge that race may have been a factor.
REYNOLDS: Last night...
CARLSON: Yes.
REYNOLDS: ... you said that you don't know whether it's a matter of race, right or wrong, whether it's a matter of race. Probably wrong. Those are your words. And I would say, you're one of the people in the media who makes these decisions, right or wrong. Probably wrong.
CARLSON: Actually, that's--that's--that's not at all what I said. I said...
REYNOLDS: Actually, I just read those words.
CARLSON: I have them--I just read them right before I came on. REYNOLDS: OK.
later, tucker tries again to put words in steve's mouth:
CARLSON: Well, you get the sense reading blogs on this subject that there's a belief on the left that the press, owned and run by corporations, is intentionally ignoring the plight of the downtrodden as a policy, and that that is somehow—you know, it's part of some right-wing conspiracy.but my absolute favorite part comes at the very end of the interview, just after tucker and steve seem to agree that the media should focus on highfalutin news stories and not just sensationalism:
REYNOLDS: No, I wouldn't--I wouldn't say that.
I would say that it's a marketing decision by the press, likely, and that is--just as you said earlier, that it's probably, they--they gauge that a middle-class or upper middle-class white woman missing is likely going to get more viewers more excited.
CARLSON: All right.
REYNOLDS: And--and we--I would speak for myself. I would say, that's not what the press should be doing. The press should be reporting news. They shouldn't be trying to get viewers.
CARLSON: Well, actually, I--I absolutely agree with you. I do agree with you. And, in fact, I think it's disproportionate and it's not representing reality. And on that...isn't that last bit priceless?
REYNOLDS: Good.
CARLSON: ... we agree.
REYNOLDS: We agree.
CARLSON: But to get high-handed and say, your job is to report the news, indeed, we do report the news, including this.
So, we sure appreciate, Mr. Reynolds, you joining us.
REYNOLDS: Thanks.
CARLSON: Coming up, bare-knuckle, no-holds-barred, steel-cage brawls are making a huge comeback in the Midwest. Great entertainment or an assault on the senses, that's a question to be answered by the Outsider next.
------
FULL DISCLOSURE: i know steve. he's one of my drinking liberally drinking buddies. i hope he doesn't mind my using his real name for this post. i figure he basically outed himself when he posted a link to the transcript in this post.
...speaking of which, go read steve's post to see his own perspective of how the interview went. i hadn't read the bit below the fold when i wrote this post. now i have. you should too.
frist-flop
so frist now supports the federal financing of stem cell research. why, just a couple weeks ago republican sites were describing him as "oppos[ing] expanded research" on stem cells.
does this mean that frist has decided that, after going to bat for the christian right on the schiavo matter, he won't lose their support if he turns against them on this issue? or does it mean that he has decided that the christian right is not the kingmaker it is usually treated as being in the republican party? or does it mean that the man has suddenly grown a heart, like the grinch when he hears the hoos of hooville sing?
damned if i know
does this mean that frist has decided that, after going to bat for the christian right on the schiavo matter, he won't lose their support if he turns against them on this issue? or does it mean that he has decided that the christian right is not the kingmaker it is usually treated as being in the republican party? or does it mean that the man has suddenly grown a heart, like the grinch when he hears the hoos of hooville sing?
damned if i know
friday music download
i actually did something over at LA's site. i submitted a song for the friday music download. any guesses which one i submitted?
Thursday, July 28, 2005
القاعدة في العراق
sam graham-felsen has an interesting story on alternet about the issue of whether the u.s. is building permanent military bases in iraq. it seems pretty evident to me that the bush administration probably wants a permanent military presence in the country. after all, the u.s. ended it's 12 year military presence in saudi arabia two years ago, and i don't think we're all that welcome to come back. it's also fairly evident that if we try to build a permanent base in iraq, we will probably lose the iraq war. maybe that's why no one in the bush administration says that much about the issue.
almost six months ago, larry diamond, former advisor to paul bremer when he was the head of the coalition provisional authority, said the following in a speech at UCLA:
which is strange because it really is an important question. the argument over whether or not the u.s. government should set a timetable for withdrawal of u.s. troops from iraq presupposes that the ultimate goal is withdrawal. whether u.s. forces will leave should really be settled before we start debating when they should go.
permanent bases also run counter to the notion that the new iraq is sovereign or democratic. if the country really were sovereign, whether u.s. forces stay there permanently is really not our government's decision to make. and if iraq became a fully democratic country, i think it's clear that an iraqi government that reflected the views of its people would not tolerate a long-term foreign military presence. (though it looks like no one has polled it, so i my impression that foreign troops are deeply unpopular in iraq is purely anecdotal)
the permanent base question goes right to the heart of the basic policy questions about iraq: what exactly are we trying to accomplish there? and when are we done? if the goal is to establish a permanent presence in iraq then the answer to the second question is "never." but at least we'll be able to find al qaeda in iraq.
almost six months ago, larry diamond, former advisor to paul bremer when he was the head of the coalition provisional authority, said the following in a speech at UCLA:
One of the things that is necessary to wind down the insurgency and create a much more hopeful, enabling environment for the development of democracy and even political stability in Iraq is for Iraqis, and particularly those Iraqis who are involved with or sympathizing with the insurgency, to become convinced that we really are going to leave. That the American military occupation of Iraq is going to end and that they are going to get their country back.when diamond gave his speech last february bits of the blogisphere buzzed about it (including a post by needlenose that i recommend), but the conversation never quite reached the outside world. at least not very loudly.
...
[W]e could declare, and I urged the administration to declare when I left Iraq in April of 2004, that we have no permanent military designs on Iraq and we will not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. This one statement would do an enormous amount to undermine the suspicion that we have permanent imperial intentions in Iraq. We aren't going to do that. And the reason we're not going to do that is because we are building permanent military basis in Iraq.
which is strange because it really is an important question. the argument over whether or not the u.s. government should set a timetable for withdrawal of u.s. troops from iraq presupposes that the ultimate goal is withdrawal. whether u.s. forces will leave should really be settled before we start debating when they should go.
permanent bases also run counter to the notion that the new iraq is sovereign or democratic. if the country really were sovereign, whether u.s. forces stay there permanently is really not our government's decision to make. and if iraq became a fully democratic country, i think it's clear that an iraqi government that reflected the views of its people would not tolerate a long-term foreign military presence. (though it looks like no one has polled it, so i my impression that foreign troops are deeply unpopular in iraq is purely anecdotal)
the permanent base question goes right to the heart of the basic policy questions about iraq: what exactly are we trying to accomplish there? and when are we done? if the goal is to establish a permanent presence in iraq then the answer to the second question is "never." but at least we'll be able to find al qaeda in iraq.
latoyia figueroa
during the past week of lame-o posting here at rubber hose, richard cranium of the all spin zone has been doing a series of non-lame-o posts following the story of a non-blonde, non-white young woman who disappeared in not-aruba (although south philly, admittedly, is almost the same). even though the woman is even pregnant, for some reason it just isn't getting the wall-to-wall coverage one would expect from the disappearance of a young woman.
lot's of bigger wigs than me in blogistan have already linked to richard's posts, but better late than never. the first post is here with several follow-ups here and here and here and here.
i'm not trying to take away from the seriousness of natalee holloway's disappearance (though i do question some of the media-mania surrounding it when other people who disappear are ignored). and i don't think richard is either. in conjunction with the citizen's crime commission of delaware valley the all spin zone has established a reward to help locate latoyia figueroa. you can donate to the reward fund by following the instructions in this post.
richard's efforts are garnering small payoffs. figueroa is still missing, but her disappearance is slowly trickling it's way into the press, largely due to richard's efforts.
lot's of bigger wigs than me in blogistan have already linked to richard's posts, but better late than never. the first post is here with several follow-ups here and here and here and here.
i'm not trying to take away from the seriousness of natalee holloway's disappearance (though i do question some of the media-mania surrounding it when other people who disappear are ignored). and i don't think richard is either. in conjunction with the citizen's crime commission of delaware valley the all spin zone has established a reward to help locate latoyia figueroa. you can donate to the reward fund by following the instructions in this post.
richard's efforts are garnering small payoffs. figueroa is still missing, but her disappearance is slowly trickling it's way into the press, largely due to richard's efforts.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
no posting and guest posting
so i heard this rumor that i once had a blog. you know, one that i wrote stuff in fairly regularly. and not just about how i'm too busy to write.
so i've been too busy to write. i'd like to promise that it's over now and it won't happen again, but i really can't. in fact, it inevitably will happen again. i just don't know when. i am hoping however, that this particular hiatus is winding down. but i won't know for sure until later. these things happen. i don't even feel bad about it
i do feel a little bad about what a pathetic guest poster i have been over at the liberal avenger this past month. LA is in thailand this month and in late june he asked me to be a guest poster at his site. i did warn him that i didn't know how often i would actually post, and he didn't seem to have a problem with that. he has plenty of other guest posters. but i've been even more pathetic than i ever expected. over the past few weeks all i've done is cut and paste two lame posts from this site to the LA site. it's the end of july, most of the month is over, and that's all i've done.
the problem is not that i don't feel responsibility towards guest posting at LA's site. on the contrary, my feeling of responsibility is precisely the problem. basically, my standards for posting on someone else's site are a lot higher than my standards for posting here. here i will basically hit the post button for any brain fart that makes it onto the page. apparently my audience doesn't mind (otherwise they wouldn't be my audience) and it helps me get stuff off my chest. it's different when i have the keys to someone else's site--a place they have put time and effort into really making it into something as LA has. i really don't want to post anything on LA's site unless i really think it's good. and i guess my lack of posts over there indicate that i just haven't thought that my july postings have been all that strong.
i ran into a similar problem back when i was a guest poster at atrios. i actually did post a bunch of times over there back then. but i really had to force myself to do it, and i wasn't all that happy with most of my posts. in the end, it wasn't as fun as it should have been. i spent too much time worrying about whether what i wrote lived up to the demands of the audience who were visiting, not because they wanted to read me, but out of a habit they acquired from reading someone else. that's probably why i've been even worse about posting on LA's site this month. i'm afraid to do a bad job and i'm not willing to force myself because i know i will feel guilty about my crappy posts later.
the more i think about it, the less i believe in the concept of guest posters. the blogs i read tend to be sites where the personality of the blogger comes through. it's the individual behind the blog that keeps me coming back. when i go to a site and see a guest poster, it's disappointing. i even feel that way when the guest poster has his or her own site that i read regularly. i didn't click on this particular site to read them. if i wanted to read them, i would have clicked on their own site.
sorry that example wasn't clearer. i'm trying not to name names here. but i hope you get the idea.
anyway, back to LA. i hope i didn't let him down too much. i've met him in real life and actually consider him to be a friend. at least his other guest posters have done a great job keeping the flame burning. but still want LA back. besides, even his trolls have taken the month off. the site feels different. none of us are any substitute for the real thing.
it just occurred to me that i could cross post this over there. but i'm afraid it will be taken the wrong way. i really don't mean to imply that i don't think the other guest posters are doing a good job. they are. besides, they are effectively covering for me as i sluff off in my guest posting obligations.
so i've been too busy to write. i'd like to promise that it's over now and it won't happen again, but i really can't. in fact, it inevitably will happen again. i just don't know when. i am hoping however, that this particular hiatus is winding down. but i won't know for sure until later. these things happen. i don't even feel bad about it
i do feel a little bad about what a pathetic guest poster i have been over at the liberal avenger this past month. LA is in thailand this month and in late june he asked me to be a guest poster at his site. i did warn him that i didn't know how often i would actually post, and he didn't seem to have a problem with that. he has plenty of other guest posters. but i've been even more pathetic than i ever expected. over the past few weeks all i've done is cut and paste two lame posts from this site to the LA site. it's the end of july, most of the month is over, and that's all i've done.
the problem is not that i don't feel responsibility towards guest posting at LA's site. on the contrary, my feeling of responsibility is precisely the problem. basically, my standards for posting on someone else's site are a lot higher than my standards for posting here. here i will basically hit the post button for any brain fart that makes it onto the page. apparently my audience doesn't mind (otherwise they wouldn't be my audience) and it helps me get stuff off my chest. it's different when i have the keys to someone else's site--a place they have put time and effort into really making it into something as LA has. i really don't want to post anything on LA's site unless i really think it's good. and i guess my lack of posts over there indicate that i just haven't thought that my july postings have been all that strong.
i ran into a similar problem back when i was a guest poster at atrios. i actually did post a bunch of times over there back then. but i really had to force myself to do it, and i wasn't all that happy with most of my posts. in the end, it wasn't as fun as it should have been. i spent too much time worrying about whether what i wrote lived up to the demands of the audience who were visiting, not because they wanted to read me, but out of a habit they acquired from reading someone else. that's probably why i've been even worse about posting on LA's site this month. i'm afraid to do a bad job and i'm not willing to force myself because i know i will feel guilty about my crappy posts later.
the more i think about it, the less i believe in the concept of guest posters. the blogs i read tend to be sites where the personality of the blogger comes through. it's the individual behind the blog that keeps me coming back. when i go to a site and see a guest poster, it's disappointing. i even feel that way when the guest poster has his or her own site that i read regularly. i didn't click on this particular site to read them. if i wanted to read them, i would have clicked on their own site.
sorry that example wasn't clearer. i'm trying not to name names here. but i hope you get the idea.
anyway, back to LA. i hope i didn't let him down too much. i've met him in real life and actually consider him to be a friend. at least his other guest posters have done a great job keeping the flame burning. but still want LA back. besides, even his trolls have taken the month off. the site feels different. none of us are any substitute for the real thing.
it just occurred to me that i could cross post this over there. but i'm afraid it will be taken the wrong way. i really don't mean to imply that i don't think the other guest posters are doing a good job. they are. besides, they are effectively covering for me as i sluff off in my guest posting obligations.
Monday, July 25, 2005
swamped thing
i had a really busy day today at the office--i went in early and then stayed quite late. tomorrow i have to wake up early to rush off to new york for a hearing. i hope i'll be able to make it to drinking liberally back in philly tomorrow night. but i might not be able to post again before then.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
what kind of labor lawyer am i?
i had to learn from chris about the controversy over the exploitation of oompa-loompas.
send your fully taxable donations to PETOL (people for the ethical treatment of oompa loompas).
and before you ask: no, i have not seen the new movie yet, thanks to mr. grumpy-pants.
send your fully taxable donations to PETOL (people for the ethical treatment of oompa loompas).
and before you ask: no, i have not seen the new movie yet, thanks to mr. grumpy-pants.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
we'd like to thank our sponsors and pause for a commercial break
last night mrs. noz and i saw wedding crashers, which was actually quite entertaining. after making a string of shitty movies, this is really the owen wilson i used to love.
but the reason i'm posting about it is because we saw the film with joe and sophia. sometimes when we get together with them, sophia gives me shit for not mentioning them on this site the last time we saw them. so now i'm hedging my bets for next time. and yes, we greatly appreciated their help on our move. let me retroactively mention that now. and to everyone out there in nozland go buy one of sophia's photos and buy joe's book too.
that is all.
but the reason i'm posting about it is because we saw the film with joe and sophia. sometimes when we get together with them, sophia gives me shit for not mentioning them on this site the last time we saw them. so now i'm hedging my bets for next time. and yes, we greatly appreciated their help on our move. let me retroactively mention that now. and to everyone out there in nozland go buy one of sophia's photos and buy joe's book too.
that is all.
