The US Mail (sans packages, which will continue Saturday delivery) has come down to being a bill collector and the deliverer of advertising. The first is equivalent to the proverbial “bearer of bad tidings,” and the second is a largely irrelevant waste of paper. So why strain the postal workers’ backs, and the postal service’s pocketbook, any more than we have to?
No reason at all.
Except, perhaps, that with the end of weekend delivery, mail will pile up even more for Monday.
I’m in a hurry today, and haven’t had time to read the whole thing, which is long. But the parts I’ve read are good, and well worth reading.
I know that Hororwitz has the particular and special advantage I refer to in the title of this post: he used to be, not just a relatively uninvolved liberal like I was, but a political operative of the left, an activist and strategist. His conversion to the right is old news, and he’s had a long time to study and to think and to write about the two sides and what’s going on. I would pay close attention to what he says.
Which is to say, a complete failure as a leader in the Senate, except to follow his own idiosyncratic idea of Senate collegiality, or some other outdated and chivalrous notion, or perhaps some sort of self-serving strategic move that I don’t understand but has become typical of his long and largely counter-productive Senate career:
Sen. John McCain appears to have cleared the way Monday for Chuck Hagel to be the next secretary of defense.
The Arizona Republican, who has been a prominent voice in the debate over Hagel, said Monday he would oppose any attempt to filibuster the nomination, likely dooming any attempt by Senate conservatives to sustain a protracted procedural fight to delay Hagel’s confirmation.
Why? Well, it would be “inappropriate,” don’t you see? I not only don’t understand that, I don’t even think that’s McCain’s reason. Perhaps he sees a chance to influence Hagel if Hagel wins the nomination? If so, that’s a case of hubris, IMHO.
There are others who seem to be on McCain’s side:
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) has said he will oppose Hagel but doesn’t want to raise the ante. “I don’t want to filibuster. We don’t want to go that way,” he said. “It is a choice that could lead to a lot more problems.”
Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) also expressed reservations about any filibuster but were not ready to commit to a cloture vote.
“In general I am very reluctant to filibuster Cabinet nominees,” Collins said. “It would be a high standard that would have to be met before I would think that a filibuster of a cabinet nominee were appropriate.”
We expect that from Collins of Maine, but the others? What problems could this lead to that the Republicans in the Senate don’t already have (I doubt they’re talking about problems for the nation)?
And does anyone think for a single moment that the Democrats, in a similar position, would consider that a “high standard…would have to be met before [they] would think that a filibuster of a cabinet nominee were appropriate?”
I’ve said from the start that Hagel would be nominated, so in a way it’s no surprise. But it’s still infuriating. I think one of the reasons people get so frustrated with Republicans in Congress, and particularly in the Senate, is that they seem to have no spine and commit a lot of unforced errors—for no obviously discernible reason. And this is what makes people suspect that they have no conservative principles (or even no principles) at all.
Even self-interest, the best bet, doesn’t quite explain it. It’s hard to figure out how they would benefit from this particular move, for example. Will they earn concessions from the Democratic colleagues? Money? Influence? I don’t think so. Perhaps those more creatively cynical than I could explain it.
[NOTE: For those who wonder how I square this sort of post with yesterday’s call for rapprochement—or at least an end to the acrimony of the hostilities—between the so-called “establishment Republicans” and the Tea Party regarding vetting candidates, I reiterate that I’m very frustrated with both sides of that equation, but I still don’t think a war will help the situation.]
I got a Sodastream as a present a couple of years ago.
It was a great gift. Everybody who knows me knows I drink a lot of plain club soda. This gadget allows you to make your own (and not just plain club soda either; all kinds of flavors and types of soda—which of course I never drink).
Whether it’s cheaper than buying soda in bottles or not is a lengthy argument (I think it is cheaper, unless you get the lowest budget soda at the store, which is usually flat and bad), but it’s certainly way more convenient. All you have to do is get a refill when it runs out, which are available at many venues. Best of all, no more hauling bottles home, or the empties to recycling. Your groceries become so much lighter. And when you run out of your favorite carbonated beverage after hours—why, just make another bottle.
