Via an intriguing precis by NewDonkey, the Confidence Man reads Andrei Cherny's TNR article on how Dems can potentially coopt Bush's "Ownership Society" shell game.
Now, there is an interesting and potentially fruitful conceit there (one that our good friend Aloysius Huntsley would praise for its fecundity). A conceit that NewDonkey's precis actually sums up better than the article itself.
However, this article is absolutely worthless. It's clumsy, awkward, tone-deaf, riddled with cliches and boilerplate wonk-pitchery. It's unfocused. It's unstructured. It's a terrible piece of writing.
So, the Confidence Man gets to the end of this excruciating piece of verbiage -- and finds out that the author Cherny "between February 2003 and April 2004 [...] was the director of speechwriting and a special advisor on policy for the Kerry for President campaign."
Oh.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
October 29, 2004
Nomencreature
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/10/28/dog.names.ap/index.html
My god! Suddenly, I wonder what has been going through the minds of my poor little boy and girl, Halliburton and Fox, all this time?
Brazilian lawmakers want ban on human names for pets
Friday, October 29, 2004 Posted: 8:30 AM EDT (1230 GMT)
Federal congressman Reinaldo Santos e Silva proposed the law after
psychologists suggested that some children may get depressed when they learn
they share their first name with someone's pet, said Damarias Alves, a
spokeswoman for Silva.
My god! Suddenly, I wonder what has been going through the minds of my poor little boy and girl, Halliburton and Fox, all this time?
October 28, 2004
Retard Turnout
That phrase (used by Eric Alterman stand-in Siva Vaidhyanathan to describe a Salon item on black voter-suppression by the GOP) pretty much sums up the GOP electoral strategy for Tuesday, doesn't it?
Equally apropos whether the first word is the verb (in the case of Dem voters) or the subject (GOP voters) ...
Equally apropos whether the first word is the verb (in the case of Dem voters) or the subject (GOP voters) ...
That Sounds Dirty
"Lincolnalia."
And, of course, the context is appropriate.
Jibbenainosay, we await your input on this matter.
And, of course, the context is appropriate.
Jibbenainosay, we await your input on this matter.
More Professional Myopia
Richard Posner has an essay in Legal Affairs bemoaning the pitiful quality of academic legal journals.
Funny thing is, Posner postulates a decline in academic legal publishing standards and practices in comparison to other professional academic disciplines.
After l'Affaire Sokal several years ago, no one can say that humanities journals are genuinely refereed.
And the Confidence Man himself has some insight into the shady theatrics of medical and scientific journals.
The point is, every profession has its cads and bounders, its shady operators and Confidence Men. And professional house organs will always be institutional shills; and, being of necessity shills, their hegemonic imperative will outweigh their capitalistic imperative. That is, academic journals -- especially the house journals of professional organizations -- are loss-leaders. And the business units tasked with producing loss-leaders are institutionally incapable of driving organizational change -- and are generally under-budgeted.
All of which means that the editors of academic journals are underpaid and have very little power.
Which, in turn, means that criticizing academic journals for the shortcomings of a profession is like blaming enlisted men and NCOs for the failings of the chain of command.
Funny thing is, Posner postulates a decline in academic legal publishing standards and practices in comparison to other professional academic disciplines.
After l'Affaire Sokal several years ago, no one can say that humanities journals are genuinely refereed.
And the Confidence Man himself has some insight into the shady theatrics of medical and scientific journals.
The point is, every profession has its cads and bounders, its shady operators and Confidence Men. And professional house organs will always be institutional shills; and, being of necessity shills, their hegemonic imperative will outweigh their capitalistic imperative. That is, academic journals -- especially the house journals of professional organizations -- are loss-leaders. And the business units tasked with producing loss-leaders are institutionally incapable of driving organizational change -- and are generally under-budgeted.
All of which means that the editors of academic journals are underpaid and have very little power.
Which, in turn, means that criticizing academic journals for the shortcomings of a profession is like blaming enlisted men and NCOs for the failings of the chain of command.
