What, they couldn't get Howard Beale?

From the Post:


"But CBS News staffers are puzzled, if not furious, over Moonves's rumored plans to remodel the "Evening News" completely when Rather leaves and turn it into a nighttime version of the morning shows -- replete, perhaps, with comedy capers, jokes and satire, maybe some showbiz gossip and someone like Couric as a very "viewer-friendly" host who appeals to the young-adult demographic that generally doesn't watch the news.

Moonves reportedly would like to not only lure Couric but also add alleged satirist Jon Stewart to the "Evening News" as a commentator; Stewart hosts "The Daily Show" on cable's Comedy Central. Speaking to TV columnists and reporters in Los Angeles, Moonves would not confirm the rumors but did say that he wants "a revolution and not an evolution" and that "I think we have to do something really different to get people's attention" to raise the "Evening News" broadcast's ratings."

Remember, it's all about entertainment. If you want facts, look for yourself.

O'Reilly

This could really shape up.

This one's for you,

Jon Cowperthwait:

Don't talk. Just click.


Happy weekend!

Dave

To Rebut:

Josh Marshall, in Talking Points Memo:

Placing context or limits on the danger posed by Islamic terrorism is a hazardous business these days. But unlike communism in 1947, militant Islam simply does not pose an existential threat to our civilization. It just doesn’t. It puts us all physically at risk. And especially for those of us who live in DC, New York or other major urban areas, it could kill us tomorrow.

Marshall is exhibiting just the sort sleepy priorities here from which Beinart is trying to wake the left. He fails to recognize that if and when the Islamic-fascist-terrorist network (supported by Iran) acquire and use a nuclear weapon in a major American urban center, modern liberalism, defined in the broadest sense of the word, will be dead. Sure, my or his physical safety is in danger, firstly, but then what? One can imagine a suspension of the writ of Habeus Corpus, for one. Followed by mass forced detentions of Middle Easterners, ghettoization, national ID cards, concentration camps, forced exile, martial law...one could go on for days with the illiberal possibilities. And such an attitude would, a-spread to every open western society, and b-would probably be made into the sort of "government under emergency mandate" that currently dominates such liberal beacons as Egypt.

And then? And then we have a full-scale civilizational conflict, with entire regions, and huge populations of Muslim co-religionists (and the states of which they are even marginally constituents) pitted against us. And then we have something that mirrors the type of conflict that Marshall envisions as being a parallel to the cold-war. But, I suspect, our adversaries may, in that instance, have an even less enlightened view of self-preservation than the one held by our previous opponents. And I also suspect that no one even wants us to get there.

The truth is that, as Beinart has pointed out in subsequent posts, the terrorists need not acquire a nuclear weapon to accomplish a full-scale assault on liberalism. Even by destabilizing, controlling or sabotaging an oil-exporting country's exports, they can largely drive a civilizational wedge that could have devastating effects on western style liberalism.

Iraq was a totalitarian state. It was not an Islamist totalitarian state. There is a big difference. Saddam and other gangster-style fascists wield power in order to preserve their, and their faction's, wealth and self-interest. Islamist fascists wield power to animate a large-scale historical movement that would result in a dominant Islamic world, unified and governed by a caliphate. They know the chinks in the armor of western civilization. They see the big picture. The only question is: Do we?

Dave

Gentle cousins

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/12/08/gorilla.wake.ap/index.html



I'd like to point out that none of the gorillas fired assault rifles into the air. Also, that she wasn't killed by a crazy gorilla who thought the best thing to do today would be to attack a bunch of unarmed metalheads with a semiautomatic.

About six years ago, a good friend of mine abandoned his experimentations with sex and drugs for the ultra-religious life. Donning a black hat, a long-sleeved white shirt, and refraining from trimming the corners of his beard, he set out for the West Bank to study Jewish arcana. Four years later, he comes back and in a long conversation with myself and another friend, informs us that he doesn't believe evolution took place. Of course, he has decided that the words of the Old Testament are the literal truth written by Hashem. But in addition to this, he tells us that "I can't accept the idea that human beings descended from apes." Why is that? "It's degrading."

He was right, it is degrading - to the apes. I don't think it's arguable that gorillas have behaved themselves much better than we have, and for a much longer time.

Un peu apropos, and sorry if this is turning into a ramble - I'm listening to the new U2 album right now and heard the following lyrics:

You speak of signs and wonders, but I need something other.
I would believe if I was able, but I'm waiting on the crumbs from your table.


I don't have any partisan political points right now, but my brain is functioning at about two percent. Republicans stink.

Nate

Beinart, again.

The biggest splash in the "where do we go from here?" discussion has been made again by Peter Beinart, who is one of the brightest luminaries in the future of American liberalism.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041213&s=beinart121304

You have to subscribe in some way to read the article, but, believe me, it's worth it. Beinart starts his argument by pointing to a key meeting of Democrats at the Willard Hotel in DC in 1948. At that meeting it was settled that the Democratic party had to navigate away from any allies who were "soft" on communism. Being "soft" was defined as being

-sympathetic to the goals of the international communist party (or associated with those who were)

or

-acquiscient to the threat of the spread of communism by deprioritizing the comprehensive struggle against it (military, economic, social, diplomatic, etc.)

Beinart points out that in '48 a large portion of the Democratic party fell into either of these two camps, and that at the Willard, a key group of liberal intellectuals seized on anti-communism and anti-totalitarianism as the keystone for their political philosophy. They saw what had happened in Nazi Germany and what was happening in the USSR as the gravest threat to liberal democratic values in the world.

A good deal has happened since then. Korea, Vietnam, the Iranian revolution, Reaganism and the US intervention in the central America, the fall of the Berlin wall, and of course 9/11. Now, Beinart finds, for a number of reasons closely related to those historical factors, that American liberalism is "soft" on totalitarian Islam. That's to say: they're against it, but the deprioritize the comprehensive struggle against it. Either because they're pacifists, moral relativists, or just more focused on universal healthcare, they are not fully committed to the fight against militant totalitarian Islam.

Kerry merely papered over the problem, rather than campaign to convince people that the struggle against this newer form of totalitarianism was worth the highest priority of government. Wesley Clark, for all his faults as a candidate, made the centerpiece of his campaign the idea that Afghanistan was our priority because Afghanistan represented the most realistic threat from the new totalitarian Islam. That view is harmonious with what it appears that Beinart is calling for: a new liberal ideology of anti-Islamic totalitarianism.

Under that ideological framework, women's rights in foreign policy would be a centerpiece of liberal policy. As would a policy toward Afghanistan that favors non-anarchy in the countryside. Opposition to regime change in Iraq would be couched in the following terms: to invade Iraq is to make it more likely, not less, that we will be attacked by a Islamist totalitarians.

Under that ideological framework, a good case could be made for a more secular philosophy toward goverment, both here and abroad. And in order for liberals to win future elections, they have to offer an honest alternative to the government by religious values mentality that has taken hold in Washington recently.

If there's a tournament for "name the future ideological center of the Democratic party", then we may have a finalist.

Dave

I missed you.

A week in Deutchland, a week of jet-lag and catching up on work. Also, actually enjoying life for a change makes you somewhat less pissed about politics. No wonder there are so many terminally unhappy political psychos out lately.

Anywho, on to bigger and better like

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html

Dude, did you hear that you can totally catch HIV from sweat? That's like, so queer.

As with so much else, a bunch of right-wing ideologues have cobbled together a pseudo-scientific account (of sexual behavior) that holds an absolute ton of untruths, in order to bolster their religious views about the world.

I have no problem with these people teaching their children that gay people are monkeys or whatever else. But obviously with tax money...

Two things: one, if there were a left-wing sex ed course that taught about the joys of promiscuity, don't you think that perhaps this course would receive a little airplay from our friends over a fox? They seem to love salacious wedge issues. Where's the outrage in the "liberal media"?

Two, this should be a left-leaning wedge issue. For some reason, the left in this country has stopped making arguements about the necessity of a secular public sphere. Until a vast majority of Americans reflexively see the absurdity of this type of religious indoctrination, there's a problem.

In order to make a particular philosophical issue the topic "A" in a media world, the GOP has relied on a top-down approach to public relations. Their attack-dogs repeat the same talking points ad nauseum for a week straight on a given issue. Maybe it's time for the Dems to start singing from the same songbook on religious issues. That is unless they're sill waiting to peel off that 5% of voters by pandering on yet another issue.

24 hours in America

...and I'm already spouting mindless platitudes about cultural differences. I was in rural Germany last week, blissfully ignoring the details of Ukraine, the budget, and cabinet posts. No blogs, no virtual community. No discussion of the Democrats, but a good amount of Bush bashing. Although I was impressed by much of what I saw there, what struck me politically about this part of rural Germany was how family and community-oriented life in the countryside was. Towns are geographically smaller and people live closer to one another. Entire family networks live side-by-side. Most services are located in small shops in town.

Generally, people are devoted to their towns and to their town institutions. They tend to live at home until they're married. They belong to town choirs and bands. They resolve to stay in town and raise their families there. It would seem that the primary commitment for a German is to live their lives in their town. What does it mean to live one's life in the small town of Oberderdingen? Remarkably, our German hosts were not obsessed with their jobs. They work a limited number of hours and make time for lots of hobbies--liquor making, raising rabbits, keeping bees, playing and listening to music, amongst other things. Family and community celbrations are high priorities. Talking and visiting with friends is important.

As Americans, it seems like our occupations, possessions, and mass-marketed personal interests compose our identities. In the small town of Oberderdingen, I am who I am simply by birth. I was born in my town. There is a certain way of life, and the purpose of life is live in that way. The purpose of life is not to discover which occupation brings you the most happiness. It is not to move to the city that best affords you the opportunity to live your life in a certain way--it is to stay and build your life right where you were born. In America we believe in the pursuit of our own individual definition of happiness. In Oberderdingen, happiness is somewhat pre-defined, culturally, by the community. And Germans tend to be more comfortable with the government expressing a common communal will–festivals, schools, music, etc.

In America, in the red-states, in the places where many of those same small-town cultural values of identity and culture thrive, a multi-pronged Republican outlook is flourishing. It is an outlook that seems to express cultural identity in policy through an amalgam of cultural issues that cut across geographical lines, from state to state (gay-marriage, abortion, etc). Then it speaks to Americans' fundamentally individualistic nature by insisting that government not interfere with peoples' economic freedom through taxation.

This is a smart strategy, because it speaks to cultural common denominators that run from state to state. Civic culture varies from Kansas to Wyoming, but a few social issues resonate in both places. Americans tend to be very individualistic, and the Republican ideology speaks to this in economic terms, if nothing else.

Honestly, I don't know where this line of thought is leading...through the jeg-lag 7 day party hangover haze. I saw so many beautiful, interesting things on my trip--and learned so much. So while I catch up on work, email, personal business, and a chronicle of the trip, I'll be thinking about how politics reflects peoples' fundamental assumptions about life--and how that manifestation is different in Oberderdingen and here in the states. And I'll get back to the blogo-chatter tomorrow, if my brain wakes up.

Dave

A man, a plan, a canal... an abortion?

Some faaaaaking schmaaaak at my otherwise great University of Maryland took it upon himself to berate a girl who had been raped and miscarried before she had to make the decision to have an abortion. So I sent in this response, maybe they'll print it, woo hoo!

http://www.inform.umd.edu/News/Diamondback/archives/2004/11/29/commentary4.html

Mr. Hare, you must be very proud of yourself. You exercised your right to free speech by publicly excoriating a victim of rape, a woman who bravely shared her intense personal story of tragedy and moral anguish, and then you congratulated yourself on your graciousness and lucidity. I hope you saved some of your wrath and contempt for the person who raped her; but if so, you were too busy heaping scorn on her “grammatical and stylistic perils” – which eluded this reader – to let us know about it.

Instead of offering your own cogent argument, you treated us to the ridiculous spectacle of a man pompously lecturing a woman on how she is supposed to feel about her own pregnancy. Pointing out weaknesses in another’s argument doesn’t give merit to your own, especially if those weaknesses are imaginary. Despite whatever “lack of experience” you think Ms. Bulger had, she gave us a poignant example of the moral ambiguities present in the issue of abortion. And since you purport to have perfect moral clarity on this issue, and if you’re going to attack Ms. Bulger on her lack of qualifications, I would like to know yours – how many times have you been raped, how many times have you been pregnant and faced the decision to have an abortion, along with whatever emotional implications one may bring?

The morality of legal abortion and the humanity of a fetus are subjects that are debated, and it’s unlikely that this debate will ever come to an end. All you’ve done with your column is add another mundane contribution to the endless back-and-forth in which one side claims eternal righteousness and heaps scorn on the other. On the other hand, the morality of murder and genocide are not debated, at least not on any perceptible scale. About half the country sees abortion and murder as the same thing, and the other half does not. This disparity will never be resolved by printing the same arguments over and over in newspapers. You, Mr. Hare, will never convince me that a fetus has a soul (or indeed that any living being has a soul). And I will most likely not be able to convince you of the opposite. Most people in our society, especially those who are taught to think critically, recognize that an issue such as abortion carries irreconcilable moral ambiguity, and therefore it’s rarely helpful to spout and reiterate catch-all arguments that condemn one point of view and elevate another to the status of pure truth.

I may see some instances of abortion as immoral, but I don’t see myself as someone qualified to tell every woman what she should do with her own body. Furthermore, the job of the government is not to legislate morality, but to uphold the constitutional rights of all its citizens. Constitutional rights are guaranteed so that the minority does not live at the whim of the majority. Plenty of immoral acts – such as calling someone names or cheating on one’s wife – are legal and should stay that way.

Women in this country do have the right to a peaceful abortion, and your closing paragraph tinges with threatening language. On a few occasions, I’ve volunteered as an escort at abortion clinics around the area. Most of the protestors at these places are peaceful, repeating the Hail Mary or silently holding posters or photos. But a few take it upon themselves to rant maniacally at anyone who walks near the building. As an escort, it was my job to be a sponge and absorb that verbal diarrhea, and to deter passions from becoming dangerous. I can tell you that the “lawful rebukes” of such protestors accomplished nothing other than the raising of their own blood pressure.

You gallantly assert your right to verbally harass women who struggle with a moral dilemma. Do you think this is the best way you can work to reduce suffering in the world? Although I haven’t been schooled in the dogma of absolute morality, it seems to me that the dissemination of such loathing, contempt, condemnation, and smug self-righteousness as can be found in your column is morally destructive, not constructive.

Finally, anyone who misspells the final word of their column, “publicly” as “publically”, shouldn’t be gloating over someone else’s grammatical errors.

Nate