It's nice to have friends

This nice woman, a senator from New York named Hillary Rodham Clinton, sent me a letter today. She was upset, writing to "express her outrage" that a Bush adviser suggested outsourcing was a good thing. She was also piqued that this Bush fellow has "perfected the art of Orwellian speech," since he calls his forestry plan (which involves cutting trees) the "Healthy Forest Initiative". Apparently, if I give a donation to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which she runs, I can help her stop these terrible things, and help her "thwart the ultra-right agenda and begin to repair the damage that has been done."

I think I'll pass, but it's so nice that these people track me down at home to give me this sort of opportunity.
- posted by Anonymous @ 10:17 PM 0 comments

 
Come again?

The Washington Post has an article this morning on the perception among some gay activitists that he drive for legalized marriage has reflects the "sanitizing" of a previously radical movement. It's an interesting proposition, on which I am entirely unable to comment. But this little line, deep into the article, is remarkable:

This is an old radical narrative. Left-wing labor organizers in the 1930s watched three decades later as unionized workers marched in support of the Vietnam War. Aging black liberationists watch the ascension of such conservatives as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

. I think the point is that the members of a movement's vanguard are frequently fringe radicals, while its later beneficiaries are less so, but I am not sure the Powell/Rice example really works for that. Of course, to be more cynical (which we at RAD always try to avoid)the point may be that Powell and Rice have somehow sold out their race by working for a Republican (a point made humorously here, and less humorously by others such as Harry Belafonte). I am not sure, but it seems at least to be an example of stretching to make a point, and at worst a gratuitious attack on Rice and Powell.
- posted by Anonymous @ 5:09 PM 0 comments

 
Best Bush ad yet

And it's unofficial. See it here. Via Instapundit.
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:59 PM 0 comments

 
Scrappleface: "Kerry Calls Pope's Abortion Stance 'Not Nuanced'"

As always, Scrappleface brings it strong:

The strict anti-abortion stance of Pope John Paul II is "tragically not nuanced," according to U.S. Democrat presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry, a practicing Roman Catholic.

- posted by Anonymous @ 8:52 PM 0 comments

 
The Rwandan genocide, ten years on

The Economist has an interesting survey of the Rwadan genocide, but all of it except this editorial is subscription only. There are lots of lessons to be learned from this horrifying event, and there is plenty of blame to go around. Frankly, some of that blame should hit us, since we stood by, reeling from the aftereffects of Somalia, and a lot should hit the UN. As the Economist points out:

[W]estern powers could have used force to end the killing. Romeo Dallaire, the UN's soldier on the spot, said it would have taken only 5,000 troops. Others think more would have been needed, but most agree that a determined military intervention would have saved many lives. And it could have been done. Instead, the UN withdrew its tiny presence. No one even jammed the radio station that urged on the killers with slogans such as “the graves are not yet full.”

You can't keep moral score, of course, and I realize we didn't even go, but the UN was there, and it walked away.
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:34 PM 0 comments

 
When good sportswriters go bad

I generally like the Washington Post's sportswriter and columnist Sally Jenkins. I disagree with her on some points, of course (for example, she goes too far in her criticism of the NHL after the Bertuzzi hit), but I think she is generally very good. But this passage, from a paean to new Skins' quarterback Mark Brunell, seems a bit over the top:

Underneath the cap is a face that seems dug out of clay, a faintly handsome archetypal football face that ought to be photographed in sepia, wearing a leather helmet and creased with sweat. The most youthful thing about Brunell now is his head of lustrous coffee-brown hair, side parted across his forehead. . . . [H]e has a physique that is faintly eroded, he looks somehow smaller than his 6 feet 1 and 215 pounds, with no ostentatious bulges of muscle. His legs are almost delicate, save for the ragged L-shaped scar inside of his right knee, which dates him, the result of an ACL injury in college when knee surgery was still performed by scalpel.

That may in fact be a good description of the man, but it seems a bit florid for the sports section, no?
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:58 AM 0 comments

 
The future of America's military

There's an interesting piece in The Economist on the future of America's military, suggesting it might be modeled on the Roman Empire.
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:51 PM 0 comments

 
Thanks for the disclosure

EJ Dionne weighed into the Scalia recusal morass this morning with a column called Why Scalia Should Duck Out. I disagree with him on the substance of the issue, but what is notable about this column is his remarkable candor:

Let me admit: My view is that Scalia should stay out of any case involving the political interests of this administration. Here, after all, is the man who played such a central role in putting Bush and Cheney into office through that abominable Bush v. Gore decision. How can the kingmaker be expected to offer a fair judgment on the king and his handpicked deputy?

This takes the rhetoric over the Court to a new level, and I'm not even sure how to respond. Frankly, it may not even need a response. Just reread it. There - wasn't that fun?
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:47 PM 0 comments

 
"It's Folly to Think They Struck Us Simply for Iraq"

I have held my tongue on the Madrid news for the last several weeks. It' a complicated issue, and while I am deeply disappointed by the results of the election, I didn't share the immediate reaction of some that this is unmitigated appeasement. On reflection, though, I do think that the Socialists, like some politicians in America, just don't get it on the war on terror. They seem not to understand that al Queda and its associated groups are not political entities that can be satisfied - they simply want to bomb the world back to the 6th century.

But the Progressive Party did get it. Gustavo de Arístegui, a Spanish legislator and parliamentary spokesman for the Popular Party, has an op-ed in the Post today that shows they do:

Already, I sense a worrying confusion between the excuses that terrorism offers to justify itself and what people believe to be the causes of terrorism. Even as terrorist violence tore through Baghdad, Fallujah and other Iraqi cities last week, it became clear that some in Europe believe that if you feed the beast and satisfy its apparent demands, you will calm it. But the beast feeds on surrender and appeasement; it only feels sated if it obtains totalitarian power.

Exactly.
- posted by Anonymous @ 9:12 AM 0 comments

 
RAD Movie Review: Amelie

Like Thierry Henry, soupe al pistou,* and Van Gogh (among many other things), this movie reminds one that, despite recent troubles, there is still much to love, admire, and enjoy in French culture.

* Disclaimer: This particular recipe is not one I have tried - mine comes from here but is not available online.
- posted by Anonymous @ 5:09 PM 0 comments

 
Looking at the polls

The Washington Post this morning is giddily reporting that Kerry beats Bush in a head to head poll, with the President's support eroding on all grounds except the war on terror. But digging deeper into the numbers tells an interesting story:

Also, Bush begins the campaign with a strong reservoir of support that Kerry lacks: Nearly nine in 10 Bush supporters say they "strongly" support him, compared with two in three Kerry voters. In addition, six in 10 Kerry supporters say they are voting for the Democrat more as a protest against Bush and his policies, and not because they are attracted to Kerry. By contrast, nearly nine in 10 Bush voters say their support is based on their feelings toward the president, not disapproval of Kerry.

I have to imagine that as things progress, this will be the most important question: Will people who don’t really like Kerry that much turn out in numbers sufficient to beat people who actually do like the President? I am betting no.
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:17 AM 0 comments