But on top of all those reasons to buy a Sodastream, now there’s another. I hadn’t known this before, but the company is an Israeli one, and, predictably, all the self-righteous leftist friends of the PLO would like you to boycott it. In an unintentional but predictable irony, this seems to be in part because the Israeli firm hires Palestinians to work in its plant—and of course, as the capitalist pig fat cats they are, therefore exploits the poor workers. The following is an excerpt from an NPR piece on the situation:
In a company- produced video, SodaStream’s Daniel Birnbaum describes his firm as a boon to the residents of the occupied West Bank.
DANIEL BIRNBAUM, CEO, SODASTREAM: We give them an opportunity ”“ not only to have a job and health insurance ”“ but also social benefits and a very high pay scale, which they could never achieve in the West Bank.
ABRAMSON [of NPR]: But the Palestinian Authority says factories, like SodaStream’s, help support what they see as Israel’s illegal occupation of West Bank land. Israeli groups that oppose settlement activity agree.
Rona Moran, with the Coalition of Women for Peace, based in Tel Aviv, says SodaStream and other settlement businesses weaken the Palestinian economy.
RONA MARTIN, COALITION OF WOMEN FOR PEACE: And all of the work in this factory is actually benefitting from exploiting Palestinian workers as cheap labor and Palestinian land for the establishment of the factory, and enjoys benefits and funding from the Israeli government.
So folks, your work is clear. Buy Sodastream! You’ll be purchasing a good product, supporting an Israeli business, and at the same time helping that Israeli company actually help some Palestinians help themselves for a change. Win/win/win.
Oh—and, if you purchase it through my Amazon portal or a click-through here, you’ll also be giving neo-neocon a little boost.
Two good examples of what I was talking about in that post are the subject headings of two emails I received today from Tea Party mailing lists. The first was titled, “We are under attack by Karl Rove.” The second was headed, “Rove Declares War on Tea Party.”
The copy in the second began as follows:
The battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party has begun. On one side is the Tea Party. On the other side stand Karl Rove and his establishment team, posing as tacticians while quietly undermining conservatism. Yesterday, the New York Times reported…
Fabulous. Keep going in that direction, and the only people you’ll be serving are the good folks at the New York Times, who are chuckling at the seething pot they’ve stirred.
Refer back to my original post for my longer and more detailed opinion on all of this, but for now I’ll just reiterate that I get the fact that these two segments of the Republican Party disagree. That disagreement goes back a long way; I even remember the phrase “Rockefeller Republicans” from my youth.
But this sort of rabble-rousing hyperbole is destructive, and I’m heartily sick of it. Not that that’s going to affect anything, but it’s how I have come to feel. I keep thinking that it’s a great way to marginalize both wings of the party for the foreseeable future.
To the best of my recollection, the sound quality was somewhat better when it aired on radio; I think making a copy degrades the audio. But it’s still easily intelligible. I just sound a little gurgly and slurpy.
The subject matter was twofold: my piece on the Seidman anti-Constitution op-ed, and political changers (including my own experience as a changer).
After careful sleuthing and authentication, it seems that a skeleton found in a Leicester car park in Britain is really the remains of King Richard III. Quite extraordinary; the site of the burial place had been lost, although researchers followed the clues and their efforts have been rewarded:
Ӣ Wealth of evidence, including radiocarbon dating, radiological evidence, DNA and bone analysis and archaeological results, confirms identity of last Plantagenet king who died over 500 years ago
”¢ DNA from skeleton matches two of Richard III’s maternal line relatives. Leicester genealogist verifies living relatives of Richard III’s family
Ӣ Individual likely to have been killed by one of two fatal injuries to the skull Рone possibly from a sword and one possibly from a halberd
Ӣ Ten wounds discovered on skeleton РRichard III killed by trauma to the back of the head. Part of the skull sliced off
Ӣ Radiocarbon dating reveals individual had a high protein diet Рincluding significant amounts of seafood Рmeaning he was likely to be of high status
”¢ Radiocarbon dating reveals individual died in the second half of the 15th or in the early 16th Century – consistent with Richard’s death in 1485
Ӣ Skeleton reveals severe scoliosis Рonset believed to have occurred at the time of puberty
Ӣ Although about 5ft 8in tall (1.7m), the condition meant King Richard III would have stood significantly shorter and his right shoulder may have been higher than the left
Although the scoliosis was present there was no withered arm, unlike customary dramatic portrayals of the king.
