Bush and I are both against John Bolton. What is this... Bizarro World?
Surprise, surprise, diplomacy and negotiation are proving effective, rather than swagger:
North Korea agreed on Tuesday to take steps towards nuclear disarmament in exchange for $300 million in aid under a deal President George W. Bush hailed as the best chance to get it to scrap its atomic weapons program.
The landmark agreement, reached four months after Pyongyang stunned the world with its first nuclear test, requires the secretive communist state to shut down the reactor at the heart of its nuclear ambitions and allow international inspections.
But the accord also calls for concessions by the United States towards economically impoverished North Korea, which Bush once lumped together with Iran and Iraq as an "axis of evil."
The United States and Japan agreed to discuss normalizing ties with North Korea, something it had long sought. Washington also said it would resolve within 30 days a dispute over frozen North Korean bank accounts in Macau, and consider removing Pyongyang from a list of state sponsors of terrorism.
In addition, Russia plans a "radical reduction" in the debt it's owed by North Korea. This is very good news all around, but the criticism has already begun... by Bolton and conservatives? The complaint?
You guessed it:
Bush defended the deal against critics, including from his key conservative base, who said that offering aid and other guarantees to North Korea in return for disbanding its nuclear network was rewarding "bad behavior" and a sign of US weakness.
Shouldn't we be celebrating and encouraging
any progress with North Korea? We're so worried someone out there might call us a wuss and knock our books out of our arms, we're willing to continue playing with fire in North Korea?
Among the agreement's vocal critics was Washington's former envoy to the United Nations, John Bolton, who called it "a very bad deal" that shows US weakness at a time when Washington is challenging Iran over its controversial nuclear program.
This is not showing weakness. This is showing that the US can be a
responsible negotiator, and work with other countries without always resorting to bombing the shit out of them. I'm feeling really weird about giving Bush the benefit of the doubt on this, but negotiation and a peaceful solution to the North Korean nuclear problem is
not a bad thing. John Bolton,
do shut up.
(Energy Dome tip to Crooks & Liars)
Open Wide...
Shut Up!
Today's QoTD was inspired by a post at Bark Bark Woof Woof regarding television characters. Anyway, it is:
What 5 television characters (not the actors, but the characters) would you want to have over for a dinner? Bonus: What would you serve?
For me (in no particular order):
1. Cpt. Benjamin Franklin "Hawkeye" Pierce, MD (M*A*S*H)
2. The Doctor (in his 4th, 9th, or 10th incarnations--Dr. Who)
3. Steven Hyde (That 70s Show)
4. Phoebe (Friends)
5. Matt Albie (Studio 60)
I'm going to cheat and have it catered by my favorite wing joint. So wings 'n' beer!
Open Wide...
Shut Up!
Well, that's one way to meet military recruiting goals: admit more felons! Or serious misdemeanor-ers, at least. The Army is spending so-called "moral waivers" the way sailors spend money on shore leave. The number of waivers granted to recruits with criminal backgrounds is up a whopping 65 percent over the last three years. Catch the money graf at the end of the quote:
It has also increased the number of so-called “moral waivers” to recruits with criminal pasts, even as the total number of recruits dropped slightly. The sharpest increase was in waivers for serious misdemeanors, which make up the bulk of all the Army’s moral waivers. These include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular homicide. The number of waivers for felony convictions also increased, to 11 percent of the 8,129 moral waivers granted in 2006, from 8 percent.
Waivers for less serious crimes like traffic offenses and drug use have dropped or remained stable.
Cynical observers might label this the reverse of the Hallmark approach: We care enough to send our very worst. Kevin Drum rightly reminds us, however, that Army life can be a transformative experience.
Still, the Army shouldn't have to burn through so many waivers with such a vast pool of war cheerleaders/potential recruits on which to draw. Why, The Corner on National Review Online alone could provide a battallion or two...on paper, at least.
(Cross-posted.)
Open Wide...
Shut Up!