Plus, All Those Trial-Lawyer-Induced Jury Awards Make It Hard to Get Historiographic-Malpractice Insurance
The Confidence Man reads with bemusement the latest quinquennial irruption of the "Historiography in Crisis!" swarm.
(Another neologism opportunity: "buzzing" cultural forms that run in unremarked cycles, and are dependent upon the unremarkedness to maintain their cyclicity and currency, should be said to operate on cicadian rhythms.)
(Another neologism opportunity: "buzzing" cultural forms that run in unremarked cycles, and are dependent upon the unremarkedness to maintain their cyclicity and currency, should be said to operate on cicadian rhythms.)
October 27, 2004
Fetching Naivete
Laura Rosen, who is usually a little more hardheaded about these things, waxes naive in her concern for the ability of the Bush White House lawyers to find gainful employ after their boss goes down in flames next Tuesday [emphasis added]:
Can the White House and Justice Department lawyers be prosecuted for war crimes? They are responsible for writing secret memos authorizing the CIA's disappearing of prisoners. Even after the Abu Ghraib revelations. Appalling. And are their tactics proving effective -- at all -- in Iraq? You judge. US and Iraqi death rates are only rising in Iraq by the month. After they inevitably leave government at some point, some will try to return to university law schools to teach. What students would possibly want them at their law school? These people should be treated like the international pariahs they are.
Laura, Laura, Laura.
Ken Starr found a job. (OK, it was at the Fundamentalist Surf Madrassah of the Far West, but it's still a job.)
Even John Yoo found a job -- at fuckin' Berkeley!
Yes, these people should be pariahs -- but they won't be. Neither will Cheney. Neither will Rumsfeld. Hell, Bush is going to be the next Commissioner of Baseball -- and what do you want to bet that Bush issues pardons to all those involved on his way out of the Oval Office (after stopping to pull off all the "J," "F," and "K" keys from the White House computers).
Can the White House and Justice Department lawyers be prosecuted for war crimes? They are responsible for writing secret memos authorizing the CIA's disappearing of prisoners. Even after the Abu Ghraib revelations. Appalling. And are their tactics proving effective -- at all -- in Iraq? You judge. US and Iraqi death rates are only rising in Iraq by the month. After they inevitably leave government at some point, some will try to return to university law schools to teach. What students would possibly want them at their law school? These people should be treated like the international pariahs they are.
Laura, Laura, Laura.
Ken Starr found a job. (OK, it was at the Fundamentalist Surf Madrassah of the Far West, but it's still a job.)
Even John Yoo found a job -- at fuckin' Berkeley!
Yes, these people should be pariahs -- but they won't be. Neither will Cheney. Neither will Rumsfeld. Hell, Bush is going to be the next Commissioner of Baseball -- and what do you want to bet that Bush issues pardons to all those involved on his way out of the Oval Office (after stopping to pull off all the "J," "F," and "K" keys from the White House computers).
Venn Diagram? Vhat Diagram?
The Confidence Man peruses his local job listings, and comes across the following in a posting for a marketing position:
Key requirements:
But -- Pepperdine?!? The Fundamentalist Surf Madrassa of the Far West? The place that hired this dickweed?
Key requirements:
- Excellent academic performance with degree from a highest tier university or liberal arts institution such as Harvard, MIT, Stamford [sic], Cal Berkeley, UCLA, Pepperdine, Amhurst [sic], Williams, Middlebury etc.
But -- Pepperdine?!? The Fundamentalist Surf Madrassa of the Far West? The place that hired this dickweed?
October 26, 2004
Red October Surprise?
Um. The Confidence Man can't think of any good reasons -- none at all -- why Colin Powell would go shooting his mouth off pro or con regarding Taiwanese independence a week before the US election.
Jesus. Is a shooting war between China and Taiwan the Bushies' October Surprise? The Confidence Man has to admit he didn't see that one coming.
I guess Colin figures that if Bush loses, there really will be war crimes tribunals ...
Jesus. Is a shooting war between China and Taiwan the Bushies' October Surprise? The Confidence Man has to admit he didn't see that one coming.
I guess Colin figures that if Bush loses, there really will be war crimes tribunals ...
Live From Forked Tongue, Wisconsin
... or, uh, no, fuck you, George.
The NYT is reporting that Bush now thinks that the GOP plank banning civil unions as well as gay marriage is wrong.
As Andrew Sullivan so rightly says, "President speak in forked tongue."
(The Confidence Man must suppress his initial instinct to respond to Andy, "What do you mean we, Paleface?" We think that supporters of the Bush pResidency should be subject to a domestic corollary to Colin Powell's Iraq "Pottery Barn Rule": you bought it, you own it.)
Sullivan also (wilfully?) misreads the pResident's statement as opposing individual state laws currently banning civil unions. Bush states quite clearly that he's in favor of letting states make the decision to ban civil unions on their own.
All that aside, this is quite a clumsy move by Bush. The Confidence Man doesn't see how this can't hurt him grievously among the Fundies and their fellow travelers, in numbers far outweighing any Log Lean-To and/or swing voters.
It's also, of course, grossly hypocritical and insulting for Bush to claim that he doesn't support a plank in his own god-damn party platform as well as a Constitutional Amendment for which he has been campaigning. Asshole.
The NYT is reporting that Bush now thinks that the GOP plank banning civil unions as well as gay marriage is wrong.
As Andrew Sullivan so rightly says, "President speak in forked tongue."
(The Confidence Man must suppress his initial instinct to respond to Andy, "What do you mean we, Paleface?" We think that supporters of the Bush pResidency should be subject to a domestic corollary to Colin Powell's Iraq "Pottery Barn Rule": you bought it, you own it.)
Sullivan also (wilfully?) misreads the pResident's statement as opposing individual state laws currently banning civil unions. Bush states quite clearly that he's in favor of letting states make the decision to ban civil unions on their own.
All that aside, this is quite a clumsy move by Bush. The Confidence Man doesn't see how this can't hurt him grievously among the Fundies and their fellow travelers, in numbers far outweighing any Log Lean-To and/or swing voters.
It's also, of course, grossly hypocritical and insulting for Bush to claim that he doesn't support a plank in his own god-damn party platform as well as a Constitutional Amendment for which he has been campaigning. Asshole.
Neologism
The Confidence Man reads Andrew Sullivan's surprising-only-to-himself-and-not-quite-so-much-to-Chris-Hitchens Kerry endorsement in TNR, and comes across an entertaining opportunity for a neologism.
In discussing the domestic aspects of Bush's atrocious record, Sullivan writes [emphasis added]:
Domestically, the record is horrifying for a fiscal conservative. Ronald
Reagan raised taxes in his first term when he had to; and he didn't have
September 11 to contend with. Ronald Reagan also cut domestic spending.
Bush has been unable to muster the conservative courage to do either. He
has spent like a drunken liberal Democrat. He has failed to grapple with
entitlement reform, as he once promised. He has larded up the tax code
with endless breaks for corporate special interests; pork has
metastasized; and he has tainted the cause of tax relief by
concentrating too much of it on the wealthy. He has made the future
boomer fiscal crunch far more acute by adding a hugely expensive new
Medicare prescription drug entitlement.
"Pork has metastasized": the Confidence Man herewith proposes porcinoma as the appropropriate term for out-of-control corporate welfare in government spending.
In discussing the domestic aspects of Bush's atrocious record, Sullivan writes [emphasis added]:
Domestically, the record is horrifying for a fiscal conservative. Ronald
Reagan raised taxes in his first term when he had to; and he didn't have
September 11 to contend with. Ronald Reagan also cut domestic spending.
Bush has been unable to muster the conservative courage to do either. He
has spent like a drunken liberal Democrat. He has failed to grapple with
entitlement reform, as he once promised. He has larded up the tax code
with endless breaks for corporate special interests; pork has
metastasized; and he has tainted the cause of tax relief by
concentrating too much of it on the wealthy. He has made the future
boomer fiscal crunch far more acute by adding a hugely expensive new
Medicare prescription drug entitlement.
"Pork has metastasized": the Confidence Man herewith proposes porcinoma as the appropropriate term for out-of-control corporate welfare in government spending.
L'Age d'Oh!
The Confidence Man reads Jibbenainosay's entreaty with a jaundiced eye.
We suspect that the link simply wasn't coded. A "human" error.
But, who knows? It certainly could be CNN policy -- which would not be surprising. The mass media is certainly a-roil with consternation over the threat to its information oligopoly.
We suspect that the link simply wasn't coded. A "human" error.
But, who knows? It certainly could be CNN policy -- which would not be surprising. The mass media is certainly a-roil with consternation over the threat to its information oligopoly.
Which America Was Attacked on 9/11?
Via Matt Yglesias, the Confidence Man reads Paul Waldman's Gadflyer article on Bush's mobilization of the "real America" meme to denigrate Kerry -- and the strctural impossibility of Kerry being able to counterpunch. It's a nice piece of analysis, especially the focus on the demographic trends that are dooming the GOP to premodern irrelevancy.
But there is a key question that needs to be brought to the table here: namely, which of these two Americas, the "real" or the Real, was actually attacked on 9/11?
The Confidence Man has spoken before about the fact that the America that was attacked on 9/11 was in fact the Modernist Real America, the land of economic progress, globalizing transnational corporations, secularism, hedonism, and pluralism. Look at any Fundie Islamist screed to see what the WTC actually represented to them.
The "real" America -- the red-state America of Fundie Christianity, small-town mores, economic protectionism, social conservatism, etc etc -- was most definitely not attacked on 9/11. Al Qaida couldn't care less about the backwards anti-Modernist red-state rubes. Al Qaida wants to kill the Liberals.
But there is a key question that needs to be brought to the table here: namely, which of these two Americas, the "real" or the Real, was actually attacked on 9/11?
The Confidence Man has spoken before about the fact that the America that was attacked on 9/11 was in fact the Modernist Real America, the land of economic progress, globalizing transnational corporations, secularism, hedonism, and pluralism. Look at any Fundie Islamist screed to see what the WTC actually represented to them.
The "real" America -- the red-state America of Fundie Christianity, small-town mores, economic protectionism, social conservatism, etc etc -- was most definitely not attacked on 9/11. Al Qaida couldn't care less about the backwards anti-Modernist red-state rubes. Al Qaida wants to kill the Liberals.
You Mean, That Movie Where Bing Crosby Sodomized Bob Hope With a Glowstick?
Phil Carter of the invaluable Intel Dump has an excellent Washington Monthly article, "The Road to Abu Ghraib," on the chain-of-command decisions that resulted in the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo (and, as Carter does not point out, god knows where else).
Carter has been hounding this story from its inception, and does a great job of filling in between the lines.
What he does not do, unfortunately (to distend the diagrammatic metaphor), is connect the dots.
Beyond written and verbal orders, beyond rules of engagement and legal opinions, what personally drove many (dare we say, most; virtually all?) soldiers on the ground in Iraq was the belief that Saddam Hussein was somehow "behind" or connected with the attacks of 9/11, and that Hussein harbored vaguely-defined "terrorists" who sought to further attack America. This entirely erroneous belief -- shared by an unconscionable number of Americans and a simply unconscious number of FOX News viewers -- surely worked in conjunction with the nominal and sub rosa orders in the field.
Which is to say, the chain of command -- from Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld on down -- knew that not only would a loosing of the Geneva Conventions result in lack of oversight and escalation of abuses, but that the soldiers' personal and patriotic emotions would be highly engaged in the matter as well.
And, of course, who is responsible for the erroneous belief that would drive the soldiers to seek personal and patriotic revanchism on Iraqis? Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.
