Iraq: No good options?

I did some reading on Iraq this morning and ran across this bit of realpolitik from Senator John McCain, circa September 04:

The reality [is] that we’re going to be there for a long time - which, by the way, is not terrible if you keep the casualties down.

Yes. Just as drunk driving isn’t so bad as long as you don’t hit anybody. And “by the way,” McCain is speaking specifically about American perceptions and American casualties.

For a less sanguine opinion, let’s turn to Alan Richards, who’s guesting for Juan Cole today. Richards is professor of economics and environmental studies at the University of California (Santa Cruz). He’s coauthor of A Political Economy of the Middle East, an advisory editor of Middle East Policy, and he’s a man who sees no good options for America in Iraq, official optimism notwithstanding. Richard’s essay is a response to an earlier piece by Cole.

I have been reading the debate . . . on “What next in Iraq?” (”Unilateral withdrawal? UN forces? Staying the course?”) with great interest. There is a way, however, in which I am troubled by what I perceive as a tacit assumption–a very American assumption,–underlying most of the discussion. It seems to me that even “pessimists” are actually “optimists”: they assume that there exists in Iraq and the Gulf some “solution”, some course of action which can actually lead to an outcome other than widespread, prolonged violence, with devastating economic, political, and social consequences.

There is no “solution” to this mess; it is sometimes not possible to “fix” things which have been broken. I can see no course of action which will prevent widespread violence, regional social upheaval, and economic hammering administered by oil price shocks. This is why so many of us opposed the invasion of Iraq so strenuously in the first place! We thought that it would unleash irreversible adverse consequences for (conventionally defined) US interests in the region. I am very sorry to say that I still think we were right.

Read more

When Worlds collide

Seems a decade ago that I saw the first images from the Spielberg/Cruise adaptation of The War of the Worlds. A teaser poster, a teaser trailer. My initial reaction, the one that always turns out to be on the money, was a scowl. “That doesn’t look right,” I muttered. What I meant, of course, was, “That doesn’t feel right.”

I didn’t expect that Spielberg would have made a period piece out of the H.G. Wells story - especially as it stars Cruise, who is such an indelibly contemporary guy - and it was too much to hope that he’d at least retain the novel’s Great Britain setting. It’s all a great pity, because the Wells novel is such a brilliant bit of scientific romance, thoroughly embedded in the fears and conceits of its time and locale. You strip that away and you’re left with Mars Attacks, only not as funny.

Adaptations of this particular story have always troubled me. The Orson Wells radio stunt is embedded in our popular culture because it was just that: a stunt. Without the element of surprise and an conveniently gullible public, nobody would remember it today. George Pal’s 1953 film version of WWTW gave us admittedly cool-looking Martian ships, a miscast Gene Barry, a hysterical female lead, and little else. And now we have Spielberg’s 911-flavored edition. The CNN guy gushed all over it. Aliens as terrorists. Well, whatever. I’m sure the CGI will be top-notch.

Not many people know this, but a new British film adaptation of The War of the Worlds - produced on a budget that amounts to the loose change found between Spielberg’s couch cushions - was completed while the big-budget Hollywood version was still in production. From what I’ve read, this effort from Pendragon Pictures is marred by bad acting and special effects that are, well, less than industry standard. One wag at a WWTW forum described it as Plan 9 from Mars. Ouch. It does have the virtue of being much more faithful to the novel, but I suspect that Spielberg isn’t losing any sleep over comparisons between his film and Pendragon’s.

Well. I guess I’ll have to wait fifty-odd years for another director to take a crack at The War of the Worlds - especially as Cruise’s recent ravings have put me off nearly as much as the revision of the story. Thank God I still have a copy of the book.

Gay reign in Spain

This has been a rare good week for human rights. As Canada moves toward granting marriage rights to gay men and lesbians, Spain makes it official. Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero framed the historic vote with a sense of vision and a charity of spirit that a George Bush would no doubt find alien.

