At LAX en route to London (Treoblogging). I’m almost finished with Col. Thomas X. Hammes’ magisterial book ‘The Sling And The Stone.’
If you read this blog, you’ll like this book, and more, you’ll learn from it.
I got it on Phil Carter’s recommendation.
Thanks, Phil – for this and everything.
I’ve bitched (check out this post on MBNA water-carrier, Jew-basher, and Kos client Jim Moran) for a long time that the soft ethical standards of the elected Democrats would make it difficult – or impossible – for them to run against a core Republican vulnerability, the corporate-lobbyist-friendly policies the GOP loves to espouse.
Dean has made this point, with some effectiveness, and it’s nice to see it get echoed over at MyDD. Check out the comments; commenter Gary Boatwright sums up my feelings perfectly:
…Unfortunately, Democratic looseness with ethical standards will make it look like the pot is calling the kettle black.
If it was up to me, I’d hire one of Elliot Spitzer’s top lawyers and give them the task of cleaning up the Democratic party. Let the chips fall where they may.
I do feel like Al Pacino sometimes … “they just drag you back in…” I really do not want this blog to become ColeWatch or anything like it, but the Professor had a post the other day that so perfectly encapsulated his philosophical ‘framing’ that I expected that it would get picked up widely and commented on.
It wasn’t, so I will.He says:
Reuters reports that Israel is expanding its colonial settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank even as it is planning to remove a few thousand settlers from Gaza.
We have seen these sorts of events many times in colonial history. The French colonists rioted in Algiers in January 1960 as it became clear that DeGaulle was moving toward granting Algerian demands. There were a million colonizers in Algeria then, and they had managed to grab up the best land, the most lucrative industries. The Algerian owners of the country had run out of patience with this colonial theft, however, and the colonists would not prevail. Had the French tried to remain in Algeria, it would have meant a 30 years war. The Western Right, so attached to the colonial project of dominating others and establishing racial and economic hierarchies, has been frustrated for decades by decolonization. But as the Israelis have learned, the costs of colonialism in the contemporary world are very great indeed, since contemporary populations are mobilized, connected by media, and savvy about using modern science to strike back at their torturers. You can have a colony to feel superior over, and to exploit, only at the cost of living your life in fear and being brutalized and driven toward a kind of fascist society. The only forces that really want such a fate are . . . fascists.
If you had the academic background I did – studying political theory and history in the early 1970’s – this will be as familiar as a Led Zeppelin riff. Everything back then was viewed through the lens of colonialism – internal, external, economic, social, political. It was the aqua regia of political analysis.
And, in its moment – the postwar decades in which the old colonial order crumbled – it probably had some relevance. It probably has some utility today. But as a theoretical anchor in the modern era, it’s just silly. It’s like using epicycles to try and navigate a spaceship.
And worse, it has become the root of Bad Philosophy, which dissolves every relationship into a relationship of power – and which demands that power and violence be used to free the oppressed from the bonds of that power.
Sadly, those bonds are largely imagined.
But the destruction and pain caused by their release is very much real.
On July 20, 1969, I woke up in the middle of the night in the Las Vegas hotel where my family was staying.
On the painfully small TV set, I sat, enraptured, and watched the grainy, blurred, almost incomprehensible images that came back from the moon as Neil Armstrong stepped down and off the ladder and onto the lunar soil.
The poor quality of the images didn’t matter; my imagination filled them in more than satisfactorily.
I can’t describe the feeling it gave me; I had no personal association with the space program through my family or friends, but somehow I felt part of it nonetheless, and felt that somehow Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin (yes, and Michael Collins) represented all of us…all humanity.
We’re a species capable of great and terrible things. Let’s choose great ones.
Tell me again why this is such a good idea.
Germany’s top court blocked the extradition of a suspected al Qaeda financier to Spain, ruling on Monday that a key instrument in the European Union’s fight against terrorism breached the constitution.
The Federal Constitutional Court ordered the release of Mamoun Darkazanli, a German-Syrian fighting his handover under an EU arrest warrant, a new instrument the court said Germany had not implemented correctly.
In doing so, the court upheld an article of the post-war constitution preventing the state from extraditing its citizens, with only limited exceptions.
Ok folks, I need some help.
I’ve stayed out of the swamp that is the Rove/Wilson/Plame game for the same reason I stay out of it when TG gets one of her speeding tickets, and is outraged, yes outraged that she has to go to court.
Yes, I know everyone does it, but that’s not going to do you much good in front of the judge when you’re explaining why the officer wrote you for 58 in a 40.
So yes, I know everyone talks to the press, and typically violates all kinds of policies up to and including secrecy, but there’s no way it doesn’t – at minimum – look bad when you’re the one caught doing it.
But that’s not my issue.This isn’t about the Rove / Novak talkfest. It’s about what lies underneath it.
Take a look at Intel Dump today, and the post by Jon Holdaway over there. First of all, it’s eminently unhysterical in tone.
But he summarizes the chronology about as well as I’ve seen it.
The story goes that Ambassador Joseph Wilson is assigned by the CIA, based on the recommendation of his wife, who works as a WMD analyst for the Agency, to go to Niger, where he had previous diplomatic contacts, and ascertain whether Saddam Hussein was looking for nuclear materials (specifically, Niger yellowcake).
Wilson comes back, briefs the CIA that Iraq had attempted to make commercial contacts with Niger officials, that Niger officials considered the contacts were for the subrosa purpose of purchasing yellowcake, and that they broke off contact due to the UN sanctions.