This interconnection of motivation and context is necessary for a complete understanding of the situation.
(The Confidence Man might also note that Carter does not address the fact that neither Bush nor Cheney nor Rumsfeld ever actually served in the military, which would certainly explain their inability to foresee the consequences of their actions.)
Carter has been hounding this story from its inception, and does a great job of filling in between the lines.
What he does not do, unfortunately (to distend the diagrammatic metaphor), is connect the dots.
Beyond written and verbal orders, beyond rules of engagement and legal opinions, what personally drove many (dare we say, most; virtually all?) soldiers on the ground in Iraq was the belief that Saddam Hussein was somehow "behind" or connected with the attacks of 9/11, and that Hussein harbored vaguely-defined "terrorists" who sought to further attack America. This entirely erroneous belief -- shared by an unconscionable number of Americans and a simply unconscious number of FOX News viewers -- surely worked in conjunction with the nominal and sub rosa orders in the field.
Which is to say, the chain of command -- from Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld on down -- knew that not only would a loosing of the Geneva Conventions result in lack of oversight and escalation of abuses, but that the soldiers' personal and patriotic emotions would be highly engaged in the matter as well.
And, of course, who is responsible for the erroneous belief that would drive the soldiers to seek personal and patriotic revanchism on Iraqis? Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.
This interconnection of motivation and context is necessary for a complete understanding of the situation.
(The Confidence Man might also note that Carter does not address the fact that neither Bush nor Cheney nor Rumsfeld ever actually served in the military, which would certainly explain their inability to foresee the consequences of their actions.)
What About Anthropologists of Management?
... or, for that matter, Anthropology Department Heads, or Anthropologists elevated to the status of Dean?
The Confidence Man reads yet another admirable example of Our Gumptious Mayor standing up for what he believes in. To wit, in this instance, threatening to walk the picket lines alongside locked-out hotel staffers in an attempt to bring the hotel cabal to a resolution of the labor dispute.
But what really grabs the Confidence Man's attention is the gratuitous and irrational lefty bombast by the American Anthropological Association President Elizabeth Brumfiel: "anthropologists cannot, in all good conscience, meet in facilities whose owners are using the lockout of low-wage workers as a bargaining tactic."
If Prof. Blumfiel was truly on the side of the workers, she would best be advised to come up with something a little more snappy by way of a rallying cry: the Confidence Man suggests "Anthropologists cannot be Apologists!"
The Confidence Man reads yet another admirable example of Our Gumptious Mayor standing up for what he believes in. To wit, in this instance, threatening to walk the picket lines alongside locked-out hotel staffers in an attempt to bring the hotel cabal to a resolution of the labor dispute.
But what really grabs the Confidence Man's attention is the gratuitous and irrational lefty bombast by the American Anthropological Association President Elizabeth Brumfiel: "anthropologists cannot, in all good conscience, meet in facilities whose owners are using the lockout of low-wage workers as a bargaining tactic."
If Prof. Blumfiel was truly on the side of the workers, she would best be advised to come up with something a little more snappy by way of a rallying cry: the Confidence Man suggests "Anthropologists cannot be Apologists!"
Dept. of Irony, Blatant Visual Representations Division
Via Daily Kos, the Confidence Man gets a hearty chuckle out of this picture of Addled Cane-Break Solonic Candidate Jim Bunning, campaigning from his disadvantaged position.
Jibbenainosay, you have yet to weigh in on the Bunning "situation." What say ye?
Jibbenainosay, you have yet to weigh in on the Bunning "situation." What say ye?
Un CNN Andalus
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/25/bush.cousins.ap/index.html
Oddly, or perhaps now characteristically, this story does not contain a link to the site that is its object. I'm not sure what this means--is it policy? Perhaps the Confidence Man can find out. But it's bizarre to see, probably under the banner of "impartiality," a journalistic venue shut itself off as an access point to news itself.