Zapatero said the reform of Spanish legal code simply adds one dry paragraph of legalese but means much more.

He called it “a small change in wording that means an immense change in the lives of thousands of citizens. We are not legislating, ladies and gentlemen, for remote unknown people. We are expanding opportunities for the happiness of our neighbors, our work colleagues, our friends, our relatives.”

Meanwhile, America remains a less charitable place.

Aye, yii, yii, yiiii

Mexico’s goodwill ambassador?

Looks like Mexican President Vicente Fox has yet another reason to apologize to African Americans:

The Mexican government has issued a postage stamp depicting an exaggerated black cartoon character known as Memin Pinguin, just weeks after remarks by President Vicente Fox angered U.S. blacks.

The series of five stamps released for general use Wednesday depicts a child character from a comic book started in the 1940s that is still published in Mexico.

The boy, hapless but lovable, is drawn with exaggerated features, thick lips and wide-open eyes. His appearance, speech and mannerisms are the subject of kidding by white characters in the comic book.

Activists said the stamp was offensive, though officials denied it.

Mexican officials may deny the offensive nature of the character, but others see it plainly enough. A 1996 report on poverty alleviation in Latin American countries, issued by the Inter-American Development Bank, singled out the racist cartoon in its overview of social attitudes in the region (emphasis mine):

Racism appears to be increasing as Blacks assert their identity. Several entertainment and eating establishments ban Blacks. One Peruvian hotel stated publicly that Blacks smelled bad and that their odor meant added costs in cleaning up. Newspaper advertisements in Peru place jobs openings specifically requesting Blacks as cooks and chauffeurs. In most Latin American countries, newspapers run cartoons with Blacks as primitive cannibals. A popular comic book found in Latin America features Memin Pinguin, a little Black Mexican boy who closely resembles a monkey. The authors believe Memin Pinguin to be among the most offensive publications anywhere.

Considering President Fox’s recent verbal gaffe, you’d think the Mexican government would be more sensitive, or less clueless, or some combination of the two. Not likely, however, if this is representative of the thinking behind the postage stamp:

Publisher [of Memin Pinguin] Manelick De la Parra told the government news agency Notimex that the character would be sort of a goodwill ambassador on Mexican letters and postcards. “It seems nice if Memin can travel all over the world, spreading good news,” de la Parra said, calling him “so charming, so affectionate, so wonderful, generous and friendly.”

Memin will definitely spread something, but it won’t be good will.

In a situation like this, where two cultures maintain divergent viewpoints, sometimes a correlative argument can make things clear. Maybe it’s a good time for Frito-Lay to dust off this former corporate mascot:

Yeah. That might get the point across.

UPDATE (06.30): When an issue brings Jesse Jackson and the Bush White House to common ground, you know it’s real.

Quick hits in my absence

Bush’s speech…for what it was worth.

Via DKos, this Flash map of the nation and world with links to the front pages of major newspapers, a quick way to see what stories are getting big play.

Canada: inclusive, welcoming, and open. America: not so much.

And I cheerfully signed the petition to have my disaster of an alderman recalled. Even Democrats have finally tired of this guy.

Software training continues at work, so prepare for another postless day here. Tomorrow should see things back to normal.

So that’s how you kill a Tyrannosaurus Rex

I’m not a MeFi fan - not that George Bush should declare war on it or anything. It just strikes me as a Kool Kids’ activity, and I ain’t that.

However: this Ask MeFi thread is entertaining. And educational, after a fashion: I ‘d never even heard of hydrostatic shock, let alone pondered its effect on a T. rex.

I understand the grizzly bear thread was better still.

(Courtesy of The Morning News.)