Its headline: Rep. Ellison calls the cops to snuff Tancredo’s cigar.
Its first four paragraphs:
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) believes it is his right as a Muslim to be sworn into Congress with the Quran. But apparently, the freshman lawmaker doesn’t believe it’s Rep. Tom Tancredo’s (R-Colo.) right to smoke a cigar in his congressional office.
Ellison’s office called the Capitol Hill Police on Tancredo last Wednesday night as Tancredo was in his office smoking a cigar. The lawmakers have neighboring offices on the first floor of the Longworth House Office Building.
Tancredo was still stunned a day later. “It’s very bizarre,” said Tancredo, who has never met Ellison. “Seemed to me not a good way to say hello.”
And let’s face it. Calling the cops on a colleague takes the cake for the nerviest behavior so far among members of this year’s freshman class of Congress.
Hmm. That
does sound sorta nervy. Although, I note that even though the headline says that Rep. Ellison called the cops, by the second paragraph, it's just "his office" which called the Capitol Hill Police. Huh. Well, let's keep reading.
Its last two paragraphs:
Ellison’s press secretary, Rick Jauert, made the call to the Superintendent’s office when he noticed the smoke. “I called because the smoke was coming through the walls,” Jauert said, adding that the Superintendent’s office referred him to the Capitol Police.
Jauert said he then informed his boss what he had done. He said “fine,” Jauert said. “He’s complained of the smoke before.”
Wait—so
a staffer for Rep. Ellison called the building super, because there was
smoke coming through the walls, and then followed
the super's direction to call the police? That doesn't really add up to "Rep. Ellison calls the cops to snuff Tancredo’s cigar" at all, now does it?
Bonus points to
The Hill for not only being deliberately misleading, but also equating Tancredo's right to pollute adjacent offices with his bad habit (a bad habit which I shared until recently—and never felt I had "a right" to impose my smoke on anyone else) with Ellison's right to religious freedom.
Open Wide...
Shut Up!
I missed this lovely tidbit from Rove over the weekend:
According to a congressman's wife who attended a Republican women's luncheon yesterday, Karl Rove explained the rationale behind the president's amnesty/open-borders proposal this way: "I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."
The White House
stammers:
Rove was not insulting those people in those jobs, the White House explained, he was, according to Perino, saying that every parent wants their child to have a high-skilled, high-wage job.
They play the "you took my words out of context" card here, but I ain't buying. There's a reason he chose to reference those particular jobs in his comment, rather than, oh, flipping burgers or working retail. And once again, a free pass in the MSM. Did anyone hear
anything about this?
(Energy Dome tip to Instaputz and Andrew.)
Open Wide...
Shut Up!
I regret to say that I have also resigned from the Edwards campaign. In spite of what was widely reported, I was not hired as a blogger, but a part-time technical advisor, which is the role I am vacating.
I would like to make very clear that the campaign did not push me out, nor was my resignation the back-end of some arrangement made last week. This was a decision I made, with the campaign's reluctant support, because my remaining the focus of sustained ideological attacks was inevitably making me a liability to the campaign, and making me increasingly uncomfortable with my and my family's level of exposure.
I understand that there will be progressive bloggers who feel I am making the wrong decision, and I offer my sincerest apologies to them. One of the hardest parts of this decision was feeling as though I'm letting down my peers, who have been so supportive.
There will be some who clamor to claim victory for my resignation, but I caution them that in doing so, they are tacitly accepting responsibility for those who have deluged my blog and my inbox with vitriol and veiled threats. It is not right-wing bloggers, nor people like Bill Donohue or Bill O'Reilly, who prompted nor deserve credit for my resignation, no matter how much they want it, but individuals who used public criticisms of me as an excuse to unleash frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation.
This is a win for no one.
Open Wide...
Shut Up!
David Neiwert has just posted "The Human Legacy," the tenth and final part in his brilliant series on Eliminationism in America. The entire series is a brilliant read; I highly recommend going through the whole thing, when you have the time.