Friday, July 22, 2005
the noz standup comedy hour
Bush says that the american people won't be intimidated by thugs. didn't he hear about the last election?
waka waka waka
(okay, i won't quit my day job)
waka waka waka
(okay, i won't quit my day job)
justice bandar
well if the bush administration really did make last tuesday's announcement to push rove off the front page of the new york times, it officially didn't work. or at least, it didn't work for long. the times has another front page story today, above the fold even. there's also a roberts story on the front page, but it's below the fold. roberts only pushed rove off for two days. that's some really shitty pushing.
if bush really wanted his nomination to dominate the news cycle, he should have picked someone more controversial. a nomination that would have really rocked the boat and made people flip out. like former alabama chief justice roy moore. that would have been an utter circus. or better yet, prince bandar bin sultan.
justice bandar would have been perfect if you want a raging controversy. he's personally close to bush, and bush is famously loyal to his friends. he's also available, he's stepping down as saudi ambassador. bush could call the nomination of a foreign citizen to america's highest court "historic." bush could also tout bandar as the first muslim justice, which would get at least some of the christian right to turn against him even though bandar is probably pro-life. but because he's a member of the saudi royal family, most muslims wouldn't like him either. he's not an american citizen, pissing off the anti-immigrant crowd. and it would have also been like throwing gasoline on liberal groups who have long complained about close american-saudi connections and the special privileges saudi royalty seems to get (chartered flights out of the country after 9-11 are nothing compared to a supreme court seat!) plus, it would have been fun to watch the bush-does-no-wrong bobble-heads on t.v. trying to defend a candidate who's main qualification is that he speaks good english and is buddies with the prez.
man, that would have been great political theater. maybe not so good for the country, or bush's approval ratings, but it would create weeks of raging washington kerfuffle. the word "rove" would not be uttered by anyone until at least late august.
if bush really wanted his nomination to dominate the news cycle, he should have picked someone more controversial. a nomination that would have really rocked the boat and made people flip out. like former alabama chief justice roy moore. that would have been an utter circus. or better yet, prince bandar bin sultan.
justice bandar would have been perfect if you want a raging controversy. he's personally close to bush, and bush is famously loyal to his friends. he's also available, he's stepping down as saudi ambassador. bush could call the nomination of a foreign citizen to america's highest court "historic." bush could also tout bandar as the first muslim justice, which would get at least some of the christian right to turn against him even though bandar is probably pro-life. but because he's a member of the saudi royal family, most muslims wouldn't like him either. he's not an american citizen, pissing off the anti-immigrant crowd. and it would have also been like throwing gasoline on liberal groups who have long complained about close american-saudi connections and the special privileges saudi royalty seems to get (chartered flights out of the country after 9-11 are nothing compared to a supreme court seat!) plus, it would have been fun to watch the bush-does-no-wrong bobble-heads on t.v. trying to defend a candidate who's main qualification is that he speaks good english and is buddies with the prez.
man, that would have been great political theater. maybe not so good for the country, or bush's approval ratings, but it would create weeks of raging washington kerfuffle. the word "rove" would not be uttered by anyone until at least late august.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
42
so the military is quietly asking congress to raise the maximum age for military recruits to 42. the current maximum age is 35, though in practice the various services only want people who are younger and the reserves will take you so long as you're not 40 yet.
i wonder if they're douglas adams fans
i wonder if they're douglas adams fans
judge roberts' wife
so roberts' wife is a member of feminist for life. some on the left are taking that as an indication that roberts would overturn roe v. wade. but i wonder what people on the right will make of the "feminist" bit. especially the ones who associate feminism with nazism, communism and witchcraft.
roberts
i haven't posted since bush announced his nomination of john roberts to replace o'conner on the supreme court. just a couple of thoughts:
first, i agree that this nomination is not just a distraction from the plame-rove matter. it's possible that bush and his advisors decided to move the announcement time up to knock rove off the front pages this morning. but this is still a lot more than a mere distraction. a supreme court nomination is always important in its own right.
but even if it were a distraction, so what? is it necessarily a bad thing? personally, i think the rove story was not going to be on the front pages much longer anyway. the press has a notoriously short attention span. after a couple of days--a week tops--of reporting on the same story they need either a big new development or they will lose interest. and the press losing interest is worse than the press getting distracted. if the press gets distracted, they have a better chance of coming back to the story later when something new happens.
besides, the rove story was not ultimately being driven by the press, it was being driven by the independent counsel's office. the fact that rove and plame are not the top story has no bearing on what will ultimately decide rove's fate: whether he gets indicted or not. sure, scott mcclellan will probably have a more pleasant gaggle experience this week, but that's not what this is all about. we can afford to be patient about this, even if it means giving scotty a break.
second, barring some unforeseen scandal popping up (e.g. a secret pedophile prostitution ring being run out of judge roberts' basement), he is going to be confirmed. i probably don't agree with many of his views, but there's really no serious question that he's qualified. at least, i haven't seen anyone raise anything that would bring his qualifications into question. this is not a clarence thomas or judge bork, two former supreme court appointees who i did not think were qualified.
other bloggers have pointed out decisions in judge roberts' past that were wrongly decided (e.g. 1 2). and, at least from what i've read about those cases, roberts was on the wrong side in my opinion. but i honesty don't expect much more from a bush appointee. and like it or not, o'conner's replacement will be a bush appointee. my disagreement with an opinion does not make someone unqualified. he's never going to be my favorite justice, but i can't honestly claim that only of those opinions i disagree with should disqualify him from the high court.
of course, i could still change my mind about this guy. before last night i would not have recognized his name (though i had read at least one of his opinions. the name roberts just didn't mean anything to me at the time)
one thing that doesn't hold much water for me is the quote taken from roberts' 1991 supreme court brief in the casey case. roberts wrote that brief when he was deputy solicitor general for the first bush administration. as a lawyer for that administration, it was his job to present the views of his client in the brief. maybe it's just because i am a lawyer myself and don't want to be held responsible for every position i take in the course of my job, but i really do think that his legal writings must be viewed in the context that he wrote them. in this case, the quoted language was taken from something he wrote as an advocate for a pre-determined legal position.
roberts is a conservative guy, that's why he was solicitor for a republican administration in 1991. he probably does believe that roe v. wade was wrongly decided. it's also possible that he doesn't believe that. his writings advocating on behalf of a client don't tell us much either way.
i can't say i'm for the roberts' nomination. but i really don't think there's any serious question that he will be confirmed. and what he does once he's on the bench none of us know for sure.
first, i agree that this nomination is not just a distraction from the plame-rove matter. it's possible that bush and his advisors decided to move the announcement time up to knock rove off the front pages this morning. but this is still a lot more than a mere distraction. a supreme court nomination is always important in its own right.
