Of course it isn’t shocking that the deficit hawks that want to cut Social Security don’t give two wits about the damage the BP oil spill causes to future generations and the costs that today’s actions are incurring for them. Sarcastic cynicism aside, Dean Baker is right when he writes, “[deficit hawks] just want to cut Social Security and the other programs that allow ordinary working people to enjoy a decent standard of living.” There isn’t anything larger than a hatred of participating in a society that has a social safety net built by the entire nation. On one level, there isn’t anything wrong with having ideological differences with American social safety net policy. But the deficit hawks should be honest about these differences. They aren’t concerned with future generations – they just don’t want there to be Social Security, neither now nor in the future.
Month: May 2010
Obama Should Listen to Obama
State Senator Barack Obama, on Bill Clinton’s pursuit of bipartisanship, in 1996:
“On the national level, bipartisanship usually means Democrats ignore the needs of the poor and abandon the idea that government can play a role in issues of poverty, race discrimination, sex discrimination or environmental protection,” Mr Obama said.
Yep, this is right. I wonder what the President thinks about this statement now.
Via Matt Yglesias.
Critical Perspective?
It’s great that an anonymous oil industry insider writes to TalkingPointsMemo to say he thinks BP is doing a swell job, but should the rest of us care? Yes, having someone who understands it beyond reporters for the Times or CNN provide perspective is useful. But we are at a point where industry experts have noticeably failed from top to bottom. They failed to due their due diligence about how to safely drill in this location, at this depth. They failed to use proper techniques to make sure the well was properly dug. They failed to handle changes in pressure. They failed to stop the rig from exploding and killing eleven people. They failed to build a kill valve that worked. They failed to initially contain the leak. They failed to accurately measure how much oil was spilling into the Gulf of Mexico. They failed to deploy oil booms correctly. To this point, a month after the initial disaster, the experts in the oil industry have not stopped the leak, though things are finally looking better.
Most of the expertise in offshore oil drilling lies with the oil industry. I get that. But I don’t really give a damn about how public criticism, scrutiny and outrage offends these experts, who really, honestly, they swear are doing all they can to fix this crisis. They fucked up and they have to be accountable for that. Some of that accountability is going to come while the disaster is ongoing and there damned well better be more accountability once the leak is stopped and mere millions and millions of gallons of oil are poisoning the Gulf.
In the mean time, I don’t care about anonymous oil industry insiders’ perspectives, when that perspective is that the criticism of them is wrong and they are really good people.
You’d Think…
You’d think that there would be a greater sense of urgency out of the administration and Congress to help stop the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and hold BP accountable. But there just isn’t one, at least not to the extent of it manifesting itself in action, results or accountability.
The Dalai Lama Talks with Chinese Citizens
This is incredibly interesting. On May 21st the Dalai Lama held an hour-long question and answer session, a “free dialogue,” with Chinese citizens. The event was organized by Chinese intellectual Wang Lixiong and questions were submitted through Twitter and ranked on Google Moderator. Chinese authorities shut down the page in China, but hundreds of questions and thousands of votes had already been cast, allowing the dialogue to move forward. Perry Link of the New York Times has translated the session from Chinese into English.
What is incredibly interesting to see is which questions were promoted by Chinese citizens as questions they want the Dalai Lama to answer, ranging from succession for the Dalai Lama to how Han Chinese living in Tibet would be treated if Tibet where to gain real autonomy. As always, the Dalai Lama offers thoughtful, good-faith answers to tough questions. The exchange is definitely worth a read.
A Lot In A Little
My good friend and former co-blogger Austin sends along this dissection of a piece from Ezra Klein that is so sharp that I feel the need to post…Take it away Austin:
Ezra Klein just published a post that has so much going on in it that exemplifies the state of the world, US politics, and the media, that I just had to pass it along:
Normally I’d tweet something this short and trivial, but since Twitter appears to be blocked in China, I’ll just blog it: Wedding Crashers, which I watched on the plane, is a much more plausible-seeming moving [sic] in the post-Salahi era.
Let’s break that down:
“Normally I’d tweet something this short and trivial…”
This is a reporter/blogger/twitterer/newsweekly writer. He recognizes that all three are important, and that each has its own role.
“but since Twitter appears to be blocked in China”
The greatest threat to oppression is the free flow of ideas; China is oppressive.
“I’ll just blog it”
Suck it, China. Also: MUST.NOT.MISS.OPPORTUNITY.TO.POST.TRIVIAL.EPIPHANIES.
“Wedding Crashers, which I watched on the plane”
No comment really, other than for a guy up to date on everything, this is an odd, weak movie choice.
“is a much more plausible-seeming moving” [He means movie]
No, it isn’t.
“in the post-Salahi era.”
Our media have made politics so, so small that even jackasses get an era.
Seriously, in the New Media Matrix, that’s a Neo-quality posting.
Can’t Get No Satisfaction
As Eric Boehlert points out, it should not be surprising to anyone that when Clark Hoyt, public editor of the New York Times, responds to the paper’s horrendous reporting on Dick Blumenthal’s military record that he would defend the paper and excuse admitted mistakes. I don’t know Hoyt’s politics or why it is that he has shown a great willingness to be responsive to Republican criticisms of the paper while simultaneously explaining away anything critique Democrats raise. But when I wrote him last week, I knew that the odds of him actually doing his job and policing his paper’s journalism were slim to none.
Matt Gertz also takes apart Hoyt’s defense and finds more inconsistencies and holes in the piece. At the end of the day, the point of the Times’ original reporting was that Blumenthal had a “long and well established pattern of misleading his constituents about his Vietnam War service.” But everything that we have seen since the story was printed is that this is not, in fact, true. Hoyt has done nothing to reconcile his paper’s reporting with the work done over the last week by the Connecticut press that flatly undercuts the Times’ central thesis. Quite simply, there is no long-standing pattern, no systemic misleading, and not permanent public falsification of his record. Blumenthal has now apologized for the times when he misspoke, which is certainly the right step to take for the few instances when he did so, but the real apology should be coming from the Times for their inaccurate smear of Mr. Blumenthal, a military veteran and man who has served the American public for most of his life.
WTF NYT?
There’s been a big uproar going on all week about the New York Times Page One, above the fold expose on CT Senate candidate (and current Attorney General) Dick Blumenthal’s apparent misstatements on his military service record. Blumenthal volunteered to serve in the Marine reserves during the Vietnam era, but never served overseas. The Times identified a speech in 2008 where he said he served in Vietnam, as well as a small number of Connecticut news reports where Blumenthal was identified as having served in Vietnam. Given the Times initial report, you would likely think that Blumenthal was systematically and deliberately trying to represent himself as a Vietnam combat veteran. This is anything but the case. His campaign website does not say he served in Vietnam and reporters who have covered Blumenthal over decades of public service have stated they never had the impression he served in country during Vietnam. Moreover, the Linda McMahon campaign has taken credit for being the source for the Times’ reporting.
Yesterday it emerged that in the very speech the Times based their attack around, Blumenthal had previously accurately referred to himself as someone who served during the Vietnam era, but not calling himself a combat veteran or saying he served in Vietnam. The natural question was, who edited the video the Times posted: the New York Times or the McMahon campaign? Keep in mind, this video is basically the only evidence the Times has of Blumenthal misstating his record (Colin McEnroe of the Hartford Courant has rightly pointed out that this is an incredibly thin hit piece).
After questioning on the full video by reporters, the Times responded to Greg Sargent with this incredibly petulant statement:
The New York Times in its reporting uncovered Mr. Blumenthal’s long and well established pattern of misleading his constituents about his Vietnam War service, which he acknowledged in an interview with The Times. Mr. Blumenthal needs to be candid with his constituents about whether he went to Vietnam or not, since his official military records clearly indicate he did not.
The video doesn’t change our story. Saying that he served “during Vietnam” doesn’t indicate one way or the other whether he went to Vietnam.
This line reads like it could have been written by either McMahon or Simmons’ press shops:
“Mr. Blumenthal needs to be candid with his constituents about whether he went to Vietnam or not, since his official military records clearly indicate he did not.”
