Airborne

We'll shortly be airborne on the way home from a fantastic (but far too short) weekend in Melbourne. When the opportunity arose to combine some business with a little pleasure, we didn't need a second invitation.

Melbourne is our favourite city in Australia. There's always something going on, the food and entertainment choices are almost limitless, and it is, of course, Australia's sporting capital. When we were reading the Sunday paper today, we counted that the attendances at three AFL matches yesterday in the final round of the regular season pulled over 110,000 punters, including more than 60,000 at the Gee last night.

So we'll be out of circulation for the rest of today, and we may not get back online until we get home tomorrow morning. But fear not; there's some early morning content locked and loaded for Monday morning. Without giving too much away, Kevin Rudd wouldn't have found the Sunday edition of the Herald-Sun especially good reading today!

Normal transmission will resume on Monday morning. Going to work tomorrow is going to be a struggle, and Peter Dunne's flexible retirement plan seems like quite a good idea today!

Saturday Night At The Movies by Dennis Hartley: From crayons to perfume: Top 10 school flicks

Dennis is on vacation so I thought I'd run this old post for the parents who are celebrating the kids going back to school.  --- d


Saturday Night At The Movies

From crayons to perfume: Top 10 school flicks

By Dennis Hartley

















It’s a funny thing. I know that this is supremely silly (I’m over 50, fergawdsake)- but as soon as September rolls around and retailers start touting their “back to school” sales, I still get that familiar twinge of dread. How do I best describe it? It’s a vague sensation of social anxiety, coupled with a melancholy resignation to the fact that from now until next June, I have to go to bed early. BTW, now that I’m allowed to stay up with the grownups, why do I drift off in my chair at 8pm every night? It’s another one of life’s cruel ironies.

At any rate, since it is “that time of the year”, I thought I would share my Top 10 show-and-tell picks for homeroom. As per usual, I must point out this is a completely subjective list of personal favorites; I am not proclaiming these selections to be The Most Beloved School Movies Ever (in case you’re wondering where I stashed Mr. Chips). So please grade my list on a curve. Also, please keep both hands away from the keyboard (on top of your desk where I can see them) and don’t start snarking until you have thoroughly read and understood this lesson plan completely. Wait a minute (sniff)-is somebody out there eating pizza? Put it down, and pay attention. In alphabetical order:

Blackboard Jungle-I always like to refer to this searing 1955 drama as the anti-Happy Days. An idealistic English teacher (Glenn Ford) takes on an inner-city classroom full of leather-jacketed malcontents who would much rather steal hubcaps and break windows than, say, study the construct of iambic pentameter. Considered a hard-hitting “social issue” film at the time, it still retains considerable power, despite some dated trappings. Vic Morrow and Sidney Poitier are appropriately surly and unpredictable as the alpha “toughs” in the classroom. The impressive supporting cast includes Richard Kiley, Anne Francis and Louis Calhern. Director Richard Brooks co-scripted with Evan Hunter, from his novel (Hunter is more widely known by his nom de plume, Ed McBain). The film also had a hand in making Bill Haley’s “Rock Around the Clock” a monster hit.

Dazed & Confused-I will admit upfront that my attachment to Richard Linklater’s amazingly vivid 1993 recreation of a “day in the life” high school milieu circa 1976 has almost everything to do with the sentimental chord it touches within me (I graduated from high school in 1974). The clothing, the hairstyles, the lingo, the social behaviors and (perhaps most importantly) the music is so spot on that I was transported into a total-immersion sense memory the first time I saw the film (no, I wasn’t high-grow up!). Perhaps the first wave of boomers a decade or so ahead of me were similarly affected when they first watched American Graffiti (anyone?). At any rate, I knew all these people! Not necessarily a goofy teen comedy; while there are a lot of laughs (mostly of recognition), the sharply written screenplay offers some inspired moments of keen observation and even genuine poignancy at times. Linklater certainly wouldn’t be able to reassemble this bright, energetic young cast at the same bargain rates nowadays: Matthew McConaughey, Parker Posey, Ben Affleck, Milla Jovovich, Adam Goldberg, Rory Cochrane, Joey Lauren Adams and Nicky Katt, to name but a few. Two power bongs up!

Election-Writer-director Alexander Payne and his stalwart writing partner Jim Taylor (Sideways , About Schmidt) followed up their noteworthy 1995 feature film debut, Citizen Ruth, with this biting socio-political satire, thinly cloaked as a teen comedy (which it decidedly is not). Reese Witherspoon delivers a pitch perfect performance as the psychotically perky, overachieving Tracy Flick, who makes life a special hell for her brooding civics teacher, Mr. McAllister (Matthew Broderick). Payne’s film is very funny at times, yet it never pulls its punches; there are some painful truths about the dark underbelly of suburbia bubbling beneath the veneer (quite similar to American Beauty, which interestingly came out the same year). Also notable for Matthew Broderick finally proving that he could lay the Ferris Bueller persona to rest and play an unlikable bastard.

Fast Times at Ridgemont High -Amy Heckerling’s 1982 coming-of-age dramedy is another film that introduced a bevy of new talent to movie audiences: Forest Whitaker, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Judge Reinhold, Phoebe Cates, Eric Stoltz, Nicholas Cage, Anthony Edwards, and of course Sean Penn as the quintessential stoned surfer dude, who seems to enjoy elevating the blood pressure of his history teacher (a marvelously dry Ray Walston). In the good ol’ days of VHS, I can remember searching in vain for a rental copy that didn’t suffer from extensive “freeze frame” damage at right about that moment where Cates reveals her, erm, hidden talents. Heckerling later returned to the same California high school milieu (updated for the 90s) for her hit Clueless. Rolling Stone reporter (and soon-to-be film director) Cameron Crowe scripted from his book, which was based on his experiences “embedded” at a San Diego high school (thanks to his youthful appearance, Crowe had successfully passed himself off as a student for a year).

Gregory's Girl- Scottish writer-director Bill Forsyth’s delightful examination of puppy love crosses over from one of my previous Top Ten lists. Gawky teenager Gregory (John Gordon Sinclair) goes gaga for Dorothy (Dee Hepburn), a fellow soccer player on the school team. Gregory receives love advice from an unlikely mentor, his little sister (Allison Forster). His male classmates offer advice as well, but of course they are just as clueless as he is (although they put on airs of having deep insight on the subject of girls, naturally). In fact, Forsyth gets a lot of mileage out of that most basic truth about adolescence-the girls are usually light years ahead of the boys when it comes to the mysteries of love. Not as precious as you might think, as Forsyth is a master of low-key anarchy and understated irony. You may have trouble navigating the thick Scottish accents, but it’s worth it. Also with Clare Grogan, whom music fans may recall as lead singer of Altered Images, and Red Dwarf fans may recognize as “Kristine Kochanski”.

Massacre at Central High- I know I’m going to get some arched eyebrows with this selection. Despite the title, this is not a slasher movie; it’s more of a social satire/political allegory. You've seen the setup before-a gang of alpha high school bullies are terrorizing and intimidating their classmates at will, until the "new kid" rolls in and changes the status quo, Yojimbo style. The film veers into Lord Of The Flies territory, with allusions to class struggle, fascist politics and what-would-happen-if-there-were-no-adults-around anarchy. Don't get me wrong, this ain’t exactly Animal Farm; after all, the film stars Robert Carradine and Andrew "direct-to-video" Stevens, but for its budget and its genre, it’s oddly compelling. A U.S. production, but director Rene Raalder hails from Holland.

National Lampoon's Animal House- “Thank you sir. May I have another?” The twisted brain trust behind the National Lampoon produced this riotously vulgar and slyly subversive ode to college frat house culture, which became a surprise box-office smash in 1978. The film kicked off a lucrative Hollywood franchise for the magazine, and (building on the groundwork that was established by M*A*S*H and Blazing Saddles) opened the floodgates for a whole new genre of raunchy, uninhibited and politically incorrect movie comedy. The film is also notable for launching the fruitful careers of director John Landis and future director Harold Ramis (who co-wrote with Doug Kenney and Chris Miller). And what a brilliant ensemble cast: Tom Hulce, Tim Matheson, Peter Riegert, Karen Allen and Kevin Bacon (all unknowns at the time) along with screen vets Donald Sutherland and John Vernon. And no, I haven’t forgotten the guy who steals the show! I’m usually not a fan of physical comedy, but for some reason, everything John Belushi does in this movie, whether it’s falling off a ladder, smashing a guitar, crushing a beer can on his forehead, or simply arching his eyebrow-puts me in complete hysterics.

Rock 'N' Roll High School-As far as guilty pleasures go, this goofy bit of anarchy from the stable of legendary low-budget producer Roger Corman rates pretty high (and one suspects the creators of the film were, erm, “pretty high” when they dreamed it all up). Director Alan Arkush invokes the spirit of all those late 50s rock’n’roll exploitation movies (right down to having 27 year-old actors portraying “students”), substituting The Ramones for the usual clean-cut teen idols who inevitably pop up at the school dance. To this day, I’m still helplessly in love with P.J. Soles, who plays Vince Lombardi High School’s most devoted Ramones fan, Riff Randell. The great cast of B-movie troupers includes the late Paul Bartel (who directed several of his own cult classics under Corman’s tutelage) and his frequent screen partner Mary Waronov (as the uptight, iron-fisted principal). Although no one’s ever copped to it, I’m fairly sure this film inspired Square Pegs, the short-lived cult TV series from 1982. R.I.P. Joey, Dee Dee and Johnny.

To Sir, With Love-A decade after he co-starred in Blackboard Jungle, Sidney Poitier traded the switchblade and the bad attitude for a nice suit and an earnest lesson plan; it was his turn to play the mentor. This well-acted 1967 drama offered a bold twist on the usual formula (for its time). Movie audiences were accustomed to watching an idealistic white teacher struggling to tame the wild (and usually “ethnic”) inner city students; in this case, you had an idealistic black teacher trying to relate to a classroom chockablock with citizens of the unruly, white British working class. It’s a tour de force for director James Clavell, who also wrote and produced. Culture clash is a dominant theme in many of Clavell’s novels and films; most famously in Shogun. The film is a great “swinging 60s” time capsule-thanks to a spunky performance of the memorable theme song by Lulu, and a brief appearance by the Mindbenders (don’t blink or you’ll miss future 10cc co-founder Eric Stewart). Co-stars include Judy Geeson (delivering a poignant performance) and future rocker Michael Des Barres (vocalist for Silverhead, Detective, Power Station).

Twenty-Four Eyes-This naturalistic, tremendously moving drama from Keisuke Kinoshita could very well be the ultimate “inspirational teacher” movie. Set in an isolated, sparsely populated village on the ruggedly beautiful coast of Japan’s Shodoshima island, the story begins in 1928 and ends just after WW 2. This is a deceptively simple yet deeply resonant tale about a long term mentorship that develops between a compassionate, nurturing teacher (Hideko Takamine) and her 12 students, from grade school through adulthood. Many of the cast members are non-actors, but you would never guess it from the uniformly wonderful performances. Kinoshita enlisted sets of siblings to portray the students as they “age”, giving the story a heightened sense of realism. The film, originally released in 1954, was hugely popular in Japan; a revival some years later enabled it to be discovered by Western audiences, who warmed to its humanist stance and undercurrent of anti-war sentiments. Keep a box of Kleenex nearby.

Extra credit (10 more)-The Class , Rushmore, Flirting
The History Boys, Welcome to the Dollhouse, Heathers, Four Friends, 400 Blows, The Browning Version, If...

Class dismissed!

.

Speaking of sending signals

Speaking of sending signals

by digby

h/t @IncredibleViews

Happy Father's Day

It's almost 24 years since our father's life ended, but there is not a day when we don't remember him and miss him dearly.

Fatherhood is a huge and awesome responsibility. Our dad didn't always get it right, and neither did we with our children. But we hope that they appreciate the unconditional love that a father has for his children.

To all the dads out there; happy Father's Day. Parenting isn't easy, and there's no manual for when it all turns to custard. It's sometimes a lonely pursuit, but at other times there's nothing in the world that you'd rather do or be.

And Dad; thank you for everything.

The Contenders Caption Contest

The battle for the Labour Party leadership is on in earnest. And if the Stuff story we've just seen is to be believed, the gloves are off.

The story also had this image of two of The Contenders; David "The New Lynn Lip" Cunliffe and Shane "Gorilla" Jones; so you know what's coming next!

You know the rules; keep 'em short, humourous and pithy, and don't get unnecessarily personal. Beyond that, you're limited only by your own imagination.

Let's get ready to rumble!!

Going to congress doesn't change the merits of the argument

Going to congress doesn't change the merits of the argument

by digby

Just a note to say that while I'm glad the president has decided to get congressional authorization --- it is a necessary concession to democratic principles --- it does not change my calculus about the wisdom of bombing Syria. I've thought a lot about this since the war with Iraq, when I made arguments repeatedly about "norms" and just war theory and constitutional requirements and the necessity of UN approval.  And I realized later that it was all a dodge on a certain level.  Yes, international norms are important as are our adherence to treaties and constitutional obligations.  But they don't trump the fact that it is unwise to take certain actions even if all those conditions are met.

I do not think it makes sense to bomb Syria on the merits, regardless of who approves it.  I think the US is needlessly running into a buzzsaw and may very likely make things worse. In my view, the correct approach for the US is energetic diplomacy with an eye toward pulling Russia and China away from their positions and getting the other Middle Eastern countries to put pressure on Assad. We have become dependent on the idea that bombing and killing is the only way to affect change despite the evidence that it doesn't work any better than using other approaches. The US has a lot of power and influence aside from an ability to launch cruise missiles.  I think we've gotten tremendously uncreative. Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

.

Why Labor is losing; and what it means for the NZLP.

We were out and about yesterday, after our business meetings ended.We even met a Liberal Party candidate for one of the local electorates doing some good, old-fashioned street corner campaigning; good luck Kevin!

But we haven't seen hide nor hair of anyone from the Labor Party; they seem to be keeping a low profile. And this opinion-piece from Paul Strangio in the Sydney Morning Herald may help to explain why:

In the near half-century since the dawn of the ''modern'' epoch of Australian politics - a milestone conventionally associated with Gough Whitlam's ascension to the Labor leadership in the late 1960s - Australia has witnessed five changes of federal government (1972, 1975, 1983, 1996 and 2007).
Two of those transitions involved the ALP losing office: Whitlam was defeated in 1975 and Paul Keating's government was beaten in 1996. When compared with those occasions, a notable difference about the mood in 2013 is the seeming lack of passion among Labor partisans as they contemplate the likely demise of the Rudd government.
Labor has traditionally been the party capable of stirring followers to emotional pitch, and those passions have commonly been intense when the ALP is bracing itself against defeat. It has been a catalyst for party faithful to metaphorically mount the barricades.

1975, of course, had its own exceptional circumstances, with Labor partisans animated by a potent mixture of rage at Whitlam's dismissal by governor-general Sir John Kerr, and adoration of their cruelly felled prime minister. Whitlam's rallies during the campaign were even more charged and messianic than the exultant ''It's Time'' campaign meetings of 1972. Such was the fervency of the Labor crowds that the Whitlam entourage was seduced into believing that the party might defy expectations and prevail at the ballot box.
Passions were more subdued in 1996. Labor had expended much of its emotional energy three years earlier rallying behind Keating as he fended off the challenge of John Hewson and his fundamentalist free-market manifesto, ''Fightback''. There was little hope of another salvation in 1996 and the dominant mood among Labor followers was one of sombre foreboding that matched the demeanour of the elegiac Keating. Yet the ''true believers'' still drew inspiration from Keating's ''big picture'' and felt sick at heart that the public was poised to spurn his vision in favour of the provincialism of John Howard's promise of a ''comfortable and relaxed'' Australia.
By contrast, in 2013 Labor faithful appear devoid of emotion - dare I suggest there is even a smidge of indifference about what is coming. Yes, there is apprehension at the spectre of a Tony Abbott-led Coalition government and spasms of anger at the anti-Labor assault of the News Ltd press, but the fate of the Rudd government is failing to generate much anguish.
Why the dearth of passion? Part of the answer is that the leadership civil war of the past three years has left the ALP emotionally wrung out. I suspect some Labor loyalists remain numb at the pitiless internal destabilisation and ultimate cutting down of Australia's first female prime minister, Julia Gillard.
Furthermore, as the campaign has progressed, it has become evident that by not daring to speak Gillard's name, Labor's re-election pitch has been left with a significant hole. Notwithstanding the flaws of her incumbency, Gillard established a reform record that felt like it was worth fighting for - most notably, the disability insurance scheme and education funding reform. Yet, intent on erasing Gillard's prime ministership from public consciousness, Rudd has appeared reluctant to fully own those measures for Labor. In turn, the campaign has spotlighted how comparatively thin and uninspiring are his reform credentials.

We are relatively recent converts to the niceties of Australian Federal politics. It's only really been since the John Howard years that we have taken more than a passing interest.

But the machinations within the ALP since 2007 have been fascinating to watch, and even moreso at the moment because they are mirrored in the bitterly divided New Zealand Labour Party. 

Labor and Kevin Rudd are headed for a crushing defeat next Saturday if the pundits here and the bookies are to be believed. You can still get a bet on the Coalition; at $1.02 back for your dollar. Labour is paying $11 to be reelected.

Surely, this is going to lead to wholesale change at the top of the ALP. But the question we have is this; what is needed for there to be wholesale change at the top of the New Zealand Labour Party? Will any of Messrs Cunliffe, Robertson or Jones be the catalyst for significant change, or will it just be more of the same?

We don't need no stinkin' scientists

We don't need no stinkin' scientists

by digby

Is this a great country or what?

New data compiled by a coalition of top scientific and medical research groups show that a large majority of scientists are receiving less federal help than they were three years ago, despite spending far more time writing grants in search of it. Nearly one-fifth of scientists are considering going overseas to continue their research because of the poor funding climate in America.

The study, which was spearheaded by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) and will be formally released next week, is the latest to highlight the extent to which years of stagnant or declining budgets, made worse by sequestration, have damaged the world of science.

More than 3,700 scientists from all 50 states participated in the study, offering online responses in June and July 2013. They offered sobering assessments of the state of their profession. Eighty percent said they were spending more of their time writing grants now than in 2010, while 67 percent said they were receiving less grant money now than they were back then. Only two percent of respondents said they had received money from their employers -- predominantly academic institutions -- to make up for the loss of federal funds.

So, what's the problem? As long as we have Jesus and the the Invisible Hand (pretty sure they are the same thing) we don't need a bunch of scientists wasting our hard earned money. Our problems will all go away as long as rich people are properly rewarded for their great service to our society. It's like magic.

I am beginning to agree with the conservatives about one thing: the self-esteem movement has hurt this culture terribly.  However it's not the squishy ladymen on the left who have taken it to heart, however. It's the right wing yahoos who believe the United States has been ordained by God to be the "greatest country the world has ever known." The fact that we are rapidly turning ourselves into a second rate backwater means nothing to them because well --- we're Number One! Everybody says so.


.

One More False Equivalence by tristero

One More False Equivalence

by tristero

And while we're on the subject of science....

The logic goes: people on the right have screwy ideas, therefore people on the left must have equally screwy ideas. And therefore, a reasonable person must position her/his own ideas between the equal "extremes" of right and left opinions.