Whatever the Democratic Party doesn’t succeed in doing to destroy the Republicans, the Republicans seem determined to do to themselves. It’s getting very, very old.
And by “Republicans” I don’t just mean what other people mean when they use the term “establishment Republicans.” I mean “establishment Republicans” on their own, Tea Party conservatives on their own, and the two pitted against each other.
Each group has strengths and weaknesses. Each group could, at least theoretically, help each other (novel thought, that). You will probably disagree with me if you believe that these two groups are unalterably and irrevocably opposed to each other. But although I know they have their differences, I believe those differences do not automatically preclude their uniting on common goals to help each other. But I don’t think it’s going to happen; the bitterness is too great and the territorial instincts too strong.
I’m seeing reactions on the conservative side to articles such as this one about the formation of a new super-PAC that some consider an establishment effort to undermine and usurp the Tea Party and its candidates and replace them with more establishment types. The article (which appeared in the NY Times, and since when did conservatives pay much attention to what’s said there?) describes it thusly:
The effort would put a new twist on the Republican-vs.-Republican warfare that has consumed the party’s primary races in recent years. In effect, the establishment is taking steps to fight back against Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations that have wielded significant influence in backing candidates who ultimately lost seats to Democrats in the general election.
Ah, the Times only has our interests at heart, to be sure! No doubt they just want to see us all get along:
The Conservative Victory Project, which is backed by Karl Rove and his allies who built American Crossroads into the largest Republican super PAC of the 2012 election cycle, will start by intensely vetting prospective contenders for Congressional races to try to weed out candidates who are seen as too flawed to win general elections.
The project is being waged with last year’s Senate contests in mind, particularly the one in Missouri [and Indiana, involving Akins and Mourdock].
The project’s president, Steven J. Law, is quoted as saying:
We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.
Sounds reasonable to me; in fact, I think it’s something I’ve suggested in the past. But it’s also completely understandable that Tea Party forces see this as an attack, an attempt to undermine them and their power.
If these groups persist in tearing each other apart, they will splinter into two parties—and, as I’ve written before, help assure a lengthy hegemony for the liberal/left.
Lost in the shuffle is the fact that, as Ramesh Ponnuru points out (in my opinion, quite reasonably) in National Review, why suspect someone like Stephen J. Law, head of American Crossroads, which is behind the new Conservative Victory Project?:
I take him at his word: He is, in my experience, solidly conservative himself, and served in the top ranks of the most successfully conservative Cabinet department of the George W. Bush administration (Labor, under Elaine Chao). American Crossroads spent a lot of money on behalf of conservative candidates such as Representative Allen West in 2012. My guess is that Law really does want to implement the “Buckley rule” of picking the most electable conservative.
Ah, is it because Karl Rove has backed the project? He seems to have gone from being evil incarnate to liberals to being evil incarnate to Tea Party types. Or maybe not; I’m weary of trying to follow these skirmishes.
I also wonder whether this group tried to work with the Tea Party types and were rebuffed, or whether some Tea Party types are actually on board, or whether no effort was made to recruit them in the first place.
…seems really loooong to me. But then, I’m not a football fan. I went out to dinner with a friend, talked for hours, came back, and I see they’re just starting the fourth quarter.
But now I’ve learned there was a power outage. That must explain it.
I would imagine some of you are fans. Everyone in the restaurant I went to seemed to be rooting for the Ravens. You would have thought they were the Pats.
[BUMPED UP: and for more on the philosophical and theological underpinnings of the film, please see this and this.]
Today is Groundhog Day, and I think it very appropriate—very—to repeat an older post on the subject of the movie of that name, one of my favorite films of all time. So without further ado, here it is again (and if you’ve never seen the movie—well, all I can say is, please do).