In fact…
Too many have sacrificed too much to have their valor stolen in this way. I hope Mr. Blumenthal steps forward and forthrightly addresses the questions that have arisen about this matter.
Another Simmons press statement:
While I’m not surprised that he ‘regrets’ that his misstatements have been called to the public’s attention, what he owes is an apology to the veterans, who served and sacrificed in Vietnam.
It’s become increasingly clear to us over the past weeks and months as we’ve researched Mr. Blumenthal in earnest that there are some deeply disturbing disconnects between the image he’s sought to portray and reality
I wonder why the NYT sounds just like the GOP candidates running against Blumenthal?
The reporting is clearly thin. Whether or not the Times was given a stack of research and an edited video from McMahon’s campaign, at this point, is less relevant than the simple reality that the reporting is for shit. It is not an accurate piece. Yes, Blumenthal has on at least one occasion misstated his military record. But he did serve in the military and he has been forthright in effectively all documented instances that he did not serve in Vietnam. The Times needs to stop defending this crappy reporting and be transparent about where the story originated.
I’ve written a letter to Clark Hoyt, the Public Editor at the Times, regarding this story. I have yet to receive a response, but expect that Hoyt will find some way to paper over his paper’s bad reporting, as he so often does.
Post-Primary Thoughts
Greg Sargent writes:
While anti-incumbent sentiment was no doubt a factor in the stunning upset of Arlen Specter and the forcing of Blanche Lincoln into a runoff, isn’t it also possible that many Dem primary voters, even moderate ones, simply opted for the candidate who better represents mainstream Democratic positions?
Yes. It’s hard to frame this as failures of the Democratic establishment, which backed Lincoln and Specter, in the context of electoral chances for November. Yes, incumbents were rebuked, but it was so their constituents could have more liberal Democrats who stand closer to their beliefs. It can’t be shocking that Specter, who served as a Republic Senator for 29 years, did not win a Democratic primary!
Add in the PA-12, where Blue Dog Democratic voters elected a Blue Dog Democrat over a Republican, and things don’t look so bad for the party on whole; given the choice moderates are voting for Democrats in swing districts.
Let’s be clear: Sestak and Halter are no true progressives, which is why I haven’t spent a lot of time supporting their candidacies. But they are better than what we currently have in those states. While Democrats are pulled slightly to the left in Arkansas and Pennsylvania, we are seeing the Republican Party moving dramatically to the right in Kentucky and Pennsylvania. Rand Paul and Pat Toomey are true extremists, perfect indications of the direction the GOP is headed in, lead by Glenn Beck and the Tea Partiers. Currently Congressional Democrats poll at 40%, which isn’t great, except when compared to Congressional Republicans, who poll at a Cheney-like 24%. I just don’t believe that the American public, writ large, is behind an even more radical version of the Republican Party, which is what the Tea Party is driving to do around the country.
As of now, it looks like the Democrats will give the public a chance to vote on what they currently have with slight shifts to the left in a number of states, while the GOP is going to present the public with a more radically conservative version of itself. While I still expect the Republicans to make gains in both the House and Senate, I continue to feel confident that Democrats will not fall victim to a 1994-style wave that throws them into the minority in either house. Obviously we will see what happens over the next five to six months and everything can keep changing, but off of last night’s strong Democratic performance, things look good.
ICT Report on 31 Imprisoned Tibetan Writers, Bloggers & Intellectuals
The International Campaign for Tibet has released a long report on the recent crackdown by the Chinese government on Tibet writers, bloggers, intellectuals, and dissidents, leading to thirty-one high-profile individuals being jailed for thought crimes. The report looks at the recent explosion of Tibetan writing and cultural growth (something that Tenzin Dorjee of Students for a Free Tibet recently wrote about) and how the Chinese government has responded to it. Here is an excerpt of the report on the dissent rising in the face of the crackdown:
Despite and because of the severity of Beijing’s response, dissent continues to be openly expressed, particularly through the written word. Since March, 2008, there have been a large number of unofficial writings about the protests, usually expressing grief or sadness at the killings and detentions. These have been published in blogs, articles in one-off or unauthorized literary magazines, in books published and distributed privately, and also in the lyrics of songs sung in public places, uploaded onto Youtube or as cellphone ring-tones. (See ICT report, ‘Like Gold that Fears no Fire: New Writing from Tibet’ http://www.savetibet.org/media-center/ict-news-reports/gold-fears-no-fire-new-writing-tibet).