but even if it were a distraction, so what? is it necessarily a bad thing? personally, i think the rove story was not going to be on the front pages much longer anyway. the press has a notoriously short attention span. after a couple of days--a week tops--of reporting on the same story they need either a big new development or they will lose interest. and the press losing interest is worse than the press getting distracted. if the press gets distracted, they have a better chance of coming back to the story later when something new happens.
besides, the rove story was not ultimately being driven by the press, it was being driven by the independent counsel's office. the fact that rove and plame are not the top story has no bearing on what will ultimately decide rove's fate: whether he gets indicted or not. sure, scott mcclellan will probably have a more pleasant gaggle experience this week, but that's not what this is all about. we can afford to be patient about this, even if it means giving scotty a break.
second, barring some unforeseen scandal popping up (e.g. a secret pedophile prostitution ring being run out of judge roberts' basement), he is going to be confirmed. i probably don't agree with many of his views, but there's really no serious question that he's qualified. at least, i haven't seen anyone raise anything that would bring his qualifications into question. this is not a clarence thomas or judge bork, two former supreme court appointees who i did not think were qualified.
other bloggers have pointed out decisions in judge roberts' past that were wrongly decided (e.g. 1 2). and, at least from what i've read about those cases, roberts was on the wrong side in my opinion. but i honesty don't expect much more from a bush appointee. and like it or not, o'conner's replacement will be a bush appointee. my disagreement with an opinion does not make someone unqualified. he's never going to be my favorite justice, but i can't honestly claim that only of those opinions i disagree with should disqualify him from the high court.
of course, i could still change my mind about this guy. before last night i would not have recognized his name (though i had read at least one of his opinions. the name roberts just didn't mean anything to me at the time)
one thing that doesn't hold much water for me is the quote taken from roberts' 1991 supreme court brief in the casey case. roberts wrote that brief when he was deputy solicitor general for the first bush administration. as a lawyer for that administration, it was his job to present the views of his client in the brief. maybe it's just because i am a lawyer myself and don't want to be held responsible for every position i take in the course of my job, but i really do think that his legal writings must be viewed in the context that he wrote them. in this case, the quoted language was taken from something he wrote as an advocate for a pre-determined legal position.
roberts is a conservative guy, that's why he was solicitor for a republican administration in 1991. he probably does believe that roe v. wade was wrongly decided. it's also possible that he doesn't believe that. his writings advocating on behalf of a client don't tell us much either way.
i can't say i'm for the roberts' nomination. but i really don't think there's any serious question that he will be confirmed. and what he does once he's on the bench none of us know for sure.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
drinking liberally
i think i forgot to mention it last week, so i'll mention it this week. i'll be at drinking liberally tonight. if you're in or around philly join us at tangier, 18th and lombard, from 6 p.m. until whenever it ends. if you're not near here, you can find one near you at this link.
i'm skipping unveiled after all. that will teach you to believe what i write in my own comments. i'll be with a guest from arizona this evening and it sounds like she'd rather drink.
i'm skipping unveiled after all. that will teach you to believe what i write in my own comments. i'll be with a guest from arizona this evening and it sounds like she'd rather drink.
finally, a break-through
al qaeda seems to have made a critical strategic error: it has set a deadline for the withdrawal of foreign troops from iraq.
as the president explained last month, setting a timetable to withdraw troops from iraq would be "conceding too much to the enemy." now that al qaeda has gone and done it, they've conceded too much to us. woo-hoo! now all we have to do is wait them out.
it's nice to know that victory is finally just around the corner.
as the president explained last month, setting a timetable to withdraw troops from iraq would be "conceding too much to the enemy." now that al qaeda has gone and done it, they've conceded too much to us. woo-hoo! now all we have to do is wait them out.
it's nice to know that victory is finally just around the corner.
studying arabic in philly
i just got another hit from someone searching for arabic courses in philadelphia. i've been getting these occasionally for the past few weeks. i'm not sure whether it's the same person doing a periodic search, or if there's just a bunch of people looking for arabic course around here.
in any case, whoever you are:
while i do have information about studying arabic locally, you probably won't be able to get it all from this site. a better bet is to email me using the "harass me" button on the right. i'd be happy to help.
in any case, whoever you are:
while i do have information about studying arabic locally, you probably won't be able to get it all from this site. a better bet is to email me using the "harass me" button on the right. i'd be happy to help.
holy crap!
this is bad. really bad.
not that the constitutional committee was making much progress (at least that's my impression from reading second or third accounts of the deliberations from where i am, 7500 miles away), but this will probably make things even worse. it's about a month before the deadline to finish the new iraqi constitution and to put it to a referendum. they've been negotiating for months and the drafting committee hasn't yet agreed on some of the most basic issues. at least they had gotten beyond who would be on the committee. but these killings are just going to open the issue right up again.
on top of that, it has removed some of the few sunni politicians who were willing to cooperate with the shi'a-sunni dominated government. plus, it will probably serve to intimidate any other sunnis who were considering stepping up to the plate.
adding this all together means it is going to be a lot harder for to end up with a viable constitution in the near future, never mind next month's deadline.
not that the constitutional committee was making much progress (at least that's my impression from reading second or third accounts of the deliberations from where i am, 7500 miles away), but this will probably make things even worse. it's about a month before the deadline to finish the new iraqi constitution and to put it to a referendum. they've been negotiating for months and the drafting committee hasn't yet agreed on some of the most basic issues. at least they had gotten beyond who would be on the committee. but these killings are just going to open the issue right up again.
on top of that, it has removed some of the few sunni politicians who were willing to cooperate with the shi'a-sunni dominated government. plus, it will probably serve to intimidate any other sunnis who were considering stepping up to the plate.
adding this all together means it is going to be a lot harder for to end up with a viable constitution in the near future, never mind next month's deadline.
not dead
once again that irritating real life got in the way of my blogging. damn you real life! always thinking its sooooo important.
anyway, i don't want anyone declaring me dead, so i'm checking in. i'll have more to say later.
in the meantime, i recommend reading this post from the tattered coat. matt asks several good questions at the end, of particular interest to me is this one: "when was the last time you visited a blog (or watched a television show) and left convinced of a political viewpoint with which you had previously disagreed?"
anyway, i don't want anyone declaring me dead, so i'm checking in. i'll have more to say later.
in the meantime, i recommend reading this post from the tattered coat. matt asks several good questions at the end, of particular interest to me is this one: "when was the last time you visited a blog (or watched a television show) and left convinced of a political viewpoint with which you had previously disagreed?"
Sunday, July 17, 2005
a short whine
i've been reliving my vietnam trip as i upload and annotate my photos i took there into my flickr account. i've promised myself that i will finish this set before i go to syria and generate a whole other bunch of photos to organize.
i also think i'm having flashbacks to that trip because it feels like vietnam now in the philly area. it's really exactly the same as in hanoi: hot muggy days with a daily torrential downpour which never seems to break the heat. god, i really hate this time of year. i think i'm the only person who spends his entire summers hoping for an early blizzard.
if i'm gonna be this hot and uncomfortable at the very least i should be on vacation, bumming around the ruins of some ancient civilization. but no. it's just hot and sticky for no good reason.
i also think i'm having flashbacks to that trip because it feels like vietnam now in the philly area. it's really exactly the same as in hanoi: hot muggy days with a daily torrential downpour which never seems to break the heat. god, i really hate this time of year. i think i'm the only person who spends his entire summers hoping for an early blizzard.
if i'm gonna be this hot and uncomfortable at the very least i should be on vacation, bumming around the ruins of some ancient civilization. but no. it's just hot and sticky for no good reason.