The dynamic of eliminationism thus begins with the conceptualization of other people as less than human, and finds its voice in rhetoric that portrays them as objects fit for elimination: vermin, disease, slime, traitors, killers. This rhetoric sets the stage for action by creating a rationale, which itself is seen as a signal to the like-minded for permission to act. Then, as the action occurs, the rhetoric is used to justify the violence, and indeed to inflame it still further as both ratchet upwards. In some cases, as with the internment of Japanese Americans, the action takes the form of government policy -- one from which, it must be added, violence was largely absent; but in others, as in the case of the Nazi Holocaust or the extermination of the Native Americans, the entire enterprise is violent from start to finish.
There is a causal connection here, but it's not a necessary causality -- that is, eliminationist rhetoric may always precede and accompany eliminationist action, but it does not always inspire it. What we can say is that it does make it far more likely, if not inevitable, as it increases in volume. But because there is an obvious time gap between the respective appearance of rhetoric and action, it's also possible to prevent that step from taking place -- most notably, by confronting it.
After all the pearl-clutching over "foul mouthed bloggers" this past week, it is highly important that we remember that rhetoric exists that can actually cause horrific damage. A few "f-bombs" can't compare to this eliminationist rhetoric that has become all too common in this country.
Open Wide...
Shut Up!
The Smoking Gun has posted excerpts from a "vulnerability study" document commissioned by the Giuliani campaign in the early 90's.
The confidential 450-page report, authored by Giuliani's research director and another aide, was the campaign's attempt to identify possible lines of attack against Giuliani and prepare the candidate and his staff to counter "the kinds of no-holes-barred assault" expected in a general election rematch with Democratic incumbent David Dinkins. As he tried to win election in an overwhelmingly Democratic city, Giuliani needed "inoculating against" the "Reagan Republican moniker," the vulnerability study reported. "The Giuliani campaign should emphasize its candidate's independence from traditional national Republican policies." The final six words of that sentence are underlined in the study.
This is just what you want when you're running in an election; documents being created about your "
weirdness factor." Take a look, it's fascinating stuff.
Open Wide...
Shut Up!
Veterans Face Consecutive Budget Cuts
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration plans to cut funding for veterans' health care two years from now — even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.
Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012.
After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly — by more than 10 percent in many years — White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.
The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends — its medical care budget has risen every year for two decades and 83 percent in the six years since Bush took office — sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.
In case you're wondering, Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy are still going strong.
Meanwhile, we're
shorting the troops on armor and protection, yet again. Call me nuts, but that's not exactly a good way to cut down on the amount of badly wounded soldiers returning to this country. This must be more of that
compassionate behavior, huh? But hey, a
sloppy choice of wording is much more important than
this.
The Right Wing Noise Machine must be
so proud of themselves.
Update:
Hand in hand. This is just heartbreaking.
(Tip of the Energy Dome to John Cole and Hilzoy.)
Open Wide...
Shut Up!
Our recipe this week comes via Jack, of The Non-Blog:
Vegetarian Chili
1 can Golden corn
1 can kidney beans, drained and cleaned
1 can pinto beans, drained and cleaned
1 green pepper
1 large can of diced (or crushed) tomatoes -or- 1 large can of tomato puree
1 tbsp. paprika
2 tsp. ground cumin
2 1/2 tbsp. chili powder
Red pepper flakes (optional)
1 Diced sweet onion
4 cloves of garlic, crushed
2 tbsp Olive oil
Salt
Pepper
1/2 cup brown sugar
Saute onions and garlic over medium heat in a sauce pan until onions are transparent. Add the gree pepper, tomatoes, and seasonings. Stir over medium heat for 2-3 minutes. Add brown sugar and stir to dissolve. Then, add beans and corn, and keep a low simmer for 6-7 minutes. Serve with tortilla chips or corn bread.
Open Wide...
Shut Up!