Of course, this logic is itself screwy. But that doesn't prevent the Times from publishing letters like this one, from a poor 'ittle conservative who believes he was treated unfair:

Anti-science complaints are most often aimed at the creationism espoused by religious conservatives, but there’s rarely a word about the left’s dubious opposition to engineering marvels like nuclear energy...

That's right: opposition to nuclear power is as extreme and intellectually vapid as refusing to accept the fact that organisms evolve.

There a little problem with that, however. It's called reality. From CNN:

While the amount of radioactivity released into the environment in March 2011 [by the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster] has been estimated as between 10 percent and 50 percent of the fallout from the Chernobyl accident, the 400,000 tons of contaminated water stored on the Fukushima site contain more than 2.5 times the amount of radioactive cesium dispersed during the 1986 catastrophe in Ukraine...

...[A] huge amount of highly contaminated water – enough to fill 160 Olympic-size swimming pools...

Like it or not, nuclear energy is an extremely dangerous form of power. Given Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima (to name just three), opposition to the building of nuclear power plants is a reasonable position.

On the other hand, any way you cut it, creationism is simply a crude theology and nutso science that deserves not an iota of respect.

.

Can someone explain to me why this isn't a bigger deal? #Syria #Intelligence

Can someone explain to me why this isn't a bigger deal?

by digby

I realize that the intelligence memo was a Friday newsdump on a holiday week-end but I'm still surprised I haven't seen any discussion of this.

American intelligence agencies had indications three days beforehand that the Syrian regime was poised to launch a lethal chemical attack that killed more than a thousand people and has set the stage for a possible U.S. military strike on Syria.

The disclosure -- part of a larger U.S. intelligence briefing on Syria's chemical attacks -- raises all sorts of uncomfortable questions for the American government. First and foremost: What, if anything, did it do to notify the Syrian opposition of the pending attack?

In a call with reporters Friday afternoon, senior administration officials did not address whether this information was shared with rebel groups in advance of the attack. A White House spokeswoman declined to comment on whether the information had been shared.

But at least some members of the Syrian opposition are already lashing out at the U.S. government for not acting ahead of time to prevent the worst chemical attack in a quarter-century. "If you knew, why did you take no action?" asked Dlshad Othman, a Syrian activist and secure-communications expert who has recently relocated to the United States. He added that none of his contacts had any sort of prior warning about the nerve gas assault -- although such an attack was always a constant fear.

Razan Zaitouneh, an opposition activist in the town of Douma, one of the towns hit in the Aug. 21 attack, said she had no early indication of a major chemical attack. "Even the moment [the attack hit], we thought it was as usual, limited and not strong," she told The Cable in an instant message. That only changed when "we started to hear about the number of injuries."

"It's unbelievable that they did nothing to warn people or try to stop the regime before the crime," Zaitouneh added.

Here's the passage in the Intelligence Memo that to which article refers:

We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons personnel – including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC – were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack.

Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin. On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks. Our intelligence sources in the Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning to use chemical weapons.

Call me crazy but that seems like a big deal. Why didn't they reveal this publicly? I get that they were probably protecting sources and methods but this is a chemical weapons attack, something we allegedly believe is so far beyond the pale that it requires military action despite the fact that military action is widely acknowledged to be useless in stopping the carnage. And anyway, the cat's out of the bag now --- if that was their concern why in the world did they put this in this memo?

If this is all about the international norms against the use of chemical weapons being upheld, then I honestly cannot understand why we wouldn't have announced that we knew this was coming --- if only to warn the people of Syria. Who knows, maybe Assad (or whoever else did this) would have called it off! Instead it looks as though we sat on the information, knowing it was coming. (And, make no mistake, there are people who will surmise that was done purposely in order to create a casus belli. And that would be despicably immoral.)

The US government may not be able to do much in this situation because it is perversely limited by its military dominance. But there is one thing it has: the entire world now knows it has the capability of listening in on pretty much any conversation anywhere. That's a power they could have used to intimidate the Assad regime into thinking twice about doing this horrible thing. But it's entirely possible that they are so instinctively over-protective of their secrets that they couldn't move quickly enough.

On the other hand, this memo could just be full of lies. It wouldn't be the first time US Intelligence put out bogus information to bolster a case for military action, would it?


Update: Greg Mitchell did note this yesterday.

Update II: People on twitter presume that the administration probably only put together this evidence after the fact. That may be true. But considering the vast resources that go into our NSA/CIA operations, one has to wonder why they couldn't put it together in real time. After all, they knew what they were specifically looking for.

But hey, maybe all the money and capabilities they've developed haven't improved their ability to connect the dots even when they have a small number of people to spy upon and they have very specific suspicions. Good to know.

.

A fanfare for the common man on Labor Day weekend, by @DavidOAtkins

A fanfare for the common man on Labor Day weekend

by David Atkins

It's Labor Day weekend here in America. People are dying in Syria while the rest of the world tries to figure out what if anything at all can or should be done about it.

Now would be a good time for Americans to think how lucky we are, and to be thankful for the brave labor and progressive activists who have made our middle class and our prosperity possible, in spite of the plutocrats constantly seeking to destroy it. It's a good time for an old-fashioned Fanfare for the Common Man, courtesy Aaron Copland.

A twerking trainwreck

A twerking trainwreck

by digby





Brain bleach and tequila please.  And make it a double

"Iraq was a long, long time ago"

"Iraq was a long, long time ago"

by digby

The New York Times ombudsman has been getting complaints from readers about the newspaper's coverage of Syria. Apparently quite a few people are hearing echoes of Iraq --- and they don't like it. She looked into it:

I talked with the managing editor Dean Baquet about this on Thursday, and to Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor, on Friday. I asked both to what extent the work they are supervising – respectively, news stories and opinion pieces, including Times editorials – is influenced by an expressed desire to avoid past mistakes.

Mr. Baquet told me that the specter of Iraq is not something that has come up explicitly for discussion in meetings he has held among editors and reporters on the Syria coverage.

“I’ve never said, ‘Let’s remember what happened with Iraq,’” he told me. “I don’t think it’s necessary. I haven’t had to instruct the staff to ask hard questions. They are doing that.”

He added: “The press’s coverage of Iraq always lurks in the background. But it was a long, long time ago.”

Syria is not another Iraq, he said – one of the major differences, he said, is that the Obama administration has no enthusiasm for this conflict in the way that President George W. Bush’s administration did a decade ago.

“Nobody could read our coverage and say that The New York Times is trumpeting war,” Mr. Baquet added.

Hoookay. The paper that published Judy Miller's WMD propaganda certainly has no obligation to be especially mindful of its reporting about another "WMD" threat in the middle east. It was, after all, a "long, long time ago."

Sullivan weighs in:

I’ve been observing The Times’s Syria coverage and its editorials for many weeks, with an eye to this question. While The Times has offered deep and rich coverage from both Washington and the Syrian region, the tone cannot be described as consistently skeptical. I have noticed in recent weeks the ways that other major newspapers have signaled to their readers that they mean to question the government’s assertions. For example, although it may seem superficial, The Washington Post has sent a strong message when it has repeatedly used the word “alleged” in its main headlines to describe the chemical weapons attacks.

I have also found that The Times sometimes writes about the administration’s point of view in The Times’s own voice rather than providing distance through clear attribution. This is a subtle thing, and individual examples are bound to seem unimportant, but consider, for example, the second paragraph of Friday’s lead story. (The boldface emphasis is mine.)

The negative vote in Britain’s Parliament was a heavy blow to Prime Minister David Cameron, who had pledged his support to Mr. Obama and called on lawmakers to endorse Britain’s involvement in a brief operation to punish the government of President Bashar al-Assad for apparently launching a deadly chemical weapons attack last week that killed hundreds.

With the use of the word “apparently” – rather than directly attributing the administration, The Times seems to take the government’s position at face value. It’s a tiny example, of course, but in the aggregate it’s the kind of thing the readers I’ve quoted here are frustrated about.

I think this has been the usual approach of most of the big establishment papers for decades on these national security stories. They all comically cheered the run-up to Iraq, making their support so clear that it couldn't be ignored. You would think that would have made a difference, but it hasn't. Still, in my experience, the mainstream press identification with the government is these situations is always obvious.

When the government decides its going to war, most elite opinion falls in line and public opinion usually shifts, at least temporarily, as a result. Most pundits seem to think that being against a war that ends in victory is far more embarrassing than being against a war that ends up being a mistake, which has always struck me as very telling.

Still, this doesn't seem to be going as well for the government as one might have expected. The administration seems to have hoped they could get in and out quickly before anyone paid close attention and that hasn't worked out. And it seems not to have anticipated the reluctance on the part of politicians everywhere to stick their necks out again, which is downright puzzling. This product roll-out has been very bumpy and it's hard to see where it's going to end up at this point.


*In fairness, Sullivan does also point out that the editorial board has been more skeptical and that there has been some good, front page reporting that didn't have its thumb on the government's scales.

As California goes, so goes the west, by @DavidOAtkins

As California goes, so goes the west

by David Atkins

California emigres are changing the west:

Colorado's politics have become positively Californian lately. There are new restrictions on guns. Pot is legal. The legislative agenda featured an expansion of alternative-energy use requirements for rural consumers. Gay couples can now enter into civil unions.

There's a reason for all this.

Lots of Californians have moved to Denver and its environs, bringing a progressive strain of politics with them and angering more conservative parts of the state — so much so that 10 northeastern counties are planning symbolic but serious votes on secession this fall.

Conservatives have discovered that living on the far side of the Rockies is no longer far enough to get away from the influence of West Coast liberals.

"California migration, to a degree, has altered Colorado politics," says Mike Krause, vice president of the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank in Denver. "I see California license plates in my neighborhood and on my commute all the time."

California transplants aren't the entire reason the Mountain West has become arguably the nation's chief swing region in national politics. The number of Californians moving to other Western states has actually declined over the past couple of decades, while growth of Hispanic populations has been more important in terms of shaking things up politically.

Still, newcomers from California have not only helped put Colorado in the Democratic column in recent presidential elections, but they've also helped President Obama carry Nevada two times.

Californians have contributed to make Salt Lake City and Boise more Democratic in recent years, but they are easily outvoted by Republicans in other parts of Utah and Idaho. Similarly, other states such as Arizona and remain reliably Republican, but contain more liberal enclaves thanks to new arrivals from the West Coast.

Conservatives decry this undeniable phenomenon as Californians leaving a dystopia to ruin other places. Nothing could be farther from the truth, of course: California is such a desirable place to live that property values and other costs of living are through the roof. Inevitably, many professionals decide that it would be more worthwhile to go where the cost of living is cheaper, so long as they can remain reasonably well employed. And eventually, liberal policies will make those states more desirable places to live, which in turn will drive up property values and cost of living due to demand, etc. None of which are problems so long as wages can keep pace.

In the meantime, a liberal shift throughout West will eventually radically alter the entire nation's politics. Soon enough the nation's balance of power will shift away from the South and toward the West, with California--and Californians both resident and emigre--leading the charge.


.

Kev's large and menacing shadow

Kevin Rudd got a bounce in the polls for Labor after his knifing of former Australian PM Julia Gillard. But as the SMH reports, the lustre is wearing off:

It was brief, dignified and to the point, but Julia Gillard's statement that she would not attend Sunday's Labor campaign launch was startling, too. How quickly we move on; how quickly Labor wants us to move on.
Gillard has disappeared. She has posted just one thank-you tweet to well-wishers since being ousted as prime minister on June 26, barely two months ago. She reportedly has bought a house in Adelaide to be close to her family. She won't be sitting with other Labor luminaries on Sunday because she doesn't want to ''distract in any way from Kevin Rudd's powerful message''. She has ''fervent hope'' for a Labor victory.
There was so much left unsaid in Gillard's two-sentence statement. Was there irony lurking there, not wanting to ''distract'' Rudd, the man whose distractions all but derailed the 2010 campaign and played a sizeable role in destroying Gillard's prime ministership?

Advertisement

What is Gillard thinking as she watches Labor's campaign, the dashing of the fantasy that ''the people'' just love Kevin Rudd, that Kevin Rudd alone can win this election because Kevin Rudd is a brilliant campaigner who can make us believe that Kevin Rudd offers a ''new way''?
Whatever Gillard is thinking, she'll hold her tongue for now. She may not be physically present in Brisbane, but her political ghost will be. Labor may have little choice but to pray that voters' memories are short, but it cannot erase its past, cannot pretend this election is all about scary Tony Abbott and his ''cuts, cuts, cuts''.
The central question is whether this election will turn out to be a judgment on Labor's six years of division that has overshadowed its policy achievements, or whether through gritted teeth we'll risk another three messy years because we're scared of what Tony Abbott might do.
I have been around too long to predict election outcomes, but it is looking as though September 7 will be a day of reckoning for a party that has come close to destroying itself. Labor seems so hollowed out that perhaps it had no choice but to grasp onto an American-style campaign centred around one man, Kevin Rudd, the man who more than any other contributed to the party's predicament.
Perhaps Rudd's elevation will mean that Labor will avoid the ''catastrophic defeat'' it faced under Gillard, and it will console itself with that. But there is so much heaviness in Labor's campaign, weighed down as it is by bad memories and bad blood.

