Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH

TEXT SIZE: A A A A
Thursday, July 2, 2009

July 4 weekend is a good time to think about great Americans. And if there's a great American thinker in 2009, I nominate Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel who now teaches international relations at Boston University. Not only did Bacevich serve the nation in Vietnam and elsewhere around the globe, but his family made the ultimate sacrifice when his son -- also named Andrew Bacevich, a first lieutenant  -- was killed in Iraq by an IED in 2007. By then, Bacevich, a self-described "Catholic conservative," had already been highly critical of the U.S. invasion, and the increasing role that militarism -- as opposed to diplomacy -- and a quest for American domination was playing in our national life.

I've kind of overdosed on Bacevich lately -- I was just finishing his outstanding book, "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism," this week when I heard most of his hour-long interview on WHYY's "Radio Times" (which you can listen to here). His writing speaks truly to neither classical, locked-in liberalism or conservatism, but seeks to find a rational role for America in the 21st Century, as opposed to untenable policies based on cheap oil and long -- endless, in fact -- wars.

"The Limits of Power" was written at the very start of the 2008 campaign and was published last summer. In its conclusion, Bacevich wrote something strikingly prophetic for 2009, when President Obama has been disappointing in several key areas in delivering the change he promised, sometimes because of external forces and sometimes for reasons that are self-inflicted.

Here's what he wrote last year, with hyperlinks from 2009 to illustrate the power of his prophecy:

The (Obama) agenda is an admirable one.Yet to imagine that installing a particular individual in the Oval Office will produce decisive action on any of these fronts is to succumb to the grandest delusion of all. The quadrennial ritual of electing (or relecting) a president is not an exercise in promoting change, regardless of what the candidates may claim and ordinary voters believe. The real aim is to ensure continuity, to keep intact the institutions and arrangements that define present-day Washington. The veterans of past administrations who sign on as campaign advisers are not interested in curbing the bloated powers of the presidency. They want to share in exercising those powers. The retired generals and admirals who line up behind their preferred candidate don't want to dismantle the national security state. They want to preserve it and, if possible, expand it. The candidates who decry the influence of money in national politics are among those most skilled in courting the well-heeled to amass millions in campaign contributions.
 
No doubt the race for the presidency matters. It just doesn't matter as much as the media's obsessive coverage suggests. Whoever moves into the White House on Jan. 20, 2009, the fundamental problem facing the country -- a yawning disparity between what Americans expect and what they are willing to pay -- will remain stubbornly in place.
 
The subtitle of Bacevich's book is "The End of American Exceptionalism." That sure sounds like a downer, especially as we prepare for the pomp and fireworks of another Independence Day. But the truth is that it all depends on how you define "exceptionalism." I believe that all people are created equal with equal rights, regardless of which particular slab of this rock they're born onto. I don't think any nation is entitled to an outsized claim on the world's resources, for example, nor is empire something that is desirable or that has ever worked for very long in the history of humankind. But I do believe that America, and Americans as a people, have done some exceptional things over 233 years and can be even more exceptional in the future, by continuing to create a more perfect union that values human rights and freedom in a way that others will envy and copy. That is the eternal American quest that we celebrate on July 4 -- and every other day.

Have a great holiday weekend.

(Associated Press photo)

Posted by Will Bunch @ 11:42 PM  Permalink | 50 comments
Thursday, July 2, 2009

 

It's ironic, isn't it? The modern conservative movement was found in the reaction of the 1960s, which supposedly was all about law-and-order (remember 1968 and the streets of Chicago?). Now it's 40 years since the arrival of "Nixonland," and right-wingers have moved so far off the reservation -- with a little help from their friends on your AM dial -- that it's the cops that are the fuzzy-headed liberals, at least compared to them. It's 2009, and we have some of the best and the brightest law enforcement minds in the country trying to use common sense to bring down crime. Common sense, as in the complete opposite of the modern conservative agenda.

Take illegal immigration, the cause celebre of modern right-wing talk radio. This is from a story in today's New York Times that should have received more attention than it did:

MIAMI — Seeking to inject their views into the revived debate over immigration overhaul, several big-city police chiefs urged Congress on Wednesday to draft a new policy that improves public safety by bringing illegal immigrants out of the shadows.

The chiefs — updating recommendations made in 2006 by the leaders of more than 50 urban police departments — called for an overhaul that would integrate immigrants into the legal system, possibly with driver’s licenses, and separate the local police from immigration enforcement.

“We’re in the business of delivering a police service whether the person has had a car accident, been a victim of a crime, or been a witness to a crime,” said Chief John Timoney of the Miami Police Department.

He added that immigrants needed to come forward without fearing “that they are going to wind up being reported to federal authorities and deported.”

Yes, that John Timoney, the one who was universally hailed -- especially by the WPHT crowd, though -- for bringing down crime rates during his tenure in Philadelphia in the late 1990s through the 2000 GOP convention. Of course, people will always disagree on a thing or two, but when it comes to the issue of guns -- the cause that conservative politicians and pundits have been using to whip the rank-and-file into a frenzy since the dawn of the Obama presidency -- conservatives and police chiefs have also parted ways.

Here's what those bleeding hearted police chiefs think:

Miami-Dade Officer Jose Somohano was shot and killed with a Mak-90 assault rifle three years to the day after the federal law prohibiting the sale of such weapons expired.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police issued a report at noon Wednesday calling for, among other things, a renewal of the ban, arguing that it helps keep police officers safe by reducing the ``firepower available to criminals.''

The report hits home for South Florida law enforcement officers, who have been facing an increasing number of these guns on the street since the ban expired. Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez, a former police officer and police director, can't hide his anger when he talks about the fact that lawmakers let the ban expire.

''While I feel very strongly about the Second Amendment, I don't think that our founding fathers had AK-47s in mind,'' he said. ``There's absolutely no reason I can see having these weapons out on the street.''

Note that I posted this Miami Herald story as it appeared on conservative Web site Free Republic, so you can read all the supportive comments.But then, who are you going to believe on important issues like immigration or assault weapons, experienced law-enforcement officers, or your friendly local Freeper?

Posted by Will Bunch @ 8:14 PM  Permalink | 20 comments
Thursday, July 2, 2009

I saw this late last night and was debating whether to post it as part of my ongoing "No blood in ants" series -- a brutally honest account of one of the recent flurry of journalism summits where the sound and fury signifies nothing. The headline was "Save journalism: Beats us, panel says."

The cosmic quote was from the publisher of the Washington Post, Katharine Weymouth:

“We will look at anything and are taking a wait-and-see approach,” said Weymouth. “We think about a ton of things. Everything is open.” When asked whether print papers will always be around, Weymouth said, “I don’t know. I don’t predict. Nobody knows.”

Anyone detect a whiff of desperation there? Today, we learned that one of her "ton of things" in the works was this:

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few": Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — even the paper’s own reporters and editors.  

The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."  

With the newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said this morning that he was "appalled" by the plan and said the newsroom will not participate.  

It takes a lot to shock people in the journalism world in 2009, but people are taken quite aback by this. It shouldn't be that much of a surprise, though. For months, