David Carr has a little commentary at Samizdata on Amnesty International, which, in its support for gun control, is shown to be yet another “average post- modernist left-wing lobby group”:
Far from being a ‘Candle in the Darkness’, Amnesty International is just another one of those organisations that know everything about human rights and nothing at all about human liberties.
Not to mention human nature…
Professor Reynolds has a link to a BBC story on more incipient revolution in Iran. It’s an interesting story, but what caught my eye were these two sentences:
The reformists believe the next step will be the prosecution of numerous reformist deputies on economic corruption charges as part of a right-wing scheme they believe is aimed at bringing the parliament down.
and
While the right-wingers accuse the liberals themselves of trying to precipitate just such a development as part of a plot to overthrow the Islamic system and to save their own political lives.
Just what is it that “right wing” means in the context of an article about Iran? Does it mean that they want school vouchers? That they favor fewer restrictions on the right to bear arms? Do they want lower taxes? Are they opposed to growth in the mullah-run government? What?
And does it mean that the reformers are “left wingers”? Probably not–this is not a phrase often used in the press, other than in “right-wing” media, like Reason or the National Review. In the editorially-condoned jargon, “crazy extremists” are “right-wing,” while their opposite extremist counterparts are “mainstream.” Often, they’re even the editorial staff…
Some have pointed out that such concepts as “left” and “right” don’t translate well to the Middle East. I don’t think that they’re very meaningful even for domestic political discussions, and are generally a sign of political simple-mindedness. I think that statement holds even more true for this article. But of course, such terminology makes it more natural and easier to call “conservatives” in America the “American Taliban…”
As a break from All Enron, All The Time, time for a little culture.
As I said previously, “Rocky Top” sucks big time as a college fight song, but it’s a great bluegrass song, and the genre seems to be taking off in a big way, with a new generation. Over the years, the public’s exposure to bluegrass has been episodic and misleading (Beverly Hillbillies theme song, “Dueling Banjos,” miscegenation, and forced sodomy from the movie “Deliverance,” etc.).
With only this exposure, most people thought of it as music for barefooted southern yokels (which is ironic, since it was actually invented, developed, and celebrated in Kentucky, Chicago, and Indiana), and even the country music industry has treated it like an ugly cousin. Most music stores don’t even have it as a category, burying it among folk (if they have such an aisle) or country. Few realize that it is a profound type of music, a purely American art form (with roots from both the British Isles and Africa) containing elements of jazz, blues, folk, and, done well, requiring great instrumental virtuosity. (Ironically, at least until recently, there was actually a larger following for it in large cities than in the South).
Here’s an article from USA Today Weekend describing the recent bluegrass revival, partly spurred on by the Cohen Bros. movie, “O Brother, Where Art Thou,” but also by the now-easy availability of a wider variety of music via the internet. Like blogging, this is another example of how the net is bypassing big media (and big “entertainment”) to offer music that people might actually want, instead of what suits in towers think that they might, or should want.
…should be an Olympic event for liberal pundits. I haven’t said much about the Enron situation, other than to point out that the only administration for which there is actually any evidence that favors were granted to Enron for political contributions was the Clinton Administration.
But Shields and Brooks on MacLehrer tonight was hilarious, watching the mental and logical contortions that Mark Shields was going through to try to pin the tail on the elephant. Given the paucity of real scandals, after the scandal du jour, the scandal continuum of the previous administration, this is the pathetic state to which their desperation finally leads them.
First, it was the old ploy of guilt by association and reputation–most of Enron’s contributions went to Republicans, Bush was good buds with Lay, then he tried to deny it, Bush has a reputation of being for the wealthy and powerful, blah, blah, blah..
When Brooks points out what I did previously–that Enron actually did get rides on diplomatic missions in exchange for contributions to the DNC and White House (with associated eventual contracts)–and there is not only no evidence that the Bush Administration helped Enron when they asked for it, but that instead there is abundant evidence that they hung them out to dry, then Shields says, “Well, it’s not what they did, it’s what they didn’t do. They wanted to not be regulated.”
