America’s most trusted source for news and information.
"The truth is not a crystal that can be slipped into one's pocket, but an endless current into which one falls headlong."
Robert Musil
E-mail:
manwithoutqualitiesblog
@yahoo.com
LINKS
The real and peerless Robert Musil
More on the real Robert Musil and his work
Virginia
Postrel
InstaPundit
KausFiles
OpinionJournal
HowAppealing
RatherBiased
Parapundit
BetsysPage
BlissfulKnowledge
Cathy's World
DoktorFrank
LibertarianLeanings
JumpingToConclusions
FromTheGroundUp
TransterrestrialMusings/
RandSimberg
KevinHoltsberry
KerryHaters
Bit'sBlog
The Blogging Caesar
DissectingLeftism
AsymmetricalInformation
ChicagoBoyz
InsultsUnpunished
MaxPower
OverLawyered
AtlanticBlog
CyberAlerts
PrestoPundit
Commentariat
GodOfTheMachine
SneakingSuspicions
Econopundit
DavidWarsh
StuartBuck
DailyPundit
Croooow Blog
BalloonJuice
OffWingOpinion
Cornfield
DoctorWeevil
GreatSatan
Lileks [w/Bleat]
PeterSeanBradley
VikingPundit
MinuteMan
RobinRoberts
CommonSense
LynxxPherrett
indiawest
PoorAndStupid
BenShapiro
SineQuaNon
JayCaruso
ClaremontInstitute
CanOfWorms
DonHagen
f3
IdiotQuotient
PerfectlyUseless
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
Friday, October 03, 2003
Davis Descending LIX: Just Another Transcript With Different Wording
The New York Times provides in a bit of context but covers up with some nasty doublespeak in its article on the Arnold-as-Nazi claims made by ABC News.
First, some context about those ABC News smearquotes. The Times reports:
In a part of the interview not used in the film, Mr. Schwarzenegger was asked to name his heroes: "who do you admire most."
"It depends for what," Mr. Schwarzenegger said, according to the transcript in the book proposal. "I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education up to power. And I admire him for being such a good public speaker."
But early this morning, Mr. Butler called back, saying he had driven back to his New Hampshire home and found another transcript of the interview, with different wording: "I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for his way of getting to the people and so on. But I didn't admire him for what he did with it. It's very hard to say who I admire, who are my heroes."
Mr. Butler [said] that his transcribers had had difficulty rendering Mr.Schwarzenegger's remarks because of his accent and said the only way to resolve the discrepancy was to listen to the tapes, which are in Mr. Schwarznegger's possession.
Another transcript with different wording? What kind of reliability is that? Is this a joke? And how can the omission of entire sentences be explained by difficulties with an accent?
Why are ABC News and the New York Times publishing a transcript expressly said by its maker to be wrong and requiring tapes to construe - tapes that neither ABC nor the Times can obtain?
Then there is this amazing doublespeak from the Times:
A copy of the proposal for the book, which would have been entitled "The Master Plan," was provided to The New York Times on Tuesday by someone who has no obvious affiliation with any of the California campaigns. The person provided the copy on the condition that his identity be kept secret and would not explain the motivation for releasing it. But the person was aware that the disclosure, coming within days of the California recall election, could damage Mr.Schwarzenegger's campaign.
By someone who has no obvious affiliation with any of the California campaigns? That seems to include partisan Democratic activists from, say, New York, who haven't signed up with a California campaign. The Times doesn't even say what an obvious affiliation with any of the California campaigns would be or that the reporters asked any questions about the political affiliations of the proposal provider. Do Messrs. Nagourney and Kirkpatrick mean that the person providing the proposal was not wearing a campaign lapel pin? Aren't Times readers entitled to know if that person was a political activist - regardless of whether he or she had an obvious affiliation with any of the California campaigns?
The article also vaguely describes Mr. Schwarzenegger goose stepping, clicking heels and the like - which he says he does not recall doing. Whether he did or not, it's just weird that the Times is now reduced to running such a thing. That's the kind of thing one might have found only in the Enquirer just a few years ago.
(0) comments
The New York Times provides in a bit of context but covers up with some nasty doublespeak in its article on the Arnold-as-Nazi claims made by ABC News.
First, some context about those ABC News smearquotes. The Times reports:
In a part of the interview not used in the film, Mr. Schwarzenegger was asked to name his heroes: "who do you admire most."
"It depends for what," Mr. Schwarzenegger said, according to the transcript in the book proposal. "I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education up to power. And I admire him for being such a good public speaker."
But early this morning, Mr. Butler called back, saying he had driven back to his New Hampshire home and found another transcript of the interview, with different wording: "I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for his way of getting to the people and so on. But I didn't admire him for what he did with it. It's very hard to say who I admire, who are my heroes."
Mr. Butler [said] that his transcribers had had difficulty rendering Mr.Schwarzenegger's remarks because of his accent and said the only way to resolve the discrepancy was to listen to the tapes, which are in Mr. Schwarznegger's possession.
Another transcript with different wording? What kind of reliability is that? Is this a joke? And how can the omission of entire sentences be explained by difficulties with an accent?
Why are ABC News and the New York Times publishing a transcript expressly said by its maker to be wrong and requiring tapes to construe - tapes that neither ABC nor the Times can obtain?
Then there is this amazing doublespeak from the Times:
A copy of the proposal for the book, which would have been entitled "The Master Plan," was provided to The New York Times on Tuesday by someone who has no obvious affiliation with any of the California campaigns. The person provided the copy on the condition that his identity be kept secret and would not explain the motivation for releasing it. But the person was aware that the disclosure, coming within days of the California recall election, could damage Mr.Schwarzenegger's campaign.
By someone who has no obvious affiliation with any of the California campaigns? That seems to include partisan Democratic activists from, say, New York, who haven't signed up with a California campaign. The Times doesn't even say what an obvious affiliation with any of the California campaigns would be or that the reporters asked any questions about the political affiliations of the proposal provider. Do Messrs. Nagourney and Kirkpatrick mean that the person providing the proposal was not wearing a campaign lapel pin? Aren't Times readers entitled to know if that person was a political activist - regardless of whether he or she had an obvious affiliation with any of the California campaigns?
The article also vaguely describes Mr. Schwarzenegger goose stepping, clicking heels and the like - which he says he does not recall doing. Whether he did or not, it's just weird that the Times is now reduced to running such a thing. That's the kind of thing one might have found only in the Enquirer just a few years ago.
Davis Descending LVIII: Susan Estrich Defends A Republican. But She's Wrong Again!
Susan Estrich, an expert in sexual harrassment law and a Democratic activist, condemns the Los Angeles Times for the timing and content of its Arnold-and-six-women article. I agree with her that the Times has been a cheerleader for Davis, that this article has little news in it, relies on nameless sources to an extent reaching to the very limits of journalism ethics, did not warrant front-page placement and is presented suspiciously close to election day.
But the Times was justified in running this (weak) piece. That Times coverage of the recall has been and is tendentious in favor of Governor Davis is true and appalling - but other articles are not material in determining whether it was proper to run this particular article. The article is light on news - but so are many articles in the Times. The scarcity of news should have counseled against front-page placement - but that does not mean the article should not have been run. Moreover, the article does have some news value because some specific allegations not previously published are included and some readers do care about the kind of possible character traits that the alleged incidents can be read as suggesting. Think Anita Hill. And nobody inside or outside Mr. Schwarzenegger's camp is yet saying that the allegations are grossly wrong or taken out of necessary context - the way ABC News has done with its story. [Caveat: Mr. Schwarzenegger has claimed that some of the article is not correct. But, as the Wall Street Journal puts it: he confirmed the thrust of it.]
The use of nameless sources is a real problem and seems to reach the limits of accepted practice. But it does not appear to go beyond accepted (or, at least, common) practice. And it seems that most of the women just insisted on being nameless - so the Times had to accept that fact. Yes, the Times should have spent more ink challenging the reasons some of the women insisted on remaining nameless (fear of retaliation) and explaining what that means about their credibility. That's not good, and is a real blot on the Times editors and reputation. But it's not that hard for interested readers to fill in that part for themselves. This is a detail. An important detail - but a detail.
The entire substance of the criticism of the Times seems to come down to one question: timing. Specifically, (1) did the Times have to wait until this late in the recall campaign to run this article, and (2) assuming the article could not have been run before it was, should it have been withheld because the election was too close?
The Times says it needed the time - and that it had to wait to confirm the story and get the information. That it would take seven weeks to do that is certainly plausible. The election was only recently scheduled - and the Times had no obvious reason to prepare or begin this story before the recall was certified and Mr. Schwarzenegger declared himself a candidate. So when could it have appeared, if not now? In the absence of evidence suggesting that the Times sat on this story, I cannot see why we should believe that the article could have been run before it was.
That seems to leave the question: should the Times nevertheless have declined to run the story because it's just too late?
No. That's just clearly wrong.
The allegations have some relevance to the election decision for many people. And these types of charges are not distractions for the voters, they are very much part of Mr. Schwarzenegger's history and well-established reputation - as he essentially admits in this case. The media is supposed to publish such things.
And the timing here is not to the contrary. This is an unusual, compressed campaign - as the California constitution requires. Many features of this election - including matters of timing - are very unlike those of ordinary elections. It's absurd to argue that the Times is somehow bound to scheduling consistent with ordinary elections. Mr. Schwarzenegger and California accepted those unusual features when he declared his candidacy and they chose to hold this election. Mr. Schwarzenegger seems to have benefitted greatly from those unusual election features, including the timing. For example, various courts have rejected efforts by people hostile to Mr. Schwarzenegger to postpone the election - people who argued that the same compressed schedule leaves inadequate time for "fair" election procedures. Of course, whether something benefits Mr. Schwarzenegger or not is not the test - the test is whether the people of California benefit. Voters have been made a little better informed and not seriously distracted because this article ran. And that's most of what counts most.
The very absence of much "news" in the article and the inevitability of such charges mean that Mr. Schwarzenegger has not been blindsided at all. He has reacted in quite a competent and effective manner - although only the election will tell for sure. But that's the way things should be.
Some observers think that because voters have already made up their minds on this particular old issue, the timing of the article essentially defangs it to Mr. Schwarzenegger's advantage. Earlier publication would have been worse for him. If that's true, the the main criticism of the Times should be that it's timing was bad because it didn't hurt Mr. Schwarzenegger enough.
So, while it's nice to see Susan Estrich coming to the defense of a Republican, it's unfortunate that once again I cannot agree with her judgment.
MORE Kausfiles has lots of good things. He points out that Susan Estrich blasts the LA Times on its own Op-Ed pages, something which would never have been allowed by the New York Times.
Advantage: Left Coast!
Also, it seems as though the Davis camp has likely been involved in trying to distort and aggrevate the sex charges. With this kind of counter-story emerging, the original LA Times article is likely to have even less effect on, and be more discounted by, even more voters.
Susan Estrich, an expert in sexual harrassment law and a Democratic activist, condemns the Los Angeles Times for the timing and content of its Arnold-and-six-women article. I agree with her that the Times has been a cheerleader for Davis, that this article has little news in it, relies on nameless sources to an extent reaching to the very limits of journalism ethics, did not warrant front-page placement and is presented suspiciously close to election day.
But the Times was justified in running this (weak) piece. That Times coverage of the recall has been and is tendentious in favor of Governor Davis is true and appalling - but other articles are not material in determining whether it was proper to run this particular article. The article is light on news - but so are many articles in the Times. The scarcity of news should have counseled against front-page placement - but that does not mean the article should not have been run. Moreover, the article does have some news value because some specific allegations not previously published are included and some readers do care about the kind of possible character traits that the alleged incidents can be read as suggesting. Think Anita Hill. And nobody inside or outside Mr. Schwarzenegger's camp is yet saying that the allegations are grossly wrong or taken out of necessary context - the way ABC News has done with its story. [Caveat: Mr. Schwarzenegger has claimed that some of the article is not correct. But, as the Wall Street Journal puts it: he confirmed the thrust of it.]
The use of nameless sources is a real problem and seems to reach the limits of accepted practice. But it does not appear to go beyond accepted (or, at least, common) practice. And it seems that most of the women just insisted on being nameless - so the Times had to accept that fact. Yes, the Times should have spent more ink challenging the reasons some of the women insisted on remaining nameless (fear of retaliation) and explaining what that means about their credibility. That's not good, and is a real blot on the Times editors and reputation. But it's not that hard for interested readers to fill in that part for themselves. This is a detail. An important detail - but a detail.
The entire substance of the criticism of the Times seems to come down to one question: timing. Specifically, (1) did the Times have to wait until this late in the recall campaign to run this article, and (2) assuming the article could not have been run before it was, should it have been withheld because the election was too close?
The Times says it needed the time - and that it had to wait to confirm the story and get the information. That it would take seven weeks to do that is certainly plausible. The election was only recently scheduled - and the Times had no obvious reason to prepare or begin this story before the recall was certified and Mr. Schwarzenegger declared himself a candidate. So when could it have appeared, if not now? In the absence of evidence suggesting that the Times sat on this story, I cannot see why we should believe that the article could have been run before it was.
That seems to leave the question: should the Times nevertheless have declined to run the story because it's just too late?
No. That's just clearly wrong.
The allegations have some relevance to the election decision for many people. And these types of charges are not distractions for the voters, they are very much part of Mr. Schwarzenegger's history and well-established reputation - as he essentially admits in this case. The media is supposed to publish such things.
And the timing here is not to the contrary. This is an unusual, compressed campaign - as the California constitution requires. Many features of this election - including matters of timing - are very unlike those of ordinary elections. It's absurd to argue that the Times is somehow bound to scheduling consistent with ordinary elections. Mr. Schwarzenegger and California accepted those unusual features when he declared his candidacy and they chose to hold this election. Mr. Schwarzenegger seems to have benefitted greatly from those unusual election features, including the timing. For example, various courts have rejected efforts by people hostile to Mr. Schwarzenegger to postpone the election - people who argued that the same compressed schedule leaves inadequate time for "fair" election procedures. Of course, whether something benefits Mr. Schwarzenegger or not is not the test - the test is whether the people of California benefit. Voters have been made a little better informed and not seriously distracted because this article ran. And that's most of what counts most.
The very absence of much "news" in the article and the inevitability of such charges mean that Mr. Schwarzenegger has not been blindsided at all. He has reacted in quite a competent and effective manner - although only the election will tell for sure. But that's the way things should be.
Some observers think that because voters have already made up their minds on this particular old issue, the timing of the article essentially defangs it to Mr. Schwarzenegger's advantage. Earlier publication would have been worse for him. If that's true, the the main criticism of the Times should be that it's timing was bad because it didn't hurt Mr. Schwarzenegger enough.
So, while it's nice to see Susan Estrich coming to the defense of a Republican, it's unfortunate that once again I cannot agree with her judgment.
MORE Kausfiles has lots of good things. He points out that Susan Estrich blasts the LA Times on its own Op-Ed pages, something which would never have been allowed by the New York Times.
Advantage: Left Coast!