 

Labour is in deep strife. A new poll out this morning shows Labor getting a bath in key marginals in New South Wales and Victoria. The bookies have already paid out on a coalition victory.

So will this image be Rudd's unfortunate epitaph?

Emmerson on Shearer

We spotted this wonderful Rod Emmerson cartoon whilst reading the Herald on our flight yesterday:

David Shearer may well, like Martin Luther King have had "a dream" when he took over the leadership of a dysfunctional Labour caucus. But little did he know that it would quickly become a recurring nightmare.

Quote of the Day - 31 August 2013

A "rich American" has done a runner from New Zealand, with a parting shot at the Government; and a response from Steven Joyce:

James Dale Davidson's $1.6 million mansion on the Wharekauhau Lodge estate will be sold in a mortgagee sale after he stopped paying his bank, despite having funds in the United States.
"In my view, it was more important to pay my children's private tuition than the bank . . . so that was that," he said from his Florida home yesterday.
He blamed the mortgagee sale on a break-up with his second wife, Taciana, who he says was a former Miss Brazil.
"I made the mistake of marrying a woman I thought was in love with me but who wasn't," he said. "When she divorced me she took a lot of money."
But he believed New Zealand was also to blame, with its hostility towards rich foreigners making it a terrible investment prospect. "I've made millions in Argentina. I've made millions in Peru. I went to Brazil and made millions . . . and I've gone to New Zealand and lost millions and millions. I think your country is run by idiots."
He claimed he lost $5m investing in New Zealand and still owed about $1m. "I love the house, I love the place. I think New Zealand is a lovely place to live, but it's just not a place that you can make money."
Instead of putting up barriers, it should be focusing on becoming a wealthy "retirement haven", he said.
But Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce said he wouldn't be losing any sleep over Mr Davidson's investment opinions.
The World Bank ranked New Zealand as the third-easiest country in which to do business, and other wealthy Americans, such as Hollywood director James Cameron, had invested in Wairarapa and elsewhere quite happily, he said. "But we are old-fashioned - we like people to pay their mortgages." 

Davidson sounds like the kind of "rich American" that New Zealand is far better off without; he's the kind that gives "rich Americans" a bad reputation.

But if he thinks there's hostility towards rich foreigners now, then it's probably better that he's gone before there is ever a change of government, because then he'd find out what hostility towards the rich REALLY is, be they foreigners or locals!

"Then and there the child of Independence was born" (Hint: it wasn't about taxes)

"Then and there the child of Independence was born" (Hint: it wasn't about taxes)

by digby

I wrote about a California court decision allowing police to search the cell phone of any suspect who'se been arrested. I brought up the fact that cell phones aren't just phones these days, they are a repository of all of our communications with access to our browsing history, emails, pictures an documents. It's an extremely intrusive search and to do it without probably cause is really quite shocking.

This blog post by Brianne Gorod at the Constitutional Accountability Center gives some historical context explaining why it's also an egregious violation of the Fourth Amerndment:

The Fourth Amendment broadly protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and also provides that “no Warrants shall issue” unless they “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” When the Framers adopted this Amendment, they were responding, in large part, to the British use of “general warrants” and “writs of assistance.” These warrants and writs lacked any specificity about the people or items to be searched and were not predicated on any individualized suspicion; essentially unlimited in scope, they allowed the officers executing them virtually unfettered discretion to engage in broad searches of a person’s home and the personal papers and effects in that home.

The use of these warrants was the subject of great opposition on the eve of the American Revolution. In a high profile case in 1761, a group of Boston merchants challenged the use of general warrants. Their attorney, James Otis, decried them as “the worst instrument of arbitrary power” and warned that they “place[d] the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.” Indeed, their use was one of the grievances that prompted the call for independence from British rule. John Adams later remarked that Otis’s attack on the use of general warrants “was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence was born.” And as the Nation’s new Constitution was being debated, there were calls for an explicit prohibition on the use of such warrants. The uniquely detailed text of the Fourth Amendment was the result. It not only enshrined in our Nation’s charter a specific prohibition against general warrants, but it also reflected the Framers’ more general concern that government officers not be able to search a person’s home, papers, and effects in the absence of some individualized, justified suspicion that a specific search would produce evidence of wrongdoing. Stated simply, the Framers wanted to strip the government of the arbitrary power to rifle through a person’s belongings in the hope of finding something incriminating.

The practice permitted by the California courts (and others) violates this fundamental Fourth Amendment precept. Although the police may sometimes conduct warrantless searches after a lawful arrest, the traditional justifications for such searches were not present in Riley’s case—Riley’s cell phone had been taken away from him upon his arrest, thus eliminating any concern about destruction of evidence, and the text messages, emails, photos, and other digital contents of the phone could not have posed any threat, let alone an imminent one, to the arresting officers’ safety. To the contrary, the police acknowledged that they had dug through “a lot of stuff” on the phone specifically “looking for evidence.” This is precisely the type of search for which the Constitution demands a warrant.

Limits on the government's power to search your home and personal communications without specific suspicion of wrongdoing and authorization by a judge is fundamental to the American definition of liberty. It goes all the way back to the beginning. It's not an afterthought. This vacuous notion that "technology" somehow changes that basic principle must be challenged.


.

Cool Things My Friends Do: Jason Alba - 51 Alternatives To A Real Job

Each Friday on this blog I enjoy highlighting some of the cool things my friends do in their personal and professional lives.

My friend Jason Alba was laid off from a successful IT career in 2006.  What followed is a familiar story of a rough road to finding a new job.  Along the way he created JibberJobber.com, and has never returned to "Corporate America".

Jason has just released his third book (he is famous for his first, "I'm on LinkedIn... Now What?"). This new release is "51 Alternatives To A Real Job".  In this book her chronicles the stories of 51 people who have carved out their own answers to a career.  These include Babysitter, Event Planner, Home Stager, Personal Trainer, Leather Vinyl Doctor, and the Founder/Inventor of Ooh La Bra (which is my favorite story in the book, and I will tell you why down the page).

Jason has spent years traveling around the U.S. speaking to unemployed professionals and executives for a eight years.  In his travels he was always speaking to highly talented people, but many of them had been out of work for long periods of time and some were losing hope.  As he chatted with people, either at the event where he spoke or in local coffee shops, he started to realize that their was power in what he was learning from people who were finding alternative ways to earn money and get back into the workforce.  BOOM, the idea for this book was born.