Friday, July 15, 2005
the tattered rove
matt at the tattered coat is arguing point-by-point the details of the rove thing-a-ma-bob with a right wing friend of his. if you're into slugging it out, check out matt's post and the comments that follow.
noodly
i couldn't hold out. i just ordered a flying spaghetti monster t-shirt.* i almost also got the WWFSMD? shirt too, but, at the last minute, displayed a rare flash of self-restraint.
anyway, if there's one thing our recent move has taught me is that i definitely need more t-shirts.
_________________________
* if you don't know what i'm talking about, shame on you for not reading every single thing i write on this blog! or, if you're sick of being ashamed of yourself, just go here instead.
probably premature thoughts about the post-rove era (or what it doesn't mean)
i was reading echidne this morning when i read this quote from james moore, co-author of "bush's brain" and author of "bush's war for reelection":
the most remarkable thing about karl is the mystique he has managed to create about himself. i guess it comes with secrecy, that's another thing he has in common with the CIA. when you're not sure what he's doing there's a tendency to assume he's doing everything. or at least everything that seems to benefit him in the end. no doubt he screws up too, just like anyone else. the bush administration has made plenty of gaffes. but we don't attribute the gaffes to rove. they just don't seem like his style, because we've created an image of his "style" which does not include failure.
there's a flip side to the sense of rove's omnipotence. that's the sense of bush's incompetence. by attributing everything to rove, by implication you're taking all the credit from bush. even the title "bush's brain" implies that bush on his own is brainless.
this sense of rove being the brains behind an incompetent president has even sunk in to the ranks of republicans. at least it has affected some of the republicans that i know. divining what republican politicians believe is a little tougher. in public they are quite good at defending the president and would never admit to any secret thoughts of presidential brainlessness. but the virtual party-line unanimity on this current rove scandals, i think, speaks volumes; as does the RNC's posting of rove loyalty pledges from republican senators. the democrats are gleeful because they think they got the goods on the president's brain. the republicans are defensive because they fear the democrats are right. at least that's what their actions suggest to me.
which leads me back to the bit i quoted above. i seriously wonder about that first sentence. can bush really not function without rove? i find it hard to believe. sure, he would probably do worse without rove's assistance. that's why he keeps rove on his staff. but would it really be debilitating? somehow i think he would manage. and i wonder if, practically speaking, we would notice much of a difference.
not that we'll ever know. i think the rest of the paragraph after the first two sentences is absolutely correct. if rove has to go down, he will just be moved out of the west wing. if he really needs to nothing will stop bush from calling rove after he is "gone." if necessary, bush can do it through surrogates. i think that would even work if rove ends up in prison.
maybe this controversy would cause political damage to the president. it certainly will among the people who follow politics closely. but they're a pretty opinionated bunch already. perhaps it would create a vague sense in the general public that the bush administration is corrupt and sleazy. the various controversies did that quite successfully with clinton. but it didn't really affect clinton's poll numbers much. if anything, they may have helped him a little (clinton's embattled second term was when he was most popular--averaging higher approval ratings than ronald reagan, a president who seems to have the word "popular" permanently attached to his name whenever he comes up in an article)
so anyway, as fun as this rove controversy is to watch (and as much as i think that bush should fire rove and i would not weep if rove is criminally charged), it's worth remembering that it might not result in much practical change even if rove is "taken down."
Bush cannot function without Rove. And the GOP is equally invested in his skills. I expect that, if the pressure gets too great, the president will move Rove out of the White House so he can continue to use his brain on congressional matters like Social Security and tort reform while not having to suffer quite as much politically with Rove still sitting in the West Wing. But I don't think Bush will make such a move, if he can avoid it. His Achilles heel is his loyalty to his friends and it always has been. Bush will stick with Rove long past the point that he ought to have cut his losses and he will endure significant political harm.for obvious reasons i've been thinking about rove lately. actually, i've always believed that rove's air of super-evil geniusness is a bit exaggerated. karl get's credit for things (by both liberal and conservatives) that he never could have foreseen, just because they turned out benefiting the president in the end. it actually reminds me of how people talk about the CIA--anytime anything bad happens to a country that is unfriendly to the u.s., someone inevitably attributes it to the CIA. as if bad things never happen without secret agents making them happen.
the most remarkable thing about karl is the mystique he has managed to create about himself. i guess it comes with secrecy, that's another thing he has in common with the CIA. when you're not sure what he's doing there's a tendency to assume he's doing everything. or at least everything that seems to benefit him in the end. no doubt he screws up too, just like anyone else. the bush administration has made plenty of gaffes. but we don't attribute the gaffes to rove. they just don't seem like his style, because we've created an image of his "style" which does not include failure.
there's a flip side to the sense of rove's omnipotence. that's the sense of bush's incompetence. by attributing everything to rove, by implication you're taking all the credit from bush. even the title "bush's brain" implies that bush on his own is brainless.
this sense of rove being the brains behind an incompetent president has even sunk in to the ranks of republicans. at least it has affected some of the republicans that i know. divining what republican politicians believe is a little tougher. in public they are quite good at defending the president and would never admit to any secret thoughts of presidential brainlessness. but the virtual party-line unanimity on this current rove scandals, i think, speaks volumes; as does the RNC's posting of rove loyalty pledges from republican senators. the democrats are gleeful because they think they got the goods on the president's brain. the republicans are defensive because they fear the democrats are right. at least that's what their actions suggest to me.
which leads me back to the bit i quoted above. i seriously wonder about that first sentence. can bush really not function without rove? i find it hard to believe. sure, he would probably do worse without rove's assistance. that's why he keeps rove on his staff. but would it really be debilitating? somehow i think he would manage. and i wonder if, practically speaking, we would notice much of a difference.
not that we'll ever know. i think the rest of the paragraph after the first two sentences is absolutely correct. if rove has to go down, he will just be moved out of the west wing. if he really needs to nothing will stop bush from calling rove after he is "gone." if necessary, bush can do it through surrogates. i think that would even work if rove ends up in prison.
maybe this controversy would cause political damage to the president. it certainly will among the people who follow politics closely. but they're a pretty opinionated bunch already. perhaps it would create a vague sense in the general public that the bush administration is corrupt and sleazy. the various controversies did that quite successfully with clinton. but it didn't really affect clinton's poll numbers much. if anything, they may have helped him a little (clinton's embattled second term was when he was most popular--averaging higher approval ratings than ronald reagan, a president who seems to have the word "popular" permanently attached to his name whenever he comes up in an article)
so anyway, as fun as this rove controversy is to watch (and as much as i think that bush should fire rove and i would not weep if rove is criminally charged), it's worth remembering that it might not result in much practical change even if rove is "taken down."
Thursday, July 14, 2005
intelligent design
my friend TP (aka mr. baji aka the birthday boy) sent me a link to this open letter to the kansas school board. here's the first two paragraphs:
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.the discussion that follows is really hard to argue with (not to mention the chart and spaghetti monster drawing) so make sure to read the whole thing. and, of course, read to the end to find out how you too can help make a difference with the kansas school board.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
not my fault
does anyone know how long i can use the move as an excuse for everything that is disorganized in my life? i don't think i'm there yet (at least i hope not, it's only been 10 days or so), but i suppose eventually i will have to find something else to blame.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
when life imitates southpark
Saddam: Hey, relax fella, I'm just making it so that Terrance and Phillip can never come back to Canada again. I just need a couple of days, then I'm gonna head back to Iran.