Also, it seems as though the Davis camp has likely been involved in trying to distort and aggrevate the sex charges. With this kind of counter-story emerging, the original LA Times article is likely to have even less effect on, and be more discounted by, even more voters.
(0) comments
Thursday, October 02, 2003
Echo Chamber?
One of Al Gore's more disassociated moments surely came when he postulated this bizarre analysis:
"Something will start at the Republican National Committee, inside the building, and it will explode the next day on the right-wing talk-show network and on Fox News and in the newspapers that play this game, The Washington Times and the others. And then they’ll create a little echo chamber, and pretty soon they’ll start baiting the mainstream media for allegedly ignoring the story they’ve pushed into the zeitgeist. And then pretty soon the mainstream media goes out and disingenuously takes a so-called objective sampling, and lo and behold, these R.N.C. talking points are woven into the fabric of the zeitgeist."
Of course there are examples of "echo chamber" effects on both sides of the political aisle. What was bizarre about Mr. Gore's comment was its suggestion of systematization and pervasiveness of the rightish version.
But where, exactly, did the assertion that Valerie Plame is a "covert agent," the exposure of whose identity is a federal felony, come from? ("This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent.") The whole story isn't in, yet. But isn't this part of the Plame story taking on a good deal of the look of a liberal/Democratic echo chamber effect?
(0) comments
One of Al Gore's more disassociated moments surely came when he postulated this bizarre analysis:
"Something will start at the Republican National Committee, inside the building, and it will explode the next day on the right-wing talk-show network and on Fox News and in the newspapers that play this game, The Washington Times and the others. And then they’ll create a little echo chamber, and pretty soon they’ll start baiting the mainstream media for allegedly ignoring the story they’ve pushed into the zeitgeist. And then pretty soon the mainstream media goes out and disingenuously takes a so-called objective sampling, and lo and behold, these R.N.C. talking points are woven into the fabric of the zeitgeist."
Of course there are examples of "echo chamber" effects on both sides of the political aisle. What was bizarre about Mr. Gore's comment was its suggestion of systematization and pervasiveness of the rightish version.
But where, exactly, did the assertion that Valerie Plame is a "covert agent," the exposure of whose identity is a federal felony, come from? ("This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent.") The whole story isn't in, yet. But isn't this part of the Plame story taking on a good deal of the look of a liberal/Democratic echo chamber effect?
Davis Descending LVII: The Real Smears Begin At Last!
The California recall campaign is finally really hotting up in the Schwarzenegger smear department! This was always expected, but it's still interesting to see the techniques and professionals in fast action.
ABC News - and now others - are carrying reports based on an old 1975 interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger in which he is reported to have said
"I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it."
Mr. Schwarzenegger is also quoted as saying he wished he could have an experience, "like Hitler in the Nuremberg stadium. And have all those people scream at you and just being total agreement whatever you say."
We are told that the author of the book proposal in which the quotes appear says that the quotes needed to be seen in context, and that Mr. Schwarzenegger never said anything anti-Semitic. But, of course, ABC News provides no such necessary "context" in its article. A suggestion that Mr. Schwarzenegger is running from his past is included instead.
Indeed, ABC News spends not even a word to explain why one should believe anything in this book proposal or transcipt - or from this author (Pumping Iron's director, George Butler). None of that seems to matter to these media professionals. The slur's the thing!
Unlike the recent Los Angeles Times article, this ABC News item is really a disgraceful and completely predictable example of the copyrighted last-minute campaign smear of the California Democratic Party and their willing executioners in the ordinary liberal media. The story has been around for over twenty-five years - and its release this time has clearly been delayed to maximize the damage to Mr. Schwarzenegger. The allegations are misleading in the classical smear fashion. In this case, anti-Semitic vibes are coupled with the "disclaimer" that Mr. Schwarzenegger never said anything anti-Semitic - but no context for the comments is provided, although such context is admitted to be necessary to understand the quotes - a clear indication that ABC News intends the quotes to have exactly the effect disclaimed.
What could that "context" be? I, for one, don't know. But admiration for Hitler's theatrical and cinemagraphic effects (as opposed to his beliefs and practices) is obviously common in Hollywood. For example, ABC's smearquote mentions the Nuremberg rally, which was famously propagandized in the movie Triumph of the Will, a terrifyingly brilliant piece of cinema which has been widely admired and copied - even as its objectives are reviled:
The techniques and imagery used in Triumph Of The Will would serve as example to many filmmakers, and its influence can be found in many modern productions, from political campaign ads to the closing ceremonial scenes in Star Wars.
Political campaign ads modeled on Triumph of the Will and its Nazi propaganda effects are said, for example, to include one of Hubert H. Humphrey's main campaign movies. That movie was created for and at the behest of Mr. Humphrey for his presidential run and is said to hnclude extensive sequences derived from Triumph of the Will. Is it too much to suggest that Mr. Humphrey (and other politicians who use devices copied from Triumph of the Will) probably admired Hitler in that movie for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it? - at least as much of what he did with it as Mr. Humphrey and others have sought to obtain by having it copied for their own use? And wouldn't that also likely include admiring that Hitler came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power - but not the use to which he put that power or his methods of obtaining and keeping power other than some of theatrical techniques? Again, it's pretty obvious context is all in this story - and ABC News' failure to include that context is grossly partisan and unprofessional. So what else is new? Dear me, what will the Note say?
Will it work? Well, it's certainly not much news. The Arnold-as-Nazi theme has been out there for a long time, without much effect or support - and nothing substantive is added by ABC News here. The ABC News story is also transparently intended to manipulate voters - especially, but not exclusively, Jewish voters - with images pulled out of context. (The creator of Triumph of the Will, Leni Reifenstahl, also knew how to achieve her desired effects by omitting context - although ABC News surely didn't have to raid her library to obtain that technique.) But, unlike Germany in 1934, modern voters may react against such transparent manipulation.
In sum, it seems most likely that the great majority of voters will conclude that the article doesn't advance the Schwarzenegger character story one iota.
But there's probably more and nastier material to come! Mr. Mulhulland hasn't shot his wad yet, for example.
MORE: DRUDGE reports: The book proposal contains other stunning passages, which ABCNEWS is preparing to reveal.
Well, of course!
(0) comments
The California recall campaign is finally really hotting up in the Schwarzenegger smear department! This was always expected, but it's still interesting to see the techniques and professionals in fast action.
ABC News - and now others - are carrying reports based on an old 1975 interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger in which he is reported to have said
"I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it."
Mr. Schwarzenegger is also quoted as saying he wished he could have an experience, "like Hitler in the Nuremberg stadium. And have all those people scream at you and just being total agreement whatever you say."
We are told that the author of the book proposal in which the quotes appear says that the quotes needed to be seen in context, and that Mr. Schwarzenegger never said anything anti-Semitic. But, of course, ABC News provides no such necessary "context" in its article. A suggestion that Mr. Schwarzenegger is running from his past is included instead.
Indeed, ABC News spends not even a word to explain why one should believe anything in this book proposal or transcipt - or from this author (Pumping Iron's director, George Butler). None of that seems to matter to these media professionals. The slur's the thing!
Unlike the recent Los Angeles Times article, this ABC News item is really a disgraceful and completely predictable example of the copyrighted last-minute campaign smear of the California Democratic Party and their willing executioners in the ordinary liberal media. The story has been around for over twenty-five years - and its release this time has clearly been delayed to maximize the damage to Mr. Schwarzenegger. The allegations are misleading in the classical smear fashion. In this case, anti-Semitic vibes are coupled with the "disclaimer" that Mr. Schwarzenegger never said anything anti-Semitic - but no context for the comments is provided, although such context is admitted to be necessary to understand the quotes - a clear indication that ABC News intends the quotes to have exactly the effect disclaimed.
What could that "context" be? I, for one, don't know. But admiration for Hitler's theatrical and cinemagraphic effects (as opposed to his beliefs and practices) is obviously common in Hollywood. For example, ABC's smearquote mentions the Nuremberg rally, which was famously propagandized in the movie Triumph of the Will, a terrifyingly brilliant piece of cinema which has been widely admired and copied - even as its objectives are reviled:
The techniques and imagery used in Triumph Of The Will would serve as example to many filmmakers, and its influence can be found in many modern productions, from political campaign ads to the closing ceremonial scenes in Star Wars.
Political campaign ads modeled on Triumph of the Will and its Nazi propaganda effects are said, for example, to include one of Hubert H. Humphrey's main campaign movies. That movie was created for and at the behest of Mr. Humphrey for his presidential run and is said to hnclude extensive sequences derived from Triumph of the Will. Is it too much to suggest that Mr. Humphrey (and other politicians who use devices copied from Triumph of the Will) probably admired Hitler in that movie for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it? - at least as much of what he did with it as Mr. Humphrey and others have sought to obtain by having it copied for their own use? And wouldn't that also likely include admiring that Hitler came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power - but not the use to which he put that power or his methods of obtaining and keeping power other than some of theatrical techniques? Again, it's pretty obvious context is all in this story - and ABC News' failure to include that context is grossly partisan and unprofessional. So what else is new? Dear me, what will the Note say?
Will it work? Well, it's certainly not much news. The Arnold-as-Nazi theme has been out there for a long time, without much effect or support - and nothing substantive is added by ABC News here. The ABC News story is also transparently intended to manipulate voters - especially, but not exclusively, Jewish voters - with images pulled out of context. (The creator of Triumph of the Will, Leni Reifenstahl, also knew how to achieve her desired effects by omitting context - although ABC News surely didn't have to raid her library to obtain that technique.) But, unlike Germany in 1934, modern voters may react against such transparent manipulation.
In sum, it seems most likely that the great majority of voters will conclude that the article doesn't advance the Schwarzenegger character story one iota.
But there's probably more and nastier material to come! Mr. Mulhulland hasn't shot his wad yet, for example.
MORE: DRUDGE reports: The book proposal contains other stunning passages, which ABCNEWS is preparing to reveal.
Well, of course!
Some Questions For The CIA
The Washington Times reports:
Joseph C. Wilson IV, the man accusing the White House of a vendetta against him and his wife ... wrote in an article in the far-left Nation magazine that was published before the Iraq war began, [that President Bush] is not interested in democracy in the Middle East but "this new American imperialism." "The new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our world view are implanted throughout the region, a breathtakingly ambitious undertaking, smacking of hubris in the extreme."
Why was this man sent to Africa on his controversial mission? Who at the CIA accepted his wife's putative recommendation for the job?
UPDATE: Is this whole thing heading for a big "never mind?" It seems to be unlikely that Valerie Plame was a "covert" operative after all - as that concept is employed in what seems to be the relevant federal statute simply because she probably lived in the United States for the last five years.
Can't the CIA answer the question "Did Valerie Plame live in the United States for the last five years?" without compromising her or itself further? For that matter, can't her husband - who is running around making accusations against Karl Rove and others that require information he does not possess - answer this question on the basis information he does possess without endangering his wife or transgressing the law?
And if it turns out that Valerie Plame was not "covert," won't all the people calling for "independent" or "special" prosecutors look like charlatans or fools?
On the Justice Department side, investigators say they may greatly expand the scope of their investigation to include lots more people and departments. That move should help blunt calls for "special prosecutors" by making the Justice Department seem more diligent and aggressive, while simultaneoulsy blurring the focus on the White House - and therefore on the "retaliation against Wilson" aspect of the case.
MORE
(0) comments
The Washington Times reports:
Joseph C. Wilson IV, the man accusing the White House of a vendetta against him and his wife ... wrote in an article in the far-left Nation magazine that was published before the Iraq war began, [that President Bush] is not interested in democracy in the Middle East but "this new American imperialism." "The new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our world view are implanted throughout the region, a breathtakingly ambitious undertaking, smacking of hubris in the extreme."
Why was this man sent to Africa on his controversial mission? Who at the CIA accepted his wife's putative recommendation for the job?
UPDATE: Is this whole thing heading for a big "never mind?" It seems to be unlikely that Valerie Plame was a "covert" operative after all - as that concept is employed in what seems to be the relevant federal statute simply because she probably lived in the United States for the last five years.
Can't the CIA answer the question "Did Valerie Plame live in the United States for the last five years?" without compromising her or itself further? For that matter, can't her husband - who is running around making accusations against Karl Rove and others that require information he does not possess - answer this question on the basis information he does possess without endangering his wife or transgressing the law?
And if it turns out that Valerie Plame was not "covert," won't all the people calling for "independent" or "special" prosecutors look like charlatans or fools?
On the Justice Department side, investigators say they may greatly expand the scope of their investigation to include lots more people and departments. That move should help blunt calls for "special prosecutors" by making the Justice Department seem more diligent and aggressive, while simultaneoulsy blurring the focus on the White House - and therefore on the "retaliation against Wilson" aspect of the case.
MORE
Loans To Iraq?
Senate Republicans proposed yesterday to convert nearly half of President Bush's $20.3 billion Iraqi reconstruction program into loans underwritten by that nation's oil.
[Is "underwritten" the right word here? Does the writer mean "secured" or "supported?"]
In many way it's more than a little strange to see this development. Much has been written and urged recently on the lack of wisdom and practical effect of saddling third-world countries with tens of billions of dollars in debt. The Catholic Church even sponsored a "Jubilee" to encourage forgiveness of such debt. What value is there in saddling Iraq with such huge obligations that will almost certainly create serious mischief for any future pro-US government? The money will be sent well before Iraq's government will be independent of the US, so what's the claim to a "voluntary obligation" supposed to be? And if the result of the future "reconstruction" effort is not a prosperous Iraq whose trade and economic relations with the US have a value far beyond the amount of such an imposed "loan," then the reconstruction will have failed. It's not as if the US gets to foreclose on Iraq if that happens. Doesn't Iraq have enough problems? And does someone in Washington enjoy watching currency and international debt crises in action? Isn't the Argentina show enough entertainment for that crowd?
The loan idea does have some political appeal. If the loans are sufficiently "soft" in the World Bank argot, then they can be all but grants in fact but give Congress and the Administration political cover with the argument that the money is to come back to the US in principle.
If the decision is made to structure the reconstruction funds as loans, one can only hope that the existing European and Russian credits to Iraq and its state companies will be strictly subordinated to the new reconstruction loans.
Senate Republicans proposed yesterday to convert nearly half of President Bush's $20.3 billion Iraqi reconstruction program into loans underwritten by that nation's oil.
[Is "underwritten" the right word here? Does the writer mean "secured" or "supported?"]
In many way it's more than a little strange to see this development. Much has been written and urged recently on the lack of wisdom and practical effect of saddling third-world countries with tens of billions of dollars in debt. The Catholic Church even sponsored a "Jubilee" to encourage forgiveness of such debt. What value is there in saddling Iraq with such huge obligations that will almost certainly create serious mischief for any future pro-US government? The money will be sent well before Iraq's government will be independent of the US, so what's the claim to a "voluntary obligation" supposed to be? And if the result of the future "reconstruction" effort is not a prosperous Iraq whose trade and economic relations with the US have a value far beyond the amount of such an imposed "loan," then the reconstruction will have failed. It's not as if the US gets to foreclose on Iraq if that happens. Doesn't Iraq have enough problems? And does someone in Washington enjoy watching currency and international debt crises in action? Isn't the Argentina show enough entertainment for that crowd?
The loan idea does have some political appeal. If the loans are sufficiently "soft" in the World Bank argot, then they can be all but grants in fact but give Congress and the Administration political cover with the argument that the money is to come back to the US in principle.
If the decision is made to structure the reconstruction funds as loans, one can only hope that the existing European and Russian credits to Iraq and its state companies will be strictly subordinated to the new reconstruction loans.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Davis Descending LVI: The Old Soft Other Shoe
The Los Angeles Times reports that Arnold Schwarzenegger "groped" and "humiliated" about half a dozen women with unwanted touching and sexual advances. Rapes are disclaimed. The women related surprise and discomfort when Schwarzenegger grabbed their breasts and buttocks. One says he tried to remove her swimsuit in an elevator and one said Schwarzenegger pulled her onto his lap and asked whether a certain sexual act had ever been performed on her. None of the women filed criminal or civil claims against him - and four refused to be named.
By far the most amazing thing about this article is that this is all the Los Angeles Times could uncover. But perhaps Mr. Mulhulland can muster something nastier - if only imagined - in the final week of the campaign. That's his specialty, after all.
Assuming these accusations are true, are they a smear? Do they count as "the other shoe dropping?" Will they have much political effect in the upcoming election? Are they even news?
Time and the polls will tell if the story has political effect. The story has some real problems. Four of the six women refuse to be named, and even though the Times says that their stories were related to friends and family years ago, the refusal to be named deprives Arnold Schwarzenegger of any real ability to confront those stories, and his campaign seems to be denying all of them. What is a voter supposed to do with that situation?
But the bigger issue from the standpoint of any effect on the election is that the story doesn't seem to be much in the way of news. Even the Times admits: Schwarzenegger's conduct toward women also has been widely discussed in Hollywood over the years, no more so than after a March 2001 article in Premiere magazine called "Arnold the Barbarian." That's putting it mildly. These stories - and worse - have been circulating for many years. Similar stories exist about Lyndon Johnson, Ted Kennedy and many others in elected office. These accusations are trivial compared to some of those made against Bill Clinton - and the less heard of that mess the better. Maybe those people should not have been elected. But how much does this story change the substance of Mr. Schwarzenegger's reputation?
For example, there was an article ten years ago in the old Spy magazine that alluded to similar behavior - complete with nude picture of the perhaps-governor-to-be and a story of him tumbling from a studio closet where he has just coupled with a woman to tell a startled observer not to inform Maria about what has just occurred.
For the same reasons, it's hard to say that the article is a "smear." If Mr. Schwarzenegger isn't prepared to defend this kind of accusation, then he's a lot more naive than he seems to be. His best strategy is to leave the denials to his campaign aides, keep the denials minimal and hope for the best. Many feminists and women voters seem to view personal behavior as less significant than whether a politician has been good on feminist policy. Mr. Schwarzenegger is a "social moderate." If he can continue to point that out effectively, he may not have to deal with the accusations directly.
The fact is that we are talking about - and apparently preparing to elect - a man who made himself famous and wealthy being photographed in nylon jockstraps. Of course he's lived a hyper-sexualized life. How many voters think he's been a Benedictine Monk? Maybe this kind of accusation will change or refocus some people's minds. But it's hard to imagine there are many in California for whom this story will break new ground.
True or false, these accusations are of a type that is a very real part of Mr. Schwarzenegger's longstanding reputation, and the public deserves to hear about them in a reasonably responsible fashion. Assuming the fact checking described in the article has been is accurately described, it is hard to see why the Times should not have run such an article.
UPDATE:
Mr. Schwarzenegger seems to be following the strategy outlined above: minimal denial (He apologises for offense he may have caused with rowdy "things I thought were playful") and focusing on policy ("I will be a champion for women. I hope you will give me the chance to prove this.")
"Yes, I have behaved badly some times, yes it is true that I was on rowdy movie sets ... and I have done things I thought were playful that now I recognize that I have offended people ... I want to say to them that I am deeply sorry about that, and I apologize because that is not what I was trying to do. When I am governor I will prove to women that I will be a champion for women. I hope you will give me the chance to prove this."
There also seems to be some agreement that the Times story will not affect the election, largely because there's not much news in it and because Schwarzenegger seems to have had a well-executed plan for dealing with such inevitable accusations:
Political experts said that they did not think the Times story would have an effect on the campaign, especially in light of Schwarzenegger's moving quickly to defuse the issue quickly. Republican political consultant Allan Hoffenblum said that for the issue to harm Schwarzenegger's campaign, "they would have had to come up with something completely new. This is not a new issue."
One might quibble with the Times running this article so late in the campaign - but I can't really agree. The charges seem fairly well supported and the Times says it started the investigation seven weeks ago. That seems right. There would be no good reason for the Times to have started to intensively investigate such well-known rumors prior to the scheduling of the election. This type of charge is easy to make and hear - but notoriously hard to support well. It's not a surprise that the Times needed seven weeks, just to be responsible. So this doesn't look like something the Times has been sitting on to release for maximum effect - and there's no evidence or accusation that the women making the charges have been induced to say (or delay saying) these things by political operatives.
And the charges do reflect a general reputation issue Mr. Schwarzenegger should address before the election, one that he should have been prepared to address. And Mr. Schwarzenegger is not outright denying the central events - he's jusr spinning his intent.
So what's not to print?
This is not a blindsiding comparable to Barbara Boxer's 1992 smear against Bruce Herschensohn "revealing" - on the Friday before that Senate election - that he and others had visited a strip club. Nor is this article like the 1994 Democratic smear against Michael Huffington - a few days before that Senate election - "revealing" that he had hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny. In fact, Mr. Schwarzenegger seems to have done a pretty good job of immediately addressing the charges - which suggests he was, in fact, well prepared to do so.
Time and the overnight polls will to some extent tell.
FURTHER UPDATE: More people - here, the LA Weekly - say that the Times article does not contain much news:
It’s a real blot on the Times’ new administration that the article doesn’t advance the Schwarzenegger character story one iota.
(0) comments
The Los Angeles Times reports that Arnold Schwarzenegger "groped" and "humiliated" about half a dozen women with unwanted touching and sexual advances. Rapes are disclaimed. The women related surprise and discomfort when Schwarzenegger grabbed their breasts and buttocks. One says he tried to remove her swimsuit in an elevator and one said Schwarzenegger pulled her onto his lap and asked whether a certain sexual act had ever been performed on her. None of the women filed criminal or civil claims against him - and four refused to be named.
By far the most amazing thing about this article is that this is all the Los Angeles Times could uncover. But perhaps Mr. Mulhulland can muster something nastier - if only imagined - in the final week of the campaign. That's his specialty, after all.
Assuming these accusations are true, are they a smear? Do they count as "the other shoe dropping?" Will they have much political effect in the upcoming election? Are they even news?
Time and the polls will tell if the story has political effect. The story has some real problems. Four of the six women refuse to be named, and even though the Times says that their stories were related to friends and family years ago, the refusal to be named deprives Arnold Schwarzenegger of any real ability to confront those stories, and his campaign seems to be denying all of them. What is a voter supposed to do with that situation?
But the bigger issue from the standpoint of any effect on the election is that the story doesn't seem to be much in the way of news. Even the Times admits: Schwarzenegger's conduct toward women also has been widely discussed in Hollywood over the years, no more so than after a March 2001 article in Premiere magazine called "Arnold the Barbarian." That's putting it mildly. These stories - and worse - have been circulating for many years. Similar stories exist about Lyndon Johnson, Ted Kennedy and many others in elected office. These accusations are trivial compared to some of those made against Bill Clinton - and the less heard of that mess the better. Maybe those people should not have been elected. But how much does this story change the substance of Mr. Schwarzenegger's reputation?
For example, there was an article ten years ago in the old Spy magazine that alluded to similar behavior - complete with nude picture of the perhaps-governor-to-be and a story of him tumbling from a studio closet where he has just coupled with a woman to tell a startled observer not to inform Maria about what has just occurred.
For the same reasons, it's hard to say that the article is a "smear." If Mr. Schwarzenegger isn't prepared to defend this kind of accusation, then he's a lot more naive than he seems to be. His best strategy is to leave the denials to his campaign aides, keep the denials minimal and hope for the best. Many feminists and women voters seem to view personal behavior as less significant than whether a politician has been good on feminist policy. Mr. Schwarzenegger is a "social moderate." If he can continue to point that out effectively, he may not have to deal with the accusations directly.
The fact is that we are talking about - and apparently preparing to elect - a man who made himself famous and wealthy being photographed in nylon jockstraps. Of course he's lived a hyper-sexualized life. How many voters think he's been a Benedictine Monk? Maybe this kind of accusation will change or refocus some people's minds. But it's hard to imagine there are many in California for whom this story will break new ground.
True or false, these accusations are of a type that is a very real part of Mr. Schwarzenegger's longstanding reputation, and the public deserves to hear about them in a reasonably responsible fashion. Assuming the fact checking described in the article has been is accurately described, it is hard to see why the Times should not have run such an article.
UPDATE:
Mr. Schwarzenegger seems to be following the strategy outlined above: minimal denial (He apologises for offense he may have caused with rowdy "things I thought were playful") and focusing on policy ("I will be a champion for women. I hope you will give me the chance to prove this.")
"Yes, I have behaved badly some times, yes it is true that I was on rowdy movie sets ... and I have done things I thought were playful that now I recognize that I have offended people ... I want to say to them that I am deeply sorry about that, and I apologize because that is not what I was trying to do. When I am governor I will prove to women that I will be a champion for women. I hope you will give me the chance to prove this."
There also seems to be some agreement that the Times story will not affect the election, largely because there's not much news in it and because Schwarzenegger seems to have had a well-executed plan for dealing with such inevitable accusations:
Political experts said that they did not think the Times story would have an effect on the campaign, especially in light of Schwarzenegger's moving quickly to defuse the issue quickly. Republican political consultant Allan Hoffenblum said that for the issue to harm Schwarzenegger's campaign, "they would have had to come up with something completely new. This is not a new issue."
One might quibble with the Times running this article so late in the campaign - but I can't really agree. The charges seem fairly well supported and the Times says it started the investigation seven weeks ago. That seems right. There would be no good reason for the Times to have started to intensively investigate such well-known rumors prior to the scheduling of the election. This type of charge is easy to make and hear - but notoriously hard to support well. It's not a surprise that the Times needed seven weeks, just to be responsible. So this doesn't look like something the Times has been sitting on to release for maximum effect - and there's no evidence or accusation that the women making the charges have been induced to say (or delay saying) these things by political operatives.
And the charges do reflect a general reputation issue Mr. Schwarzenegger should address before the election, one that he should have been prepared to address. And Mr. Schwarzenegger is not outright denying the central events - he's jusr spinning his intent.
So what's not to print?
This is not a blindsiding comparable to Barbara Boxer's 1992 smear against Bruce Herschensohn "revealing" - on the Friday before that Senate election - that he and others had visited a strip club. Nor is this article like the 1994 Democratic smear against Michael Huffington - a few days before that Senate election - "revealing" that he had hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny. In fact, Mr. Schwarzenegger seems to have done a pretty good job of immediately addressing the charges - which suggests he was, in fact, well prepared to do so.
Time and the overnight polls will to some extent tell.
FURTHER UPDATE: More people - here, the LA Weekly - say that the Times article does not contain much news:
It’s a real blot on the Times’ new administration that the article doesn’t advance the Schwarzenegger character story one iota.
Davis Descending LV: Recounting One's Owns Demise
California is about to hold its recall election - in which much voting has already taken place.
California has a Democratic Governor for the moment. It also has two solidly Democratic houses in its legislature and a Democratic Secretary if State. Indeed all state wide offices are held by Democrats. The counties and cities, including Los Angeles, in which the American Civil Liberties Union claimed voting technologies disadvantage "minorities" (a term quaintly not used by the ACLU to include white men, for example) are almost entirely run by Democrats.
In short, this is an election whose significant operational mechanics and procedures are almost entirely under the control of liberal Democrats who are opposed to the recall and are performing their functions grudgingly - and against their political convictions.
Yet, the Democratic Party and the ACLU are making flamboyant preparations to bog the entire election down in litigation:
Setting the stage for a post-election legal challenge to the recall vote, Democrats are set to launch a national fund-raising campaign today to help pay for any legal action needed if Tuesday's election on Gov. Gray Davis' future is close. .... "We're preparing for every possibility," said Peter Ragone, communications director for Davis' anti-recall campaign. ... [S]tate party spokesman Bob Mulholland said when asked whether the conduct of the voting may spark yet another legal challenge. "We're going to do everything that's legal to have the votes counted in California, and we're putting the Republicans on notice that we're prepared for their goon tactics this time."
But we are apparently supposed to believe that this litigation effort pushed by the communications director for Davis' anti-recall campaign and his own party spokesman is not, in fact, coming from the Governor himself!
The Democratic governor sought to distance himself Tuesday from such plans, saying he was "unaware" of any effort that would end up in court after the election. "I'm focused on winning the recall, not winning it in a legal challenge," Davis said in response to a reporter's question at a campaign appearance in Los Angeles.
Particularly hilarious is the way the Sacramento Bee offers the distinction between Governor Davis and his communications director as one that might be taken seriously, but largely conflates the ACLU and the Democratic Party, with any distinctions between them apparently so insignificant as not to warrant mention:
The Democrats' strategy appears to be aimed at ensuring that evidence of any irregularities at polling places Tuesday is documented for use in court.
The recall election already has been the subject of numerous lawsuits, most notably over the fact that six counties plan to use punch-card ballot machines on Tuesday -- the same type that resulted in the prolonged fight during the 2000 presidential election in Florida over "hanging chad."
The ACLU and other groups contended that the use of those machines in the counties, including Sacramento, could result in many votes not being properly counted. The six counties account for about 40 percent of the state's voters. ... [T]he ACLU ... did not preclude itself from filing a challenge after the election...
Legal experts said Tuesday that if the vote is extremely close on the first part of the ballot -- which asks whether Davis should be retained -- those issues could end up in court again.
Certain basics seem to elude the Democrats and the ACLU. Their litigation preparation is not justified by any extraordinary risk of election irregularities. Those preparations will be seen by many people as indicating that some entrenched Democrats are far too willing to challenge elections. South Dakota Republicans, for example, figured this out when they decided not to challenge the very close and possibly irregular reelection of the junior Senator from that state. Public reaction to the recent ACLU experience before the Ninth Circuit - which corresponded to a serious decline in Governor Davis' poll numbers - should have been enough local warning.
If this election, which is being run almost entirely by liberal Democratic politicians and their appointees, warrants such extensive litigation plans by Democrats then every election at which there is much at stake does. The public does not and will not agree. If the Democrats and the ACLU do force the election in litigation, the consequences will be probably very much to the Democrats' public disadvantage.