Finding the Narrative

For not quite two years, I’ve been on the advisory board of Delmar, an annual literary magazine. In practice, that’s mostly meant creating and maintaining the journal’s website. A couple of weeks ago, we decided to revamp the site: make it less static and more of an live presence, a web counterpart to the magazine’s print edition. Since then, I’ve been searching out online literary websites, hoping to learn what works and what doesn’t. There’s a lot of variety out there, as you’d expect, and some truly impressive efforts in style as well as content. Some of the best I’ve found include:

• Bookslut

• Boldtype
• Literary Mama
• The Paumanok Review
• Narrative
• The Morning News

That these sites vary greatly in their approach to the word and yet each do a very good job is both encouraging and daunting.

Maybe more daunting than anything else.

Urrgh. At least they’ll provide for good reading while I mull over my site design work.

A not likely story: Bush’s next Iraq speech

Expecting more than the usual disconnected rhetoric from George Bush on Iraq tomorrow night? It’s more likely that it’ll rain Pinot Noir in the Iraqi desert. The networks are so underwhelmed that as of Friday, they hadn’t committed to airing the speech live. David Corn doesn’t blame them.

As Bush prepares his speech, I’m reminded of my favorite Washington Post story of recent weeks. The headline of the June 16 article was “Bush Is Expected to Address Specifics on Iraq.” [...] Here’s the punchline: the article then said, “Bush’s new approach will be mostly rhetorical.”

Mostly rhetorical? That is, Bush would not be changing the actual policies that have failed and that have alienated the public. This was typical Bush. After the recent election, he was asked if he would be reaching out to those who had disagreed with him on Iraq and other matters. His answer: we’re going to continue to try to better explain our policies. In his view, there are no mistakes. There’s only a PR problem to be solved with better spin. So if Bush is not going to change anything but his rhetoric–and it’s hard to imagine how he might alter his it’s-hard-work-but-we’re-going-to-stick-it-out-without-changing-policies-or- setting-timetables-for-withdrawal message–why pay attention to his speech? The broadcast networks ought to stick with their regular programming–even if they are into summer reruns.

Bush is not likely to explain why Dick Cheney says the insurgency is in its “last throes,” while Donald Rumsfeld says it may take 12 years to defeat it. He’s not likely to provide new details about how the United States can quickly train Iraqi security forces. (The Bushies still talk about 140,000 or so Iraqis being trained, when the number of those adequately trained is much less, perhaps a tenth of that figure. When Senator Joe Biden returned from Iraq recently, he reported that of 107 Iraqi battalions supposedly trained only three were operational.) And Bush is not likely to explain why US military officials in Iraq have been negotiating with the insurgents, whom Bush has dubbed direct threats to Americans. The insurgents are mostly not part of the terrorist threat posed to the United States by al Qaeda and its allies. (They are thugs fighting to gain control of Iraq, not to destroy the United States.) But Bush has made sure not to point this out while trying to rally support for the war. He has purposefully blurred the distinction.

Friday catblogging: The morning vigil

Four cats, one window

From left to right: Venice, Baxter, Scooter, and Roxy. They’re waiting for birds to come pick the cherries off the tree outside.

Smart conservative take on Rove

The man who hijacked a political party

Via armando at DKos: a post by trevino at RedState.org that parses the damage that Karl Rove does to his own party as succinctly as anything I’ve read. His core concern touches on the age-old tension between ends and means. In short, Rovian conservatism - essentially a bag of tactics, purely political in nature as befits a strategist - has triumphed over ideological conservatism to the detriment of the movement.

So what was the purpose behind Rove’s remark? The hypothesis is that it was calculated, canny, and well-thought-out, with consequences foreseen and prepared-for. But this is to give too much credit to a man whose effect on the party, in unmooring it from conservative principle in so many ways, has been a long-term negative. If we accept the President’s public actions as indicative of Karl Rove’s own convictions, then the latter has tenuous, at best situational claim to the conservative mantle; certainly not where wartime is concerned. He is a smart man, and even a political genius. But this does not impart those qualities to all he does. In this case, we can call his action what it was: the demagoguery of mediocrity.

Like any strategist, Rove is a tool (no pun intended). When the tool becomes the master, you can see how a political party can become unmoored - as trevino says - from its prinicples.

Next Page »