Bush cousins launch pro-Kerry Web site
Monday, October 25, 2004 Posted:
9:42 PM EDT (0142 GMT)
BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- There goes the invitation to the Texas
ranch.
Seven distant relatives of President Bush have created a Web site
urging visitors: "Please, don't vote for our cousin."
Oddly, or perhaps now characteristically, this story does not contain a link to the site that is its object. I'm not sure what this means--is it policy? Perhaps the Confidence Man can find out. But it's bizarre to see, probably under the banner of "impartiality," a journalistic venue shut itself off as an access point to news itself.
October 25, 2004
October 22, 2004
Wolves, Lower
The Confidence Man has seen the Bush-Cheney campaign's latest ad, "Wolves."
The Confidence Man has also read most of the prominent lefty blogs' dismissive takes on the ad (Atrios, TPM, Pandagon, et alia), as well as steady Fred Kaplan's no-nonsense fact-check of the ad at Slate.
And while those opinions are not exactly wrong, they entirely miss the point of the ad.
(They also miss the fact that this ad is designed specifically to counter Bush's "tax gap" blunder from the second debate, wherein Bush clumsily allowed Kerry to score points on Bush's underfunding of common-sense "boots-on-the-ground" Heimatsicherheit.)
This ad is, yes, explicitly about terrorism.
But the implicit content is about "environmentalism" -- which is also to say, "Liberalism."
Note the Confidence Man's use of scare quotes: neither concept is attacked in the sense of its reality-based essence, but in the sense of its rhetorical status among Bush's electoral base.
Here's the question no one is asking: Why wolves?
The conventional-wisdom assumption is that this ad is in the tradition of Reagan's "Bear in the Woods" ad from 1984. And, again, superficially, this fits.
But why wolves, specifically?
"Wolves" are nearly as inflammatory a political rhetorical trope as "abortion" or "gay marriage" -- with similar Red Stae/Blue State divergence of opinion, but without the "polarizing national debate" denotations in the mass media.
To wax Brooksian:
"Wolves" to a stereotypical Blue Stater are a symbol of a vanishing and threatened Wilderness, a Wilderness that can, through scientific study, government funding, and conservation efforts, be nursed back to health and protected.
"Wolves" to a stereotypical Red Stater are symbolic Predators and Scavengers, a metaphor for government hostility to small business and property rights, Socialist Levelling through attacks on property rights, and eggheaded chilly secularism outweighing practical human concerns.
So, what we have here is an ad that is designed more to mobilize and enrage the conservative base, especially in the Southwest and Upper Midwest, than it is to appeal to swing voters.
Bush and Rove aren't trying, per se, to scare voters here, whether those voters are already scared, merely nervous, or inured to the Ridge-Ashcroft-Cheney Terra! Terra! Terra! attack. Rather, they're trying to solidify support of voters already leaning toward Bush on defense/terror issues by engaging their anger on a seemingly unrelated issue entirely.
And on that count, we have Confidence that the ad will do its job.
...
Speaking of "environmentalism," no one seems to be taking the bait on the Confidence Man's thesis that Bush's use of the term "steward of the environment" is Top Sekrit Fundie Windtalker-Speak for "property rights uber alles." It seems patently obvious to us; then again, we have Confidence.
...
Also speaking of "environmentalism," the Confidence Man is stumped as to why Kerry is not making that more of a campaign issue. Yes, Bush's biggest obvious blunder is Iraq and his failure to successfully prosecute the WoT; and yes, "it's the economy, stupid." Bush's environmental record, though, is horrifying. It's a huge weakness for Bush -- even among "sportsmen's associations," who recognize that they don't want to be standing in hip waders in a duck blind in a marsh that's teeming with arsenic.
...
And finally, a bright shiny penny to anyone who gets the title reference.
The Confidence Man has also read most of the prominent lefty blogs' dismissive takes on the ad (Atrios, TPM, Pandagon, et alia), as well as steady Fred Kaplan's no-nonsense fact-check of the ad at Slate.