One of the stories he tells in the book is about Lisa Angelos McKenzie, the founder of Ooh La Bra.  What is cool is that he discovered Lisa, and her story, by reading about her on MY blog.  I have written about Lisa's entrepreneurial journey twice - including her being featured on a "Cool Things My Friends Do" post in December 2012.  I find it extra cool that one of my friends writes about another one of my friends in his book.... and they connected from reading my blog!

"51 Alternatives to A Real Job" is currently available on Kindle (via Amazon.com) for $9.99, and is available for order on Jason's website in paperback for $19.99.  

Have A Great Day

thom singer

Giants have limitations, especially the biggest ones

Giants have limitations

by digby

This morning, I wrote:

The calculus seems to be all about maintaining presidential prerogatives, sending messages and maintaining credibility at this point, all of which is total nonsense. The US is the world's military behemoth and everyone knows it. That such a country is also constricted in its ability to act militarily should be common sense. Big strong countries should pick their battles very carefully. But they always seem to be so worried about saving face and demonstrating their "credibility" that they make the mistake of believing their own hype. It's a depressingly familiar routine.

In this excellent post from James Fallows, which sets forth a number of concerns and insightful observations, he quotes this from a reader who says it more clearly than I did:

These pro-intervention responses (likely not representative of the whole country, granted) are indicative to me of a country still not yet at ease with its role as a superpower (~50 years isn't very long, granted). The idea of firing missiles on a country for the sake of one's own credibility is inward looking, and smacks of insecurity. The idea of one sovereign nation 'punishing' another equally so.

There is only one good reason to intervene in Syria: to prevent more innocent civilians from being burnt and gassed to death in their own homes - one can only imagine the true horror. And while that is a fine reason for wanting to intervene, it doesn't change the essential fact: none of the options laid before us will likely be effective in achieving that long term.

While hundreds of nations across the world would like to ease the suffering, they know implicitly that they don't have the capability to do so effectively, and so the debate never even begins. While in the US -- the world's 'only' superpower -- we wrestle with arguments of why and how, because we can't see the elephant in the room: we're powerless to help! (1). As a superpower the US cannot concede this explicitly. If strikes are launched, it will show that the US cannot concede this implicitly either.


(1) caveat: The US could of course launch a full scale invasion and win comfortably, but as we know from Iraq, it would not ease civilian suffering in the short and medium term, and the loss of life to them and us is too great.

This is a point I've been trying to make for a decade. The US government is not a superhero. It is not omnipotent. In fact, it is an unwieldy giant that is so big it is muscle bound and clumsy. It cannot accomplish fine surgical tasks and is, therefore, ill suited to small bore interventions.

The greatest advantage this nation really has is the mystery of its power. When it decides it must intervene and fails to accomplish its stated goals, as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan, that mystique is eroded and it's very difficult to get it back. Demonstrating over and over again that it doesn't have the agility to affect behavioral change with its mighty military force (and is sloppy, at best, with its intelligence capabilities) is a mistake. It emboldens foolish people to take chances they wouldn't otherwise take and risks escalating into the major confrontation that the US doesn't want to have to wage.

After years of crying wolf and being exposed as far less capable that the world once thought, it's absolutely predictable the Syrians (whoever they are) decided to test the boundaries. Taking the bait in this precise way, proving that we don't have the capacity or the influence to do anything other than ineffectual "signal-sending" or all out war weakens our national security and doesn't help the Syrian people. Giants have limitations too. But it's not a good idea to go out and prove it every chance you get.


.

Good news on the Grand Bargain Zombie

Good news on the Grand Bargain Zombie

by digby


It sounds like we dodged the Grand Bargain bullet again.  For the moment anyway:

Through multiple meetings with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors and Budget Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the group discussed a range of options, including a “grand bargain” that would involve a complete restructuring of Medicare, according to people familiar with the meetings, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private talks.

The group also discussed a smaller deal that would replace much of the remaining sequester savings — about $500 billion over the next eight years — with narrower reforms to Medicare, Social Security and other ­mandatory-spending programs, such as farm subsidies.

But the talks never really gelled, in part because Republicans would not consider raising taxes on the wealthy or corporations as part of the smaller deal, arguing that congressional Republicans as a whole would never agree to replace sequester cuts with higher taxes. Nor did they offer a specific strategy for raising taxes as part of the larger deal.

The final meeting came Thursday at the White House, where the group also discussed potential military action against Syria. The eight senators were Corker, Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Daniel Coats (Ind.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), John Hoeven (N.D.), Ronald H. Johnson (Wis.) and, joining by phone, John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.).

By the end of the session, both sides agreed there was no point in meeting again.

The idea that the President could have sold this to the Democrats, even with some illusory tax hikes seems unlikely, but who knows? On the other hand it's far more likely than the GOP being able to sell it to the tea partiers. The sequester is terrible and so is the Grand Bargain. It's time for some fresh thinking on all of this.

In the meantime it looks as if we're heading for another showdown. What could go wrong?

.

Guess who's copying George W. Bush's most manipulative rhetoric?

Guess who's copying George W. Bush's most manipulative rhetoric?

by digby

I'm sure you all recall this war cry from George W. Bush's, right?

"There's no question that the leader of Iraq is an evil man. After all, he gassed his own people,"

-- George W. Bush Bush Oct. 11, 2001, address.

"Saddam Hussein is a man who is willing to gas his own people, willing to use weapons of mass destruction against Iraq citizens." --George W. Bush, March 22, 2002

"As he said, any person that would gas his own people is a threat to the world."--Scott McClellan, White House spokesman, May 31, 2002

"A lot of people understand that this man has defied every U.N. resolution -- sixteen U.S. (sic) resolutions he's ignored. A lot of people understand he holds weapons of mass destruction. A lot of people understand he has invaded two countries. A lot of people understand he's gassed his own people. A lot of people understand he is unstable." --- George W. Bush, September 7, 2002

Q: If I could follow-up on it. You and the President have repeatedly said one of the reasons Saddam is part of the axis of evil is because he's gassed his own people. Well, he gassed his own people with our help. You saw the Washington Post article, didn't you, by Michael Dobbs?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that statement is not borne out by the facts. I think that he gassed his own people as a result of his decisions to use his weapons to gas his own people. And I think the suggestion that you blame America for Iraq's actions is way beyond the pale. --- press briefing January 27, 2003

There's a reason why the world asked Saddam Hussein to disarm -- for 12 years. (Laughter.) And the reason why is because he's dangerous. He's used them. He tortures his own people. He's gassed his own people. He's attacked people in the neighborhood. -- George W. Bush, January 29,2003

It is undisputed that Saddam did "gas his own people." But this act (which was ignored at the time it happened) became one of the rallying cries of the Iraq invasion, which we all now know was a terrible decision. Bush said it dozens of times in his speeches and press conferences. It is seared into the memories of every American who was paying attention at the time. And one would hope that any decent politician would be smart enough not to echo that rhetoric as a casus belli again so soon.