In discussions of the film “Groundhog Day” on this blog, I’ve noticed a couple of people questioning why the Bill Murray character would find Andie McDowell’s Rita deserving of all those years of his devotion and energy. For example, “…[W]hat, exactly, made the lovely but, let’s face it, vapid Rita worthy of Phil’s centuries of effort?”
My answer is that he discovered love. Yes, Rita was beautiful, and a good human being with many excellent qualities. But of course she was imperfect, and over the years (centuries? millennia?) Phil no doubt had learned just about all of her flaws. Still, it didn’t matter to him because it wasn’t about Rita, exactly—it was about the fact that, somewhere along the long path of his transformation to wisdom, he finally understood that every person in town, including the ones he couldn’t tolerate at the beginning, was worthy of his attention—and of something one might call “love,” in its broadest sense.
And somewhere along the line to that knowledge, Phil’s efforts in “Groundhog Day” stopped being about getting into Rita’s pants or even getting her to love him, although that certainly took up a larger percentage of his time (and the movie’s length) than some of his other pursuits. But he probably spent at least as much time learning to play the piano (a form of love, too), or to carve ice sculptures, or to become skilled at some of the more mindless and meaningless tricks he mastered, or learning details about the life of almost everyone in town.
Was the old derelict, whose life Phil tried to save over and over and over, “worth it” either? Such questions no longer mattered to him, because the gesture and the effort were worth it, and every life was worth something to him.
Rita, of course, had always been physically attractive to Phil. But as the film (and time) wore on—and on—she became the object not just of eros, but of agape as well. By the end of the movie, I think that Phil had come to appreciate the idea of the theme and variations versus the symphony, which I wrote about here:
And, although walking repeatedly in the same place is very different from traveling around the world and walking in a new place every day, is it really so very much less varied? It depends on the eye and mind of the beholder; the expansive imagination can find variety in small differences, and the stunted one can find boredom in vast changes.
And I submit that love is like that, too. Some people spend a lifetime with one love, one spouse; plumbing the depths of that single human being and what it means to be in an intimate relationship with him/her. Others go from relationship to relationship, never alighting with one person for very long, craving the variety.
It would seem on the face of it that the second type of person has the more exciting time in love. But it ain’t necessarily so. Either of these experiences can be boring or fascinating, depending on what we bring to it: the first experience is a universe in depth, and the second a universe in breadth. But both can contain multitudes.
Towards the end of the film (SPOILER ALERT), he makes it clear that he has given up the pursuit of Rita entirely, and immersed himself in his love for her instead. Is this what finally frees him?
[NOTE: In the original post, there was a more complete version of the ending, but YouTube seems to have taken it down and this was the closest one I could find. To those of you unfamiliar with the movie, it won’t seem like much, but trust me; in context, it’s extraordinary, especially in contrast to Phil’s original snarky personality.]
[ADDENDUM: In one of the links I recommended in the “UPDATE” above, I just noticed an error (maybe that’s because it’s the NY Times, natch). The article states, “Of course, this being an American film, he [Phil] not only attains spiritual release but also gets the producer [Rita] into bed.”
Well, that may be literally true; on the final night, Rita and Phil do sleep in the same bed. But what the writer is implying—that they have sex—is completely untrue. Note, also, the snide “American film” reference.]
[ADDENDUM II: I also just noticed that, surprisingly enough, the other essayist, Michael P. Foley, makes the same error as the Times. He writes:
I should add, though, that the movie is not perfect. Rita’s final “redemption” of Phil, for instance, results in their sleeping together the next morning. (Call it the incense that had to be thrown on the Hollywood fire.)
I am quite surprised that so many thoughtful viewers of the movie have made such an elementary error. But it seems quite common. How odd. As commenter “Ed Bonderenka” points out, “Rita says, the next morning, that Phil fell asleep the night before.”
That’s not to say that Phil foreswears sex. We can be fairly certain that, when he returns to normal time with Rita, sex is part of their lives.]
…Hagel was abominable, but those Republicans were so darn mean to him.