Scott: I thought you were from Iraq.
Saddam: "Iran, Iraq, what the hell's the difference? Relax guys.
Scott: I thought you were from Iraq.
Saddam: "Iran, Iraq, what the hell's the difference? Relax guys.
rove
so with most of left blogistan focusing it's attention on this rove thing, i'm once again not inclined to post about it. this always happens when a hot topic hits the blogwaves. i usually won't bother post about it, unless it happens to fall into one of my few pre-existing obsessions (uzbekistan, arabic language or culture, third world travel, chick tracts, a couple of obscure films... come to think of it, i have a lot of obsessions). there doesn't seem to be a point when others who are more knowledgeable and articulate are already more than covering the topic from all angles.
i guess you might say that i don't usually participate in blogswarms. not that i am against them or anything. i understand that they can be a useful tool in getting an underheard message heard and to spur action on important issues. it's just that most of the time, that's not what i see this site to be about. i really only want to write about stuff that i feel moved to write about. if someone is pushing me to write, even for good reason, or even if i just feel obligated to write something, posting at this place ceases to be a fun hobby and starts to feel like a chore.
anyway, back to rove. maybe i'l write something substantive later. but for now i just don't feel like it. that's not to say that it doesn't interest me. on the contrary, i've been following it quite closely. if you want to too, i highly recommend the following:
defective yeti has a good discussion of the back story for those of you who have not been following this up until now.
i like arianna huffington's post too.
there's a post by one of valerie plame's "classmates" from when she started with the CIA.
you can also read today's new york times editorial about the matter.
billmon has a well-written rebuttal to many of the arguments of the rove defenders.
fafnir mounts his own rove defense.
and, of course, the usual political sites i read are all over it (to name just a few, there are many more to be found just by clicking up and down my blogroll. and, of course, many of these sites are discussing other things too).
that's all i got for now. maybe i'll write something original about this later. maybe not.
i guess you might say that i don't usually participate in blogswarms. not that i am against them or anything. i understand that they can be a useful tool in getting an underheard message heard and to spur action on important issues. it's just that most of the time, that's not what i see this site to be about. i really only want to write about stuff that i feel moved to write about. if someone is pushing me to write, even for good reason, or even if i just feel obligated to write something, posting at this place ceases to be a fun hobby and starts to feel like a chore.
anyway, back to rove. maybe i'l write something substantive later. but for now i just don't feel like it. that's not to say that it doesn't interest me. on the contrary, i've been following it quite closely. if you want to too, i highly recommend the following:
defective yeti has a good discussion of the back story for those of you who have not been following this up until now.
i like arianna huffington's post too.
there's a post by one of valerie plame's "classmates" from when she started with the CIA.
you can also read today's new york times editorial about the matter.
billmon has a well-written rebuttal to many of the arguments of the rove defenders.
fafnir mounts his own rove defense.
and, of course, the usual political sites i read are all over it (to name just a few, there are many more to be found just by clicking up and down my blogroll. and, of course, many of these sites are discussing other things too).
that's all i got for now. maybe i'll write something original about this later. maybe not.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
landis on the bennet article
joshua landis has written an interesting commentary on the issues raised by the bennet article from the nytimes magazine. (note that landis was also interviewed for the bennet article, and reproduces the entire article just after his commentary). and read the comments to landis' post too. there's a pretty interesting debate going on there about the place of arab nationalism.
Monday, July 11, 2005
linky goodness
magic virginity restoration doll up for bid on ebay.
the princeton online arabic poetry project (via josh)
the fable of the frog and the robot
and everyone should go wish sarah a happy birthday today. she's really into rude obnoxious comments. the ruder and obnoxiouser the better. go leave her a couple of nice birthday presents! just tell her noz sent ya
the princeton online arabic poetry project (via josh)
the fable of the frog and the robot
and everyone should go wish sarah a happy birthday today. she's really into rude obnoxious comments. the ruder and obnoxiouser the better. go leave her a couple of nice birthday presents! just tell her noz sent ya
mambo syria
i'm kind of busy this morning, so this will be quick. mostly this is just personal update stuff. so skip it if you don't care about such things.
i've been meaning to plug mambo movers since they moved us last week. they really were a joy to work with on what otherwise would be a miserable day. if you're moving in or around philly, i highly recommend them. hell, i even recommend clicking around their web site. it's a moving company made up of local artists and musicians. as an added bonus, the three strapping lads they assigned to our move all happened to be comic book collectors. and so they didn't seem to mind hauling long box after long box up three flights to the room that happens to be the farthest point from the front door.
in other news, i got my syrian visa last week. i was actually mildly worried about it. first, i had to send my passport to washington with $100.00 as a processing fee. just after i sent it a friend of mine said "are you crazy? you just sent $100.00 to the syrian government. have you read the syria accountability and lebanese sovereignty restoration act of 2003?" "uh, no" i stammered. "you can't just send money to syria, stuff like that is illegal!" said my friend. well, now i've read the syrian accountability and lebanese sovereignty restoration act of 2003 and i can definitively say my friend is full of shit. there's nothing illegal about paying a visa processing fee to the syrian government. in fact, i could give my entire fortune (such as it is) to the syrian government and nothing in the act would make it a crime.
the second worry came from another conversation with another friend. this conversation actually took place before i even applied for my visa. i mentioned to this friend that i was going to syria and she asked "have you gotten the visa yet?" "no," i replied. "well, there's no way you're getting one. your last name is too similar to a former israeli prime minister."
to clarify, if you spell my last name differently and pronounce it completely wrong, it does kinda almost sound like the name of a certain former israeli prime minister. i am referring, of course, to binyamin noztanyahu. so at the time this conversation occurred i didn't take my friend's concerns all that seriously.
anyway, a few days after i sent off my passport to the syrian consulate in washington and while i was waiting for them to send it back with the visa, i thought again about this conversation and began to worry. should my visa really take this long? what if they never give it back?
i called the consulate a couple of times casually asking about the status of my visa request. the syrian visa officers were very friendly on the phone and they always assured me that i would get my visa (and passport) soon. i resisted the urge to call them more, for fear that i would be branded a nuisance and banned from syria forever.
on friday, my passport arrived at my office, with a fresh new tourist visa printed inside. they gave me a double-entry six month visa (i was told the best i could do was a single-entry three month one). score! not that it matters. i'm only gonna be there for 2 weeks. but still, its more the principle of the thing. like when i was in uzbekistan and the other backpackers wondered how i ended up with a multiple entry visa when all they could get was a single entry one. there's nothing like street cred from the greasy backpacking subculture
so now i am definitely going to syria, barring invasion or other such things. and yes, i have read the profile of bashar al-assad that appeared in yesterday's new york times magazine. everyone can stop emailing me the link now.
i've been meaning to plug mambo movers since they moved us last week. they really were a joy to work with on what otherwise would be a miserable day. if you're moving in or around philly, i highly recommend them. hell, i even recommend clicking around their web site. it's a moving company made up of local artists and musicians. as an added bonus, the three strapping lads they assigned to our move all happened to be comic book collectors. and so they didn't seem to mind hauling long box after long box up three flights to the room that happens to be the farthest point from the front door.