Unfortunately, this happened last night:

“It is clear that the American people are weary of war. However, Assad gassing his own people is an issue of our national security, regional stability and global security,” Pelosi said in a statement after the 90-minute conference call with members of the National Security Council and 26 high-ranking lawmakers.

George W Bush couldn't have said it better. I'm just surprised she didn't add "the oceans can't protect us anymore" to really drive home the point.

No, Assad "gassing his own people" (if, in fact, he actually gave that order, which has not been established) is not an issue of our national security. That's as daft as Powell talking about Saddam's drone fleet dropping bio-weapons on America. (Which  turned out to be a couple of outdated Czech UAVs that couldn't fly more than a few meters.) Our national security is affected by Assad's alleged actions only in the most abstract sense, even beyond anything that the last administration threw out there. And strangely, nobody has been making that explicit argument until the top Democratic leader in the House stepped up to make it.

If I didn't know better (and I do) I would almost think she said it to derail the intervention. Nobody who was serious would back anything that sounds exactly like the justifications that were used for the Iraq debacle. That's the craziest thing I can imagine, particularly coming from a Democrat who used to sound like this instead:

08-Mar-03

"The Democratic Party lost an opportunity five months ago to avert the massive military buildup toward war against Iraq by failing to take a unified stand, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said on Friday. Pelosi, a California Democrat who voted against the October 2002 congressional resolution to back a possible U.S.-led war, told a foreign policy think tank [Council on Foreign Relations] that President Bush 'is too far down the road and I don't think he's turning back. If the Democrats had spoken out more clearly in a unified vote five months ago in opposition to the resolution, if the people had gone onto the streets five months ago in these numbers in our country and around the world, I think we might have been in a different place today,' Pelosi said...

Unlike others, I would guess at this point that if the Obama administration wanted to take this vote to the congress he could get it passed with Democratic votes and half the Republicans. (I do not believe they have lost their taste for blood altogether, but just as with Kosovo many of them will be singing Kumbaaya for purely political reasons.) It doesn't look as if the President's going to do that but things are just scrambled enough with the UK backing out that it could happen.

The calculus seems to be all about maintaining presidential prerogatives, and sending messages and maintaining credibility at this point, all of which is total nonsense. The US is the world's military behemoth and everyone knows it. That such a country is also constricted in its ability to act militarily should be common sense. Big strong countries should pick their battles very carefully. But they always seem to be so worried about saving face and demonstrating their "credibility" that they make the mistake of believing their own hype. It's a depressingly familiar routine.

.

The Onion delivers some spot-on Syria analysis, by @DavidOAtkins

The Onion delivers some spot-on Syria analysis

by David Atkins

You know the elite punditry leaves quite a bit to be desired when The Onion beats most of them out for cogent policy analysis:

So, What's It Going to Be?

by Bashar Al-Assad

Well, here we are. It’s been two years of fighting, over 100,000 people are dead, there are no signs of this war ending, and a week ago I used chemical weapons on my own people. If you don’t do anything about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. If you do something about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. Morally speaking, you’re on the hook for those deaths no matter how you look at it.

o, it’s your move, America. What’s it going to be?

I’ve looked at your options, and I’m going to be honest here, I feel for you. Not exactly an embarrassment of riches you’ve got to choose from, strategy-wise. I mean, my God, there are just so many variables to consider, so many possible paths to choose, each fraught with incredible peril, and each leading back to the very real, very likely possibility that no matter what you do it’s going to backfire in a big, big way. It’s a good old-fashioned mess, is what this is! And now, you have to make some sort of decision that you can live with.

So, where do I begin? Well, this is just the tip of the iceberg, but let’s start with the fact that my alliance with Russia and China means that nothing you decide to do will have the official support of the UN Security Council. So, right off the bat, I’ve already eliminated the possibility of a legally sound united coalition like in Libya or the First Gulf War. Boom. Gone. Off the table.

Now, let’s say you’re okay with that, and you decide to go ahead with, oh, I don’t know, a bombing campaign. Now, personally, I can see how that might seem like an attractive option for you. No boots on the ground, it sends a clear message, you could cripple some of my government’s infrastructure, and it’s a quick, clean, easy way to punish me and make you look strong in the face of my unimaginable tyranny. But let’s get real here. Any bombing campaign capable of being truly devastating to my regime would also end up killing a ton of innocent civilians, as such things always do, which I imagine is the kind of outcome you people would feel very guilty about. You know, seeing as you are so up in arms to begin with about innocent Syrians dying. Plus, you’d stoke a lot of anti-American hatred and quite possibly create a whole new generation of Syrian-born jihadists ready to punish the United States for its reckless warmongering and yadda yadda yadda.

Okay, what else? Well, you could play small-ball and hope that limited airstrikes to a few of my key military installations will send me the message to refrain from using chemical weapons again, but, c’mon, check me out: I’m ruthless, I’m desperate, and I’m going to do everything I can to stay in power. I’d use chemical weapons again in a heartbeat. You know that. And I know you know that. Hell, I want to help you guys out here, but you gotta be realistic. Trust me, I am incapable of being taught a lesson at this point. Got it? I am too far gone. Way too far gone.

Oh, and I know some of you think a no-fly zone will do the trick, but we both know you can’t stomach the estimated $1 billion a month that would cost, so wave bye-bye to that one, too.

Moving on.

I suppose you could always, you know, not respond with military force at all. But how can you do that? I pumped sarin gas into the lungs of my own people, for God’s sake! You can’t just let me get away with that, can you? I mean, I guess you easily could, and spare yourself all of this headache, but then you would probably lose any of your remaining moral high ground on the world stage and make everything from the Geneva Conventions to America’s reputation as a beacon for freedom and democracy around the world look like a complete sham.

It goes on like this. It's a great read, and strikes at the heart of what makes this such an impossible problem.

There are no good options for the Western world here. None. Anyone who thunders on about how morally obvious the answer is, whether it be intervening or failing to, isn't a trustworthy policy analyst.


.