And while those opinions are not exactly wrong, they entirely miss the point of the ad.
(They also miss the fact that this ad is designed specifically to counter Bush's "tax gap" blunder from the second debate, wherein Bush clumsily allowed Kerry to score points on Bush's underfunding of common-sense "boots-on-the-ground" Heimatsicherheit.)
This ad is, yes, explicitly about terrorism.
But the implicit content is about "environmentalism" -- which is also to say, "Liberalism."
Note the Confidence Man's use of scare quotes: neither concept is attacked in the sense of its reality-based essence, but in the sense of its rhetorical status among Bush's electoral base.
Here's the question no one is asking: Why wolves?
The conventional-wisdom assumption is that this ad is in the tradition of Reagan's "Bear in the Woods" ad from 1984. And, again, superficially, this fits.
But why wolves, specifically?
"Wolves" are nearly as inflammatory a political rhetorical trope as "abortion" or "gay marriage" -- with similar Red Stae/Blue State divergence of opinion, but without the "polarizing national debate" denotations in the mass media.
To wax Brooksian:
"Wolves" to a stereotypical Blue Stater are a symbol of a vanishing and threatened Wilderness, a Wilderness that can, through scientific study, government funding, and conservation efforts, be nursed back to health and protected.
"Wolves" to a stereotypical Red Stater are symbolic Predators and Scavengers, a metaphor for government hostility to small business and property rights, Socialist Levelling through attacks on property rights, and eggheaded chilly secularism outweighing practical human concerns.
So, what we have here is an ad that is designed more to mobilize and enrage the conservative base, especially in the Southwest and Upper Midwest, than it is to appeal to swing voters.
Bush and Rove aren't trying, per se, to scare voters here, whether those voters are already scared, merely nervous, or inured to the Ridge-Ashcroft-Cheney Terra! Terra! Terra! attack. Rather, they're trying to solidify support of voters already leaning toward Bush on defense/terror issues by engaging their anger on a seemingly unrelated issue entirely.
And on that count, we have Confidence that the ad will do its job.
...
Speaking of "environmentalism," no one seems to be taking the bait on the Confidence Man's thesis that Bush's use of the term "steward of the environment" is Top Sekrit Fundie Windtalker-Speak for "property rights uber alles." It seems patently obvious to us; then again, we have Confidence.
...
Also speaking of "environmentalism," the Confidence Man is stumped as to why Kerry is not making that more of a campaign issue. Yes, Bush's biggest obvious blunder is Iraq and his failure to successfully prosecute the WoT; and yes, "it's the economy, stupid." Bush's environmental record, though, is horrifying. It's a huge weakness for Bush -- even among "sportsmen's associations," who recognize that they don't want to be standing in hip waders in a duck blind in a marsh that's teeming with arsenic.
...
And finally, a bright shiny penny to anyone who gets the title reference.
October 20, 2004
The Far-Flung and Burgeoning Reality-Based Community
... or, should we say, "The Coalition of the Reality-Based"?
The Confidence Man, agape, reads this story this morning:
Iraqi militants who kidnapped and threatened to kill an Australian journalist "Googled" his name on the internet to check his work before releasing him unharmed.
Aside from the sheer delightfulness of the reporter being released unharmed, and the "news of the weird" factor, this story is significant on two levels:
The Confidence Man, agape, reads this story this morning:
Iraqi militants who kidnapped and threatened to kill an Australian journalist "Googled" his name on the internet to check his work before releasing him unharmed.
Aside from the sheer delightfulness of the reporter being released unharmed, and the "news of the weird" factor, this story is significant on two levels:
- It demonstrates the positive forward march of Modernism, even in Iraq, and despite the best efforts of both the Islamic and Christian Fundamentalists who would oppose such forward progress.
- It also demonstrates that the Iraqi insurgents are indeed members of the Reality-Based Community (membership in which, of course, is predicated upon the embrace of Modenrism) and therefore enjoy a distinct tactical advantage over the Bush administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)