in other news, i got my syrian visa last week. i was actually mildly worried about it. first, i had to send my passport to washington with $100.00 as a processing fee. just after i sent it a friend of mine said "are you crazy? you just sent $100.00 to the syrian government. have you read the syria accountability and lebanese sovereignty restoration act of 2003?" "uh, no" i stammered. "you can't just send money to syria, stuff like that is illegal!" said my friend. well, now i've read the syrian accountability and lebanese sovereignty restoration act of 2003 and i can definitively say my friend is full of shit. there's nothing illegal about paying a visa processing fee to the syrian government. in fact, i could give my entire fortune (such as it is) to the syrian government and nothing in the act would make it a crime.
the second worry came from another conversation with another friend. this conversation actually took place before i even applied for my visa. i mentioned to this friend that i was going to syria and she asked "have you gotten the visa yet?" "no," i replied. "well, there's no way you're getting one. your last name is too similar to a former israeli prime minister."
to clarify, if you spell my last name differently and pronounce it completely wrong, it does kinda almost sound like the name of a certain former israeli prime minister. i am referring, of course, to binyamin noztanyahu. so at the time this conversation occurred i didn't take my friend's concerns all that seriously.
anyway, a few days after i sent off my passport to the syrian consulate in washington and while i was waiting for them to send it back with the visa, i thought again about this conversation and began to worry. should my visa really take this long? what if they never give it back?
i called the consulate a couple of times casually asking about the status of my visa request. the syrian visa officers were very friendly on the phone and they always assured me that i would get my visa (and passport) soon. i resisted the urge to call them more, for fear that i would be branded a nuisance and banned from syria forever.
on friday, my passport arrived at my office, with a fresh new tourist visa printed inside. they gave me a double-entry six month visa (i was told the best i could do was a single-entry three month one). score! not that it matters. i'm only gonna be there for 2 weeks. but still, its more the principle of the thing. like when i was in uzbekistan and the other backpackers wondered how i ended up with a multiple entry visa when all they could get was a single entry one. there's nothing like street cred from the greasy backpacking subculture
so now i am definitely going to syria, barring invasion or other such things. and yes, i have read the profile of bashar al-assad that appeared in yesterday's new york times magazine. everyone can stop emailing me the link now.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
heroes and gay nazis
it's the philadelphia international gay and lesbian film festival this week. whenever any film fest comes to town, i would ordinarily rearrange my schedule and spend much of my free time seeing obscure films. but this year, the festival falls right after our move. with all the post-move crap i gotta do around the house, it looks like i won't have much time to overdose on gay cinema this year. as a case in point, at this very moment i am sitting at home doing my new hobby, waiting for the cable guy to show up.
but anyway, i did manage to see "heroes and gay nazis", a documentary about gay members of the german skinhead movement. the film had a lot of potential. i think the problem is that they tried to do too much and as a result ended up with too little.
the film interviews a bunch of gay neo-nazis or former neo-nazis in modern germany. about midway through, it then goes back in time and explore the sexual orientation of members of the nazi party during the third reich. but that itself could be it's own documentary. and because so much of the film discussed the 1930s and 40s, it's coverage of the modern gay nazis, the one's i was more curious about, felt a little thin.
that's not to say that the history wasn't an important element of the story. it just didn't have to be so much of the film. in short, the important part of the history is this: ernst rohm, founder of the sturm troopers and second in command during the nazi's early rise to power, was gay and that rumors of his homosexuality were used by nazi opponents in the early 1930s. once hitler came to power, he didn't need the brownshirts as much anymore so he turned on rohm, shot him and 150 others (during the night of long knives), and then used rohm's homosexuality to discredit him. the next year the nazi party passed the strictst anti-gay laws in the history of europe and then sent thousands of gays to concentration camps over the course of the following decade.
so this history raises an obvious question to pose to the gay neo-nazis of today: how can you idealize a regime that would have had you killed? the question does come up, but it's never really pushed as hard as it should. instead, they spend far too much time delving into the (rather dubious) question of whether hitler himself was gay and showing a lot of nazi footage of hitler praising the health and vigor of german men. in another unrelated diversion, the film follows a bunch of modern non-nazis who like to dress up in military uniforms and play in the woods together. at least the digression into nazi history was maginally relevant to the point of the film. the non-nazis were completely superfluous. i got the impression that the filmmaker followed those guys into the woods to film them doing their faux "basic training" in the hopes that he would discover a few that were secretly nazis. it turned out, none were. but he had all this footage and didn't want it to go to waste.
i'm meadering a little now. but this is only to give you a sense of the film; "heroes and gay nazis" meandered a little too much too. i did learn stuff from the film, so it is worth seeing. the subject matter is captivating: how a movement that is at its heart anti-gay deals with the fact that it seems to attract right-wing gays. and it did a good job tracing the neo-nazi movement's struggles to come to terms with prominent gay members (the story of michael kuhnen alone is pretty interesting. he was the leader of the german neo-nazis in the 1970s. he was initially closeted but then wrote a pamphlet arguing that homosexuals made better nazis than heterosexuals. as a result, he was thrown out of the party's leadership. after he died of aids in 1991, his fortunes reversed. the neo-nazis rehabilitated him and today he has became something of a martyr to the neo-nazi cause).
meandering again. sorry. the cable guy is still not here. but if i keep writing until he shows up, i fear that this post will never end.
but anyway, i did manage to see "heroes and gay nazis", a documentary about gay members of the german skinhead movement. the film had a lot of potential. i think the problem is that they tried to do too much and as a result ended up with too little.
the film interviews a bunch of gay neo-nazis or former neo-nazis in modern germany. about midway through, it then goes back in time and explore the sexual orientation of members of the nazi party during the third reich. but that itself could be it's own documentary. and because so much of the film discussed the 1930s and 40s, it's coverage of the modern gay nazis, the one's i was more curious about, felt a little thin.
that's not to say that the history wasn't an important element of the story. it just didn't have to be so much of the film. in short, the important part of the history is this: ernst rohm, founder of the sturm troopers and second in command during the nazi's early rise to power, was gay and that rumors of his homosexuality were used by nazi opponents in the early 1930s. once hitler came to power, he didn't need the brownshirts as much anymore so he turned on rohm, shot him and 150 others (during the night of long knives), and then used rohm's homosexuality to discredit him. the next year the nazi party passed the strictst anti-gay laws in the history of europe and then sent thousands of gays to concentration camps over the course of the following decade.
so this history raises an obvious question to pose to the gay neo-nazis of today: how can you idealize a regime that would have had you killed? the question does come up, but it's never really pushed as hard as it should. instead, they spend far too much time delving into the (rather dubious) question of whether hitler himself was gay and showing a lot of nazi footage of hitler praising the health and vigor of german men. in another unrelated diversion, the film follows a bunch of modern non-nazis who like to dress up in military uniforms and play in the woods together. at least the digression into nazi history was maginally relevant to the point of the film. the non-nazis were completely superfluous. i got the impression that the filmmaker followed those guys into the woods to film them doing their faux "basic training" in the hopes that he would discover a few that were secretly nazis. it turned out, none were. but he had all this footage and didn't want it to go to waste.
i'm meadering a little now. but this is only to give you a sense of the film; "heroes and gay nazis" meandered a little too much too. i did learn stuff from the film, so it is worth seeing. the subject matter is captivating: how a movement that is at its heart anti-gay deals with the fact that it seems to attract right-wing gays. and it did a good job tracing the neo-nazi movement's struggles to come to terms with prominent gay members (the story of michael kuhnen alone is pretty interesting. he was the leader of the german neo-nazis in the 1970s. he was initially closeted but then wrote a pamphlet arguing that homosexuals made better nazis than heterosexuals. as a result, he was thrown out of the party's leadership. after he died of aids in 1991, his fortunes reversed. the neo-nazis rehabilitated him and today he has became something of a martyr to the neo-nazi cause).