At the forefront of this resurgence of Tibetan cultural identity is a new bicultural, bilingual generation of educated Tibetans familiar with digital technology, with Chinese writings and official policies, and often too with unofficial accounts of Tibetan history that are banned in China. A common theme of their writings is the solidarity of Tibetans across the plateau and a pride in their unique cultural and religious identity. An awareness of the historic upheavals in Tibet from the 1950s and a new sense of urgency for political change infuses their work. The writings are often poetic in style, such as the articles included in “Eastern Snow Mountain” (Shar Dungri), a literary journal which was banned as soon as it was published in eastern Tibetan area of Amdo in 2008. The writers of “Eastern Snow Mountain,” who are from the Ngaba (Chinese: Aba) area of Sichuan, show extensive knowledge of Chinese and Tibetan law and policy, and discuss the sufferings of ordinary Chinese people as well as their own struggles against the state. (English translations of some of the essays are in: http://www.savetibet.org/media-center/ict-press-releases/a-great-mountain-burned-fire-chinas-crackdown-tibet). Shogdung’s book also includes Tibetan people’s struggle for freedom within China as an overall aim for all citizens of the Chinese state.
The report also looks extensively at the case of Shogdung, the Tibetan writer who was jailed following a letter he published supporting the victims of the Yushu earthquake. ICT publishes some translation of his most recent book, “The Line between Sky and Earth,” which includes powerful critiques of the Chinese occupation:
“If one is a Tibetan, one is not allowed to stay at a hotel, one is ‘welcomed’ with the request to take off one’s hat and shoes at airports, one does not get a ticket. One is not hired for jobs. Because of the deceptive propaganda, Tibetans are looked at with an air of mixed fear and terror. They are targets of suspicion. To sum up, Tibetans are considered like terrorists, they are treated like mindless children who are put under great pressure.
“Actually, it is not the first time this has happened. Ever since we have been conquered by dictators, in a series of campaigns, we have been beaten, struggled against, seized, arrested, condemned, sentenced, massacred. They have made us unable or afraid to move, to speak, to think. Everything and everyone has become inert because of fear. These inhuman methods have been going on for more than 50 years.”
Is it any wonder the the Chinese government would want to throw Shogdung in jail? ICT points out that there is often a delay in cracking down on dissident Tibetan writers, as their books have to be translated from Tibetan into Chinese before authorities can react.
ICT’s report goes on to look at the Chinese government crackdown on communication within Tibet, as well as the growing frequency of disappearing Tibetans. The list of the disappeared is longer than what is known here in the West, but it does include notable authors, artists, and musicians (eg, singer Tashi Dhondup is in jail for releasing a CD last year which included a number of Tibetan resistance songs and a lyric “There is no freedom in Tibet”).
The explosion of proud Tibetan art and culture is a threat in itself to the Chinese government. But when Tibetan writers, artists and intellectuals are going so far as to state the plain truth about China’s occupation, the crackdowns, the jailings, and the more than half century of murder and repression, the cultural explosion has the potential to be the spark that ignites a revolution. If you read the ICT report – and I hope you do – you’ll see that all of these dissidents advocate change through peaceful means. “Shogdung emphasises the importance of non-violence, saying that if Tibetans dare to launch a revolution through peaceful means, the impact would be profound.” Yet even the promotion of a peaceful change is something that strikes fear into the heart of the Chinese government. And so they respond in the only way they know how: with violence, torture, imprisonment and injustice.
I don’t think the pace of cultural resistance is going to slow inside Tibet. Nor do I expect the content of Tibetans’ writings or songs to stop outwardly expressing calls for Tibetan independence or the Dalai Lama’s return. Now, as over the last decades, Tibetans fully know the consequences for uttering these words. And yet they continue to do them in the face of unimaginable oppression. This simple fact above all others is what makes me confident in my belief that one day, Tibet will be free.
Hold Fast 