Pres. Bush, in his Jan 2003 State of the Union message states that Iraq is looking to purchase nuclear materials in Africa.
Next, we go to war in Iraq, with one of the reasons being that Iraq either was or had the intent of starting up a nuclear weapons program. Wilson writes an op-ed in the NY Times and states that the President lied because there was no evidence that Iraq was looking to buy nuclear materials in Niger. Robert Novak soon after quotes unnamed Administration sources who state that Wilson’s wife works for the CIA and is the one who put him up to the trip. Wilson complains that his wife is a covert operator who’s been outed in violation of the law, and the CIA asks the Justice Department to appoint a special investigator to look into whether someone broke the law and put one of their covert operators into danger.
Now here’s my dumb question.
I’ve read the damn Senate Report, and read the citation of Wilson in which – as stated above, he says that he was told that Iraqis were in Niger, and that the person he talked to thought they were trying to buy uranium.
From Page 43:
The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerian President Ibrahaim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997 – 1999) or Foreign Minister (1996 – 1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that “although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.”
So here’s my problem.
Bush was chastised for saying:
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Wilson claimed, both in his debrief (in the Senate Intelligence report it is stated that he said “there is nothing to the story” that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger).
So here’s where I get stuck, and could genuinely use some help.
It looks to me like Iraq did make an attempt – at least a desultory one – to buy uranium.
That’s what they were accused of.
Wilson, in his original oped, slams the Administration because
In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a ”white paper” asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq’s attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.
Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.
So I’m puzzled…it seems that the facts as he knew them supported the claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium.
So help me understand this gap. Too many smart people don’t see it as a gap for me to just assume there is one.
Help a blogger out…
I’m a helpless victim of it.
I’ve just taken possession of a new (to me) supermotard motorcycle (a MuZ Baghira, pictured below the fold). After a week of commuting on it, one simple question presents itself to me:
Why the heck does anyone ride any other kind of bike?
Much of my riding is commuting; TG and I have only one car between us (the Mighty Odyssey minivan) and find that we can preserve our sanity in Los Angeles traffic best by commuting on motorcycles. But I also sportride (ride somewhat quickly on the interesting windy roads in the Los Angeles and Central California hills) and tour.
I’ve typically owned sportbikes (motorcycles that are also used for roadracing, like a Suzuki GSXR-600) or sport-touring motorcycles (motorcycles that start as racing motorcycles but are redesigned for more comfort and with a focus on covering log distances, like my old Triumph Sprint ST).
They are aerodynamically designed – the sportbikes typically have top speeds in excess of 150 mph, and the sport-tourers typically will run about 130. This means the rider has to crouch down over the motorcycle; the most extreme production racing motorcycles…like the Ducati 998 or Yamaha R6…are affectionately known as “racks” for their uncomfortable riding positions.
In reality, even the most “squidly” (unsafe, irresponsible, unskilled) riders don’t use the high-speed capabilities of their motorcycles to any meaningful extent. There is some benefit to the aerodynamics at fast highway speeds, but for riding in the city or on local roads – even the curve-ridden fun ones – the benefit is pretty limited.
Enter the motard.
There is a large class of motorcycles designed for riding in the dirt; the rider has to sit erect to be able to balance the bike in a constantly-changing traction environment and be able to control the bike in a wide range of attitudes.
They have long-travel suspensions to get the bike over obstacles, and engines optimized for low-speed torque rather than high-speed horsepower.
But they have skinny wheels with knobby tires designed for dirt and mud, instead of smaller wheels with wider street tires. Some genius came up with the idea of putting street wheels on a dir bike, and the motard was born.
Back in the 1980’s, the ABC television show “Wide World of Sports” came up with the idea of a race that would pit motorcycle road racers against flat track riders against motocross riders, and called it “The Superbikers”. They rode the precursors to supermotards on a course that was flat and bumpy dirt and asphalt. The sport took off in Europe, and is just in the last four or five years reaching the United States.
And so people started converting their dirt bikes to motards, and motorcycle manufacturers started following them.
I’d read about motards, and when my sore neck suggested that a more upright position would be useful, picked one up.
And now that I’ve been riding it for a week, I’m kicking myself for not getting one sooner.
Riding in traffic is far easier and safer then on a sportbike; I can see and be seen far easier because of the height and vertical posture. The wide handlebars, quick steering, and strong acceleration from a stop make threading through traffic far easier as well.
I’ve only done a little riding in the twisties with it, but have a feeling that I’ll have far more fun on my 50hp motard – and possibly go as fast or faster – as on my 100hp sport-tourer. I think a day ride to San Francisco would be more tiring, but horses for courses, as they say.
It’s getting almost 47 mpg, parks anywhere, uses less road, and gets me to work with a grin on my face.
If you ride, you ought to think about getting one…so meet Thalia, the MuZ of comedy and playfulness:
My day job is sending me to the UK the week after this. I’ll be in Guildford and Derby, primarily, and only have limited free time.
But I’d love tips on things to do or see there, and it’d be a treat to connect with any UK bloggers.
Drop a comment or an email.
Tigerhawk has been looking at events in Pakistan with some interest, and suggests that recent events mean a lot:
In the last three days, though, there is new evidence that Pakistan is less concerned about al Qaeda today than it has been. On Friday, Pakistan acknowledged for the first time that it had allowed American troops on its soil in hot pursuit of Taliban fleeing across the border. This acknowledgement resulted in the usual uproar, but the fact of the acknowledgement suggests that Musharraf is no longer worried about the Islamist backlash. That development in and of itself is huge.
One can only hope…