Further, notwithstanding the media's and Governor's attempt to recast this as a "two-man-race," the California constitution still divides the ballot into two questions (1) Davis, yes or no? and (2) if Davis is removed, then who do you want?
That means that if the vote is extremely close on the first part of the ballot -- which asks whether Davis should be retained - a legal challenge will pit Mr. Davis against the voting public. He can't "distance himself" from the litigation and has no "opponent" at all.
Other than the people of California.
To the extent one combines the two questions, one of Governor Davis' biggest "semi-opponents" is his own lieutenant governor who is now transparently supporting the recall. Yet it is Republican "thuggery" that is suppose to justify dragging all this into court in the case of a close election on Question #1?
Is that how the Democratic Party plans to keep itself going in California?
California is about to hold its recall election - in which much voting has already taken place.
California has a Democratic Governor for the moment. It also has two solidly Democratic houses in its legislature and a Democratic Secretary if State. Indeed all state wide offices are held by Democrats. The counties and cities, including Los Angeles, in which the American Civil Liberties Union claimed voting technologies disadvantage "minorities" (a term quaintly not used by the ACLU to include white men, for example) are almost entirely run by Democrats.
In short, this is an election whose significant operational mechanics and procedures are almost entirely under the control of liberal Democrats who are opposed to the recall and are performing their functions grudgingly - and against their political convictions.
Yet, the Democratic Party and the ACLU are making flamboyant preparations to bog the entire election down in litigation:
Setting the stage for a post-election legal challenge to the recall vote, Democrats are set to launch a national fund-raising campaign today to help pay for any legal action needed if Tuesday's election on Gov. Gray Davis' future is close. .... "We're preparing for every possibility," said Peter Ragone, communications director for Davis' anti-recall campaign. ... [S]tate party spokesman Bob Mulholland said when asked whether the conduct of the voting may spark yet another legal challenge. "We're going to do everything that's legal to have the votes counted in California, and we're putting the Republicans on notice that we're prepared for their goon tactics this time."
But we are apparently supposed to believe that this litigation effort pushed by the communications director for Davis' anti-recall campaign and his own party spokesman is not, in fact, coming from the Governor himself!
The Democratic governor sought to distance himself Tuesday from such plans, saying he was "unaware" of any effort that would end up in court after the election. "I'm focused on winning the recall, not winning it in a legal challenge," Davis said in response to a reporter's question at a campaign appearance in Los Angeles.
Particularly hilarious is the way the Sacramento Bee offers the distinction between Governor Davis and his communications director as one that might be taken seriously, but largely conflates the ACLU and the Democratic Party, with any distinctions between them apparently so insignificant as not to warrant mention:
The Democrats' strategy appears to be aimed at ensuring that evidence of any irregularities at polling places Tuesday is documented for use in court.
The recall election already has been the subject of numerous lawsuits, most notably over the fact that six counties plan to use punch-card ballot machines on Tuesday -- the same type that resulted in the prolonged fight during the 2000 presidential election in Florida over "hanging chad."
The ACLU and other groups contended that the use of those machines in the counties, including Sacramento, could result in many votes not being properly counted. The six counties account for about 40 percent of the state's voters. ... [T]he ACLU ... did not preclude itself from filing a challenge after the election...
Legal experts said Tuesday that if the vote is extremely close on the first part of the ballot -- which asks whether Davis should be retained -- those issues could end up in court again.
Certain basics seem to elude the Democrats and the ACLU. Their litigation preparation is not justified by any extraordinary risk of election irregularities. Those preparations will be seen by many people as indicating that some entrenched Democrats are far too willing to challenge elections. South Dakota Republicans, for example, figured this out when they decided not to challenge the very close and possibly irregular reelection of the junior Senator from that state. Public reaction to the recent ACLU experience before the Ninth Circuit - which corresponded to a serious decline in Governor Davis' poll numbers - should have been enough local warning.
If this election, which is being run almost entirely by liberal Democratic politicians and their appointees, warrants such extensive litigation plans by Democrats then every election at which there is much at stake does. The public does not and will not agree. If the Democrats and the ACLU do force the election in litigation, the consequences will be probably very much to the Democrats' public disadvantage.
Further, notwithstanding the media's and Governor's attempt to recast this as a "two-man-race," the California constitution still divides the ballot into two questions (1) Davis, yes or no? and (2) if Davis is removed, then who do you want?
That means that if the vote is extremely close on the first part of the ballot -- which asks whether Davis should be retained - a legal challenge will pit Mr. Davis against the voting public. He can't "distance himself" from the litigation and has no "opponent" at all.
Other than the people of California.
To the extent one combines the two questions, one of Governor Davis' biggest "semi-opponents" is his own lieutenant governor who is now transparently supporting the recall. Yet it is Republican "thuggery" that is suppose to justify dragging all this into court in the case of a close election on Question #1?
Is that how the Democratic Party plans to keep itself going in California?
(0) comments
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Books of Anger
David Brooks scribes a fine column on the rising pile of political anger - especially furious books like Paul Krugman's "Great Unraveling."
So it seems a good time to review some of the better phrased comments on anger and where it leads. For example Anger blows out the lamp of the mind (Robert Green Ingersol), Whenever you are angry, be assured that it is not only a present evil, but that you have increased a habit (Epictetus) and Anger is seldom without argument but seldom with a good one (Lord Halifax) each warrants meditation for at least a day or two by Herr Doktorprofessor and others.
Instead, Herr Doktorprofessor seems determined to blow out other people's lamps, too. Here's a collection of relevant aphorisms:
Anger rest in the bosom of fools.
--Bible
***
Whatever is begun in anger ends in shame.
- Benjamin Franklin
***
The more anger towards the past you carry in your heart, the less capable you are of loving in the present.
--Barbara De Angelis
***
Anger makes dull men witty, but it keeps them poor.
- Elizabeth I of England [Francis Bacon]
***
Anger and intolerance are the twin enemies of correct understanding.
- Mahatma Gandhi
***
The greatest remedy for anger is delay.
- Seneca
***
An angry man opens his mouth and shuts up his eyes.
- Cato the Elder
***
Anger begins with folly, and ends with repentance.
- Pythagoras
***
Anger blows out the lamp of the mind.
- Robert Green Ingersoll
***
To rule one's anger is well; to prevent it is still better.
- Tryon Edwards
***
Keep cool; anger is not an argument.
- Daniel Webster
***
Men often make up in wrath what they want in reason.
- William Rounseville Alger
***
Anger is a momentary madness, so control your passion or it will control you.
- Horace
***
The flame of anger, bright and brief, sharpens the barb of love.
- Walter S. Landor
***
When a man is wrong and won't admit it, he always gets angry.
- Thomas C. Haliburton
***
Wise anger is like fire from a flint: there is great ado to get it out; and when it does come, it is out again immediately.
- Matthew Henry
***
Anybody can become angry--that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way--that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
- Aristotle
***
When angry count four; when very angry, swear.
- Mark Twain
***
Whenever you are angry, be assured that it is not only a present evil, but that you have increased a habit.
- Epictetus
***
Anger is seldom without argument but seldom with a good one.
- Lord Halifax
***
An angry man is again angry with himself when he returns to reason.
- Publilius Syrus
***
The intoxication of anger, like that of the grape, shows us to others, but hides us from ourselves. We injure our own cause in the opinion of the world when we too passionately defend it.
- Charles Caleb Colton
***
Never go to bed mad. Stay up and fight.
- Phyllis Diller
***
There is not in nature, a thing that makes man so deformed, so beastly, as doth intemperate anger.