meandering again. sorry. the cable guy is still not here. but if i keep writing until he shows up, i fear that this post will never end.
unwinnable
john tierney's column yesterday was a perfect example of why i don't like the guy. i basically agree with his conclusion: that we should all do our best to get on with life and not live in fear. but on his way there he seemed to be willfully closing his eyes to the fact that this means that the bush administration's entire anti-terrorism program is more of a problem than a solution.
the only place that he directly addresses the bush administration is in one sentence in the middle of the column:
tierney agrees that we cannot win the war on terror, but refuses to follow that point to its logical conclusion. the answer isn't just learning to live without fear, it's getting leaders whose policies are based on reality.
the only place that he directly addresses the bush administration is in one sentence in the middle of the column:
President Bush briefly admitted last summer to Matt Lauer that the war on terror couldn't ever be won, but he got so much criticism that he promptly backtracked. It was a textbook Washington gaffe: perfectly true but terribly inconvenient.except the problem with bush's statement was not that it was "inconvenient" it's that it directly contradicted almost everything that bush has said and done since 9/11. in his speechs over the past three and a half years, the president has repeatedly vowed to win the war on terror. his administration even claims the right to detain people without trial, not forever as some critics claim, but rather until the war on terror is won. if iraq really is a "critical front in the war on terror" and that war cannot be won, then what the hell is the point of being there? in other words, the reason bush's comments were so inconvenient is because, if true, it meant that most of the bush foreign policy agenda is built on air.
tierney agrees that we cannot win the war on terror, but refuses to follow that point to its logical conclusion. the answer isn't just learning to live without fear, it's getting leaders whose policies are based on reality.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
argh
this is really getting tiresome. how many times must i read a post from someone asking why the muslim world isn't condemning the london terrorist attack just as much of the muslim world is condemning the london attack? have these people even tried to look to see what the muslim world is doing? do they recognize that maybe they are a bit limited in their ability to judge if they can't speak any of the languages of the muslim world?
these sanctimonious posts always appear after an attack, just as my inbox is being filled with emails from friends across the muslim world expressing their horror at what has happened. the disconnect is really hard to take. and frankly it leads me to conclude that many of the alleged shining lights of the blogisphere are complete morons.
can people at least try to find out what "the muslims" are really doing before they condemn them for not doing it? is that too much to ask?
these sanctimonious posts always appear after an attack, just as my inbox is being filled with emails from friends across the muslim world expressing their horror at what has happened. the disconnect is really hard to take. and frankly it leads me to conclude that many of the alleged shining lights of the blogisphere are complete morons.
can people at least try to find out what "the muslims" are really doing before they condemn them for not doing it? is that too much to ask?
Friday, July 08, 2005
urban rails
this is really cool, at least for a geek like me. it's got the subway/light rail map for cities all over the world. i've been on 22 of them (in four of the five regions). how many have you been on?
(via rowhouselogic)
(via rowhouselogic)
ordinary
the london bombing is getting the coverage it deserves, don't get me wrong. but bombings larger than this have happened several times in iraq over the past few years and gotten a small fraction of the coverage. it's worth remembering what juan cole posted this morning:
The bombings in London on Thursday underlined what absolute hell Iraqis are living through, who suffer the equivalent every other day.when violence is common in a far off place that most americans have never been to (and those that have, mostly have been there as part of a military force), it's easy to forget that almost 5.8 million people live there and call it home. a bombing is never "ordinary" to any of its victims, no matter how many times it has happened before.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
petty
i was all riled up into a frenzy, mentally composing a masterpiece rant against comcast for repeatedly not coming through on setting up my internet at home. i finally got connected today. but now, after the london bombing, my beef with comcast seems so petty.
meanwhile, i'm supposed to meet with my arabic tutor tonight. recently, we've been meeting at a cafe in a local train station. my tutor emailed me and suggested that maybe, just maybe, it isn't a good idea to have two guys hanging around a train station speaking arabic right now. it's not really the police we are worried about, it's more the danger of some random hyper-vigilant person seeing us and reporting "suspicious activity." that's what they are being asked to do after all. i'm curious about what really goes on in gitmo, but not that curious. i think we're gonna meet somewhere else.
meanwhile, i'm supposed to meet with my arabic tutor tonight. recently, we've been meeting at a cafe in a local train station. my tutor emailed me and suggested that maybe, just maybe, it isn't a good idea to have two guys hanging around a train station speaking arabic right now. it's not really the police we are worried about, it's more the danger of some random hyper-vigilant person seeing us and reporting "suspicious activity." that's what they are being asked to do after all. i'm curious about what really goes on in gitmo, but not that curious. i think we're gonna meet somewhere else.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
forecast and DL
we moved, but our internet connection has not... yet. comcast was predictably unreliable. actually, every time i call to confirm whatever appointment is currently the appointment, they give me an entirely new date and time over the phone. and it looks like a busy work week, especially if i have to take time off to sit at home and wait for a cable guy to not appear. so posting forcast calls for spotty posting frequency, at least in the short term.
however, i will be at drinking liberally tonight for a little while. if you're local, meet me at tangier, 18th and lombard from 6pm until it's over. given the limited posting forecast, it may be your only shot to get this week's dose of noz time.
however, i will be at drinking liberally tonight for a little while. if you're local, meet me at tangier, 18th and lombard from 6pm until it's over. given the limited posting forecast, it may be your only shot to get this week's dose of noz time.
Friday, July 01, 2005
moving right along
so i'm moving this weekend. no surprise to anyone who has been reading this site for the past few weeks. what that means is that my access to the internet will be a little spotty this weekend. by spotty i mean possibly non-existent. in theory, our ISP will be hooked up at the new place on monday morning. but that requires: (1) that comcast actually keeps its promise about when its technician show up (which, if it happens, would be a first for me), and (2) said technician will be on the job during a national holiday. i guess i'll believe it when i see it. but hey, if comcast does come through, i promise to sing the company's praises here monday evening. so if any comcast bigwigs are reading this, just think of the p.r. bonanza that would be. nevertheless on the off chance that comcast does not come through, i might disappear for a slightly longer time.
on the plus side, our days of living in moving squalor (as opposed to our usual squalor) are finally drawing to a close. for a little while it was almost refreshing to live in the wreckage of an apartment. but that's starting to get old. i kind of miss doing stuff other than putting things in boxes on my free time. i'm ready for new exciting activities, like taking stuff out of boxes. i can't wait!
another plus: tomorrow's weather is actually not ungodly hot. so anyone who is local and has a burning desire to skip live8 to move boxes of my and mrs. noz's shit instead, drop me an email. it promises to be a beautiful day of moving hell.
on the plus side, our days of living in moving squalor (as opposed to our usual squalor) are finally drawing to a close. for a little while it was almost refreshing to live in the wreckage of an apartment. but that's starting to get old. i kind of miss doing stuff other than putting things in boxes on my free time. i'm ready for new exciting activities, like taking stuff out of boxes. i can't wait!
another plus: tomorrow's weather is actually not ungodly hot. so anyone who is local and has a burning desire to skip live8 to move boxes of my and mrs. noz's shit instead, drop me an email. it promises to be a beautiful day of moving hell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)