The Seventh Sense

The Education President

Republicans just shouldn’t be in the education business.  Not since Quayle instructed a student to spell the word potato incorrectly, have we seen a boner like this:

It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of—and the allegations—by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble—that means not tell the truth.

Uh, don’t teach English, Dubya—it’s not your strong suit. “Disassemble“ means “to take apart”.  The word you were looking for was “dissemble“.

Worse Than Appeasement

Not long ago, the right-wing blogosphere was chastizing the left because (supposedly) we all wanted to “appease” Saddam.  Of course, “appeasement” in our view meant inspections, fly-overs, sanctions and a whole host of other active efforts which—let’s be honest—are just the opposite of appeasement.

Today’s LA Times has a piece by former NSC director Steve Andreasen which takes Bush to task for his appeasement of North Korea and Iran.  He makes the distinction between active appeasement, which is bad enough, and passive appeasement, which characterizes the Bush policy:

No one can accuse the Bush administration of making an active effort to appease North Korea or Iran. In fact, the administration has gone to great lengths to avoid even the appearance of “giving in” to Pyongyang or Tehran, refusing to engage in direct negotiations regarding their nuclear programs. Without negotiations, the reasoning appears to be, there can be no concessions, no agreement and no appeasement.

Or can there be? The administration seems to have forgotten the part about meeting the aggressor head-on. Indeed, the administration’s approach might be called passive appeasement — and the absence of energetic diplomacy or credible military threat may be just as injurious to U.S. interests as an active agreement recognizing renegade nations as nuclear powers.

***

Because of a lack of assertive diplomacy, the most isolated, dangerous regime on the globe has been permitted to increase its nuclear inventory. Only now — when North Korea appears ready to stage a nuclear test — is the administration considering establishing its own red line, backed by threats of negative consequences. But bilateral negotiations with the North apparently remain off the table.

Read the whole thing, and ask yourself, where are the cries of “appeaser” now?

Deep Throat Revealed

Breaking news: Ex-FBI official Mark Felt says he is “Deep Throat”.

NASCAR - The Sport of Pussies?

I don’t get the appeal of NASCAR.  I really don’t.  It’s as exciting to watch as butter melting, except when they crash, and I don’t find human mutilation to be entertaining.

I’ve always assumed that there is some technical prowess involved for the drivers, but as a spectator, I can’t appreciate it because I can’t see what they are doing.  But it looks like I may be wrong.  The success of a driver apparently depends on, not his skill, but his weight.  At least, that’s what Robby Gordon is indicating in his recent whine:

Robby Gordon accused Danica Patrick of having an unfair advantage in the Indianapolis 500 and said yesterday he will not compete in the race again unless the field is equalized.

Gordon, a former open-wheel driver now in NASCAR, contends that Patrick is at an advantage over the rest of the competitors because she only weighs 100 pounds. Because all the cars weigh the same, Patrick’s is lighter on the race track.

“The lighter the car, the faster it goes,” Gordon said. “Do the math. Put her in the car at her weight, then put me or Tony Stewart in the car at 200 pounds and our car is at least 100 pounds heavier.

“I won’t race against her until the IRL does something to take that advantage away."

Danica Patrick finished fourth in this past weekend’s Indy 500, the highest placement for a woman competitor.

To Gordon, I suggest you look at other sports.  Tall basketball players.  Midget jockeys.  Breastless gymnasts.  Huge linebackers.  You name it, size and shape plays a role in almost every sport, and in none of them do we try to equalize the body types.  If indeed NASCAR qualifies as a “sport”, then you better stop whining and switch to salads, Gordo.

New Rule on Amnesty International

NEW RULE: Amnesty International is a legitimate source for human rights violations of other countries, but is an unreliable and irresponsible source for reporting on the U.S.

On March 27, 2003, Rumsfeld said:

We know that it’s a repressive regime…Anyone who has read Amnesty International or any of the human rights organizations about how the regime of Saddam Hussein treats his people…

The next day, Rumsfeld even cited his “careful reading” of Amnesty:

…[I]t seems to me a careful reading of Amnesty International or the record of Saddam Hussein, having used chemical weapons on his own people as well as his neighbors, and the viciousness of that regime, which is well known and documented by human rights organizations, ought not to be surprised.

And on April 1, 2003, Rumsfeld said once again:

[I]f you read the various human rights groups and Amnesty International’s description of what they know has gone on, it’s not a happy picture.

Quite a contrast to the present Amnesty International-bashing by the Administration lately.

War Snapshot

The insurgents are on the run, says the blind man.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 28 - The surge of violence that has swept Iraq since its first elected government took office nearly a month ago continued Saturday, with at least 30 new deaths reported across the country, some of them in what appeared to be sectarian killings.

The latest attacks raised the total number of Iraqis killed this month to about 650, in addition to at least 63 American troops who have been killed, the highest American toll since January.

Read the whole thing.

Of course, the heart of the problem is Newsweek and CBS.

Folks, it isn’t working.  We’re waist deep in the big muddy.

Too Little, Too Late

The headline says it all:

Republican Party to require ethics training for candidates.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Saying he’s “mad as hell” over recent ethical missteps by Republicans, state GOP Chairman Robert Bennett is planning to require all candidates seeking party support to undergo ethics training.

This pertains to Ohio only (Bennett is the Ohio State GOP Chairman), but one would hope it becomes contageous.

The New Postmodernism (or A Short and Hypocritical History of Media-Bashing)

E.J. Dionne has a must-read about conservative media-bashing, using the Newsweek-Koran outrage as a launching-off point.  The key graf (for me) is this:

Conservative academics have long attacked “postmodernist” philosophies for questioning whether “truth” exists at all and claiming that what we take as “truths” are merely “narratives” woven around some ideological predisposition. Today’s conservative activists have become the new postmodernists. They shift attention away from the truth or falsity of specific facts and allegations—and move the discussion to the motives of the journalists and media organizations putting them forward. Just a modest number of failures can be used to discredit an entire enterprise.

Here’s a specific example of the then-and-now transition of the neo-con reception to media:

Back when the press was investigating Bill Clinton, conservatives were eager to believe every negative report about the incumbent. Some even pushed totally false claims, including the loony allegation that Clinton aide Vince Foster was somehow murdered by Clinton’s apparatchiks when, in fact, Foster committed suicide. Every journalist who went after Clinton was “courageous.” Anyone who opposed his impeachment or questioned even false allegations was “an apologist.”

We now know that the conservatives’ admiration for a crusading and investigative press carried an expiration date of Jan. 20, 2001.

Ain’t it the truth?  Read the whole thing.

On Presidential Dynasties

USA Today reports that, according to a recent USAToday/CNN/Gallop poll, 53% of Americans say they are likely to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 (Link).

I’m frankly surprised that 53% of Americans have an opinion at all about who they would vote for in 2008, and it leads me to wonder if “I don’t know” was one of the possible answers given to respondents.  I suspect not.

I certainly haven’t made up my mind yet.  I have nothing against Hillary, and it would be nice to have a female Chief Executive in the White House.  But this will mean 16, or possibly 20, years of Presidents coming from two families.  It’s different from the Roosevelts, or even the Kennedys (if Bobby wasn’t assassinated), because in this instance, an entire generation will come of age only knowing “President Clinton” or “President Bush”.

That’s not Hillary’s fault, of course, and it shouldn’t be held against her.  If she’s the best candidate, I’ll vote for her.  But I was wondering if anyone else had reservations about “presidential dynasties”.

I Think I Saw This Movie

Scientists are baffled by an unusual bright spot on Saturn’s big moon, Titan.

Or something pretty similar....