--John Webster
***
As the whirlwind in its fury teareth up trees, and deformeth the face of nature, or as an earthquake in its convulsions overturneth whole cities; so the rage of an angry man throweth mischief around him.
--Akhenaton
***
Indulge not thyself in the passion of anger; it is whetting a sword to wound thine own breast, or murder thy friend.
--Akhenaton
***
It takes two flints to make a fire.
--Louisa May Alcott
***
I used to store my anger and it affected my play. Now I get it out. I'm never rude to my playing partner. I'm very focused on the ball. Then it's over.
--Helen Alfredsson
***
Men often make up in wrath what they want in reason.
--William R. Alger
***
Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.
--Maya Angelou
***
Consider how much more you often suffer from your anger and grief, than from those very things for which you are angry and grieved.
--Marcus Antonius
***
We praise a man who feels angry on the right grounds and against the right persons and also in the right manner at the right moment and for the right length of time.
--Aristotle
***
How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it.
--Marcus Aurelius
***
When thou art above measure angry, bethink thee how momentary is man's life.
--Marcus Aurelius
***
Rage cannot be hidden, it can only be dissembled. This dissembling deludes the thoughtless, and strengthens rage and adds, to rage, contempt.
--James Baldwin
***
If a man meets with injustice, it is not required that he shall not be roused to meet it; but if he is angry after he has had time to think upon it, that is sinful. The flame is not wring, but the coals are.
--Henry Ward Beecher
MORE: (from an astute reader)
Ah would that from earth and Heaven all strife were for ever flung,
And wrath, that makes even a wise man mad! Upon the tongue
Its taste is sweeter than honey, that drips from the comb - but then
Like a smother of blinding smoke it mounts in the hearts of men.
-- Homer, Iliad, xviii, 109.
***
... for behold in his fury he doeth despite to the senseless clay.
-- Homer, Iliad, xxiv, 54.
***
Wrath and anger are hateful things,
yet the sinner hugs them tight.
-- Sirach 27: 30
***
Give up your anger, and forsake wrath;
be not vexed, it will only harm you.
-- Psalm 37:8
David Brooks scribes a fine column on the rising pile of political anger - especially furious books like Paul Krugman's "Great Unraveling."
So it seems a good time to review some of the better phrased comments on anger and where it leads. For example Anger blows out the lamp of the mind (Robert Green Ingersol), Whenever you are angry, be assured that it is not only a present evil, but that you have increased a habit (Epictetus) and Anger is seldom without argument but seldom with a good one (Lord Halifax) each warrants meditation for at least a day or two by Herr Doktorprofessor and others.
Instead, Herr Doktorprofessor seems determined to blow out other people's lamps, too. Here's a collection of relevant aphorisms:
Anger rest in the bosom of fools.
--Bible
***
Whatever is begun in anger ends in shame.
- Benjamin Franklin
***
The more anger towards the past you carry in your heart, the less capable you are of loving in the present.
--Barbara De Angelis
***
Anger makes dull men witty, but it keeps them poor.
- Elizabeth I of England [Francis Bacon]
***
Anger and intolerance are the twin enemies of correct understanding.
- Mahatma Gandhi
***
The greatest remedy for anger is delay.
- Seneca
***
An angry man opens his mouth and shuts up his eyes.
- Cato the Elder
***
Anger begins with folly, and ends with repentance.
- Pythagoras
***
Anger blows out the lamp of the mind.
- Robert Green Ingersoll
***
To rule one's anger is well; to prevent it is still better.
- Tryon Edwards
***
Keep cool; anger is not an argument.
- Daniel Webster
***
Men often make up in wrath what they want in reason.
- William Rounseville Alger
***
Anger is a momentary madness, so control your passion or it will control you.
- Horace
***
The flame of anger, bright and brief, sharpens the barb of love.
- Walter S. Landor
***
When a man is wrong and won't admit it, he always gets angry.
- Thomas C. Haliburton
***
Wise anger is like fire from a flint: there is great ado to get it out; and when it does come, it is out again immediately.
- Matthew Henry
***
Anybody can become angry--that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way--that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
- Aristotle
***
When angry count four; when very angry, swear.
- Mark Twain
***
Whenever you are angry, be assured that it is not only a present evil, but that you have increased a habit.
- Epictetus
***
Anger is seldom without argument but seldom with a good one.
- Lord Halifax
***
An angry man is again angry with himself when he returns to reason.
- Publilius Syrus
***
The intoxication of anger, like that of the grape, shows us to others, but hides us from ourselves. We injure our own cause in the opinion of the world when we too passionately defend it.
- Charles Caleb Colton
***
Never go to bed mad. Stay up and fight.
- Phyllis Diller
***
There is not in nature, a thing that makes man so deformed, so beastly, as doth intemperate anger.
--John Webster
***
As the whirlwind in its fury teareth up trees, and deformeth the face of nature, or as an earthquake in its convulsions overturneth whole cities; so the rage of an angry man throweth mischief around him.
--Akhenaton
***
Indulge not thyself in the passion of anger; it is whetting a sword to wound thine own breast, or murder thy friend.
--Akhenaton
***
It takes two flints to make a fire.
--Louisa May Alcott
***
I used to store my anger and it affected my play. Now I get it out. I'm never rude to my playing partner. I'm very focused on the ball. Then it's over.
--Helen Alfredsson
***
Men often make up in wrath what they want in reason.
--William R. Alger
***
Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.
--Maya Angelou
***
Consider how much more you often suffer from your anger and grief, than from those very things for which you are angry and grieved.
--Marcus Antonius
***
We praise a man who feels angry on the right grounds and against the right persons and also in the right manner at the right moment and for the right length of time.
--Aristotle
***
How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it.
--Marcus Aurelius
***
When thou art above measure angry, bethink thee how momentary is man's life.
--Marcus Aurelius
***
Rage cannot be hidden, it can only be dissembled. This dissembling deludes the thoughtless, and strengthens rage and adds, to rage, contempt.
--James Baldwin
***
If a man meets with injustice, it is not required that he shall not be roused to meet it; but if he is angry after he has had time to think upon it, that is sinful. The flame is not wring, but the coals are.
--Henry Ward Beecher
MORE: (from an astute reader)
Ah would that from earth and Heaven all strife were for ever flung,
And wrath, that makes even a wise man mad! Upon the tongue
Its taste is sweeter than honey, that drips from the comb - but then
Like a smother of blinding smoke it mounts in the hearts of men.
-- Homer, Iliad, xviii, 109.
***
... for behold in his fury he doeth despite to the senseless clay.
-- Homer, Iliad, xxiv, 54.
***
Wrath and anger are hateful things,
yet the sinner hugs them tight.
-- Sirach 27: 30
***
Give up your anger, and forsake wrath;
be not vexed, it will only harm you.
-- Psalm 37:8
(0) comments
Monday, September 29, 2003
Valerie Plame Wilson - Maguire's On the Case
The media and government are just beginning to catch up with Tom Maguire on understanding the whole Valerie Plame Wilson mess. Check the links and earlier posts, too.
UPDATE: Now DRUDGE quotes Novak as saying there was no "culprit:"
'Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives'...
Actually, the whole current dust-up (especially the new CIA/JD activities) has something of the feeling of an issue that the White House may be trying to ventilate now, to get it out of the way well before the election.
The media and government are just beginning to catch up with Tom Maguire on understanding the whole Valerie Plame Wilson mess. Check the links and earlier posts, too.
UPDATE: Now DRUDGE quotes Novak as saying there was no "culprit:"
'Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives'...
Actually, the whole current dust-up (especially the new CIA/JD activities) has something of the feeling of an issue that the White House may be trying to ventilate now, to get it out of the way well before the election.
(0) comments