This was the inevitable way they needed to go, right? Hagel turns out to be unprincipled and/or to have dreadful principles, plus no ability to articulate them or defend himself, making error after error, and even liberals and the left can see that and are embarrassed. But hey, those Republicans are just so darn cruel, vindictive, attacking, nit-picky, (choose whatever pejorative adjective you want), and will have been responsible for making his task more difficult when he becomes the Secretary of Defense.
For examples of this message, see this and this, among others. Here’s one of my favorite quotes (from Charles Stevenson vis James Fallows) [emphasis mine]:
They had no strong argument against Hagel, just a thousand cuts of little misstatements from his past.
Hagel wasn’t as crisp or clever or self-assured as I expected. He may not have realized how tough it is to be on the receiving end of TV-conscious Senators. He may also have thought that prior friendships would still count in this age of hyper-partisanship and after he became an apostate Republican.
I love that phrase “little misstatements” (take a look at some of them, if you’re unfamiliar with Hagel’s testimony). “Little misstatement” is almost as good as “misspoke,” another favorite of mine. The word should refer to slips of the tongue. But instead it’s often used to characterize serious mistakes, including mistakes of judgment. Hagel has had so many of those—both in the past and in the hearings—that it is actually rather frightening that this man will almost certainly be confirmed.
[ADDENDUM: I can’t resist including some of Hagel’s “little misstatements”—which most assuredly were not only “from his past”:
First [Hagel] said it was the policy of the Obama administration to “contain” Iran ”” meaning it will allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon and then try to box it in.
…not only has Hagel spoken approvingly of engaging with the Iranians, he has his own checkered history when it comes to holding Iran to account. It includes voting against a 2007 resolution that declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps ”” perhaps the world’s foremost trainer and funder of state-sponsored terrorism ”” a terrorist organization.
In trying to defend that vote yesterday, he said he had done so (along with newly minted Secretary of State John Kerry) because it was an assault on an “elected, legitimate” government ”” by which he meant Iran’s theocracy. And because, he said, voting for the resolution would have given the Bush administration a green light to go to war with Iran.
Well, that ludicrous notion is in the past. What’s in the present is that the stated policy of the Obama administration toward the Iranian nuke is “prevention” ”” that it will not allow Iran to get the bomb, period, and will do what is necessary to ensure it doesn’t happen.
So Hagel corrected himself, kind of: “I was just handed a note that I misspoke ”” that I said I supported the president’s position on containment. If I said that, I meant to say that we don’t have a position on containment.” Whatever that means.
Later he said he was sorry he’d called the Iranian government elected and legitimate; rather, he should have said it was recognized.
“I don’t understand Iranian politics,” Hagel said ”” which would be understandable if, say, Khloe Kardashian were testifying. But Hagel is going to be a key official determining US policy toward Iran, and one would hope he’d bring a bit of pre-existing knowledge to the table.
He was also sorry to have said Israel keeps the Palestinians “caged in like wild animals.” Oh, and he didn’t mean to have drawn a moral equivalence between Israel and Hezbollah by referring to “the sickening slaughter on both sides” during a war inaugurated entirely by Hezbollah’s rockets.
As for American policy, he and his ex-friend Sen. John McCain got into quite a tussle over the surge in Iraq, which Hagel described before it began as “the worst foreign-policy disaster since Vietnam.”
This is something about which he was obviously mistaken ”” even if you think the war itself was a foreign-policy disaster, the surge certainly made it far less of one ”” and yet he could neither find the words to defend his 2007 view nor the words to say things had worked out differently from how he had expected them to go.
“There are a lot of things I don’t know about,” Hagel said, when it came to America’s defenses. “If confirmed, I intend to know a lot more than I do.”
But why should he bother? After all, he said in perhaps the most head-shaking comment of the day, “It doesn’t matter what I think.”
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) begged to differ: “It matters what you think,” she found herself saying in response.
Or maybe this was the most head-shaking comment: Defense secretary is “not a policymaking position,” and because he has to work in consultation with others and in service to the president, he won’t be “running anything.”
