Month: May 2005

Nuclear Power

by

by Edward

Back in his State of the Union address in 2002, President Bush implied that the US could not tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of "axis of evil" nations like Korea, Iran, and Iraq. We could not wait for them to get them, we could not stand by as they developed them:

We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side.  I will not wait on events, while dangers gather.  I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer.  The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.

So where do we stand three years later?

Read more

Political Art

by

by Edward

Generally, I find most overtly political art too obvious and the motives of those making it far too suspect. Literally within two weeks of 9/11, we received proposals in the gallery for exhibitions dealing with the attacks. As the months went on, the proposals increased. I recall at the time thinking, I’m not even sure I know how I feel about any of this, I can’t imagine any artist could have taken the time to sort out how they feel and then processed that through a rigorous process. Obviously it’s silly to put a time frame on it, but I did have a sense that an artist would need longer to deal seriously with what they felt about 9/11. At least longer than two weeks.

Even by the time Eric Fischl’s controversial sculpture "Tumbling Woman" was removed from the Rockefeller Center’s Lower Concourse (well over a year after the attacks), it was apparent that even if artists knew how they felt about the attacks, the public was not yet ready to deal with it.

But that raises the question of whether an artist should wait until the public is ready to deal with the content of what they feel compelled to make. Perhaps the best political art forces people to realize what’s happening in hopes of changing it before it’s too late. But that doesn’t seem to be the case here, where nothing was going to change what happened on 9/11, and images of burning towers and such simply struck me as exploitative and/or crass.

That’s perhaps why I’m suspect of the artwork coming out of Iraq, where what I’d normally consider rather minor artists (in terms of the world stage) are making headlines with images that reference the abuses at Abu Ghraib:

The subjects in each of Nasir Thamer’s works are trapped behind bars, real or painted. Since the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, the trauma of the occupation has seeped even into Iraq’s artistic production.

"I used to paint scenes of traditional Iraqi life, Arab doors, mosques and letters from the Koran," says the 47-year-old artist. "This is a radical change for me but you just can’t escape reality."

One of his paintings depicts an Iraqi child running away from a US Apache combat helicopter towards his mother. The corner of the canvas where the woman was painted is ripped out, revealing black bars in the structure of the frame.

Read more

Yet Another Bolton Post

by

From the notoriously left-wing US News and World Report (via War and Piece): “As the Senate inquiry into President Bush’s U.N. ambassador nominee John Bolton rages on, new tales are surfacing about his aggressive management style. Senate staffers are now said to be looking into how Bolton, as under secretary of state for arms control, … Read more

Stop It.

by

by hilzoy

This judge-bashing stuff has gone too far. From the NY Daily News, via Atrios:

“Federal judges are a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists, the Rev. Pat Robertson claimed yesterday.

“Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that’s held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings,” Robertson said on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

“I think we have controlled Al Qaeda,” the 700 Club host said, but warned of “erosion at home” and said judges were creating a “tyranny of oligarchy.”

Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years – worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War – Robertson didn’t back down.

“Yes, I really believe that,” he said. “I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together.” “

And, a few weeks ago, from Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council:

“The court has become increasingly hostile to Christianity, and it poses a greater threat to representative government — more than anything, more than budget deficits, more than terrorist groups.”

Just to state the obvious: we haven’t controlled al Qaeda; judges are not more of a threat than al Qaeda is, and they are certainly not the greatest threat we have faced in our history. But there’s a larger point, which I’ve been wanting to make for some time, and may as well make now.

Read more

Wouldn’t it be nice ….

by

by von

… if President Bush nominated Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit (aka "The Easy Rider," aka the "#1 Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary," aka "the high-flying conservative of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals") to the Supreme Court?  Smart, sincere, intellectually honest, decidedly non-theocratic — obviously, pretty much everyone would have some sort of beef with him.  Which would be a kinda cool thing.

By the bye, I agree with Professor InstaPundit:  if Democrats really wanted to mess things up, they’d start floating names of conservative jurists who they’d pinky swear to down like Maker’s Mark at Delilah’s on punk rock Monday.  Folks with unimpeachable credentials and a moderate/independent streak.  Kozinski would have to be at the top of that list; so would Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit (though he’s getting a little long in the tooth).

Indeed, if I may offer some unsolicited (and perhaps unwelcome) advice:  take a lesson from Ali.  When you’re fighting Big George Foreman, the correct response is rope-a-dope.

UPDATE:  Rilkefan and Bernard Yomtov argue — not unpersuasively — that I’m full of crap.  As Yomtov states (emphasis mine):

I suspect that also, and that [a] sub rosa list [of acceptable conservative canidates] has been provided to Bush sotto voce. I also think, in contrast to von, that Bush is more likely to name someone from the list if it is not publicized. If it were public he would be seen as caving in to the Democrats. This way he can make a show of moderation, if he wants to, without looking weak.

Read more

Let Me Tell You What’s NOT Going to Happen

by

The men in my family of my father’s generation returned home after serving their country and got jobs in the local steel mills, as had their fathers and their grandfathers. In exchange for their brawn, sweat, and expertise, the steel mills promised these men certain benefits. In exchange for Social Security taxes withheld from their … Read more

What Do Women Want?

by

by hilzoy In the case of women who live with men (unlike me, she said, pouting), this: “A Spanish designer has come up with what could be the perfect solution for the woman who feels frustrated that she has to do all the house chores. It is a washing machine called “Your Turn”, which will … Read more

For The Historical Record

by

by hilzoy From the Independent (UK), news of a leaked British government memo: “A damning minute leaked to a Sunday newspaper reveals that in July 2002, a few weeks after meeting George Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mr Blair summoned his closest aides for what amounted to a council of war. The minute … Read more

Too Cute

by

David Brooks says he has a scoop:

Last week, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, made an offer to head off a nuclear exchange over judicial nominations. Reid offered to allow votes on a few of the judges stuck in limbo if the Republicans would withdraw a few of the others.

But there was another part of the offer that hasn’t been publicized. I’ve been reliably informed that Reid also vowed to prevent a filibuster on the next Supreme Court nominee. Reid said that if liberals tried to filibuster President Bush’s pick, he’d come up with five or six Democratic votes to help Republicans close off debate. In other words, barring a scandal or some other exceptional circumstance, Reid would enable Bush’s nominee to get a vote and probably be confirmed.

We’ll assume that Brooks’ report is accurate (there’s no reason not to.  Brooks (and Kevin Drum, who pointed me to this story) argue that Frist should’ve taken the deal:

… Frist should have grabbed Reid’s offer. He should have done it, first, because while the air is thick with confident predictions about what will happen if the nuclear trigger is pulled, nobody really knows. There is a very good chance that as the battle escalates, passions will surge, the tattered fabric of professionalism will dissolve, and public revulsion for both parties will explode.

….

Second, Frist should have grabbed this offer because it’s time for senators to re-establish the principle that they, not the outside interest groups, run the Senate. Right now, most senators want to avoid a meltdown. It’s the outside interest groups that are goading them into the fight.

Of course the groups want a fight. The activists get up every morning hoping to change the judiciary, dreaming of total victory. Of course they’re willing to sacrifice everything else for that cause. But senators are supposed to know that serving the interest groups is not the same as serving the people: it is serving a passionate but unrepresentative minority of the people. At some point, leaders are supposed to stand up to maximalists, even the ones they mostly agree with.

Finally, it’s time to rediscover the art of the backroom deal. … In this model, leaders of the two parties would get together – yes, often in secret – and make reasonable bargains. …

Drum, focusing on Brooks’ second point, adds:

I don’t often agree with Brooks these days, but I think he’s on target here. This is not a symmetrical situation — conservative activist groups are way farther off the deep end these days than liberal ones — but it’s still a good thought for both sides. Making every fight into a game of nuclear chicken isn’t the right way to run a country.

I agree with Brooks quite a bit more frequently than Drum, and I generally agree with Brooks here.  But I think Drum is deluding himself if he thinks that "conservative activist groups are way farther off the deep end these days than liberal ones"; both are pretty damn off.  What conservative activists have (and liberal activists lack) is a majority of sympathetic representatives in the current Congress.

A couple further thoughts, however:

First, the timing of this "leak" is suspicious — and undoubtably strategic.  The Democrats must recognize that they lost the momentum on the issue with they rejected Frist’s deal, and they’re trying to get it back. 

Second, it seems clear that Frist couldn’t take a "secret" deal on judges for the same reason that Reid wanted the deal to be "secret":  If knowledge of the deal remained secret,* it’d look like Frist was outmaneuvered by the Democrats (again). Frist’s base would blow up.  (Indeed, there have already been calls to dump Frist as majority leader.)

By making public Reid’s "secret" proposal, however, the groundwork might be laid for a real deal that ends this so-called "crisis."  A public deal that guarantees an up-or-down vote on Bush’s next Supreme Court nominee is a deal worth taking.  Frist should risk trusting Reid — not only because it could lead to progress on judges, but because that’s what statesmen do.  If Reid reneges, there will be plenty of time for revenge.   

UPDATE:  Don Singleton, commenting on Reid’s offer, seems to relish the possibility of a showdown on Judges.  I think he doesn’t realize how fundamentally risky such a showdown is for both sides.  You just cannot predict the electorate’s behavior on an issue like this, and the views of each party’s "hard core" are likely to be out of step with the views of the center.  Singleton shouldn’t be so sure that this debate will play out in (on this issue, "our"**) side’s favor.  (See the Schiavo mess, for starters.)

Again, this battle is really for the Supreme Court — not for ten judges.  A deal that gets an up or down vote on Bush’s Supreme Court nominee is a deal that’s worth taking.  If Reid can bring his side to the table on this deal even after it’s public, Frist should take it.  Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Read more

To My Government: Please Stop.

by

by hilzoy

From the New York Times:

“Seven months before Sept. 11, 2001, the State Department issued a human rights report on Uzbekistan. It was a litany of horrors.

The police repeatedly tortured prisoners, State Department officials wrote, noting that the most common techniques were “beating, often with blunt weapons, and asphyxiation with a gas mask.” Separately, international human rights groups had reported that torture in Uzbek jails included boiling of body parts, using electroshock on genitals and plucking off fingernails and toenails with pliers. Two prisoners were boiled to death, the groups reported. The February 2001 State Department report stated bluntly, “Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights.”

Immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, however, the Bush administration turned to Uzbekistan as a partner in fighting global terrorism. The nation, a former Soviet republic in Central Asia, granted the United States the use of a military base for fighting the Taliban across the border in Afghanistan. President Bush welcomed President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan to the White House, and the United States has given Uzbekistan more than $500 million for border control and other security measures.

Now there is growing evidence that the United States has sent terror suspects to Uzbekistan for detention and interrogation, even as Uzbekistan’s treatment of its own prisoners continues to earn it admonishments from around the world, including from the State Department.”

More below the fold.

Read more