Then, when it is pointed out that if this is what they wanted, and they actually got it (not at all clear), it seemed to not do them any good, since they are now bankrupt, the story shifts again. “Well, but they’re such crumbums, letting their business go under, and their stock melt down, and hurting all those employees, and widows, and orphans, and their puppy dogs.” Thus we progress from “Enron bribed the Bush Administration to grant them favors” to “the heartless Bush Administration let Enron go under, hurting all those poor people…” (This is a tactic that Henry Waxman is shifting to as well.)
I suspect that this whole thing is going to go over about as well as Daschle’s absurd attempt to blame the depth of the recession on tax cuts that haven’t happened yet (i.e., like a uranium Hindenburg).
If there is a scandal here, it’s not a campaign finance scandal (unless the SEC was paid off to look the other way). It is a scandal of corporate governance and the accountability of accountants, and while Enron is about to go mammaries up almost immediately, it’s also going to be long-term damaging (and appropriately so) to Arthur Anderson.
The latter company has built itself into an accounting and consultancy powerhouse, but if we are to judge by the Enron case, its clients have been getting poor value for their money (unless their intention is to use it as a high-paid consiglieri to keep a double, or even triple set of books, which are promptly burned at the first sign of the G-men…). This is what Enron paid twenty-seven megabucks for? Nice work, if you can get it. And stay out of jail…
Jeez, this places just bounces from one extreme to the other. A few months ago in Kandahar, they were executing gays by using them as foundation stones. Now the place is reverting to ancient Sparta.
Can’t they find some kind of happy medium?
The latest Opinion Dynamics Poll is out at Fox News. It’s mostly good news for the Republicans–other than the environment, health care, and social security, they have the confidence of the poll respondents. On military affairs it’s overwhelming–only 16% would trust the Democrats more. So unless they can make those three issues the dominant ones this year, hopes for taking back the House (and maybe even retaining the Senate) look dim for them right now.
But the worst near-term news for the Dems is that it looks like a majority sees through the demagoguery.
35. Do you agree or disagree with those who say Democrats would rather use the economic downturn as an election issue than work to improve the economy?
Agree: 52%
Disagree: 30%
Not Sure: 18%
I think that Plurality Leader Daschle is playing a losing hand here…
The latest Opinion Dynamics Poll is out at Fox News. It’s mostly good news for the Republicans–other than the environment, health care, and social security, they have the confidence of the poll respondents. On military affairs it’s overwhelming–only 16% would trust the Democrats more. So unless they can make those three issues the dominant ones this year, hopes for taking back the House (and maybe even retaining the Senate) look dim for them right now.
But the worst near-term news for the Dems is that it looks like a majority sees through the demagoguery.
35. Do you agree or disagree with those who say Democrats would rather use the economic downturn as an election issue than work to improve the economy?
Agree: 52%
Disagree: 30%
Not Sure: 18%
I think that Plurality Leader Daschle is playing a losing hand here…
The latest Opinion Dynamics Poll is out at Fox News. It’s mostly good news for the Republicans–other than the environment, health care, and social security, they have the confidence of the poll respondents. On military affairs it’s overwhelming–only 16% would trust the Democrats more. So unless they can make those three issues the dominant ones this year, hopes for taking back the House (and maybe even retaining the Senate) look dim for them right now.
But the worst near-term news for the Dems is that it looks like a majority sees through the demagoguery.
35. Do you agree or disagree with those who say Democrats would rather use the economic downturn as an election issue than work to improve the economy?
Agree: 52%
Disagree: 30%
Not Sure: 18%
I think that Plurality Leader Daschle is playing a losing hand here…
Rafsanjani thinks that Dubya is being “rude and impudent” for warning Iran about harboring Al Qaeda terrorists.
What does he think that harboring people who drive planes into skyscrapers is? Impolite?
According to my sources, Judy Woodruff just announced on CNN that Teddy Kennedy is going to call for a repeal of the tax cuts.
And please, no sophistry about how this is not really a tax increase, because it happens in the future. If changing the legislation so that the cuts don’t take effect isn’t a tax increase, then the original legislation didn’t constitute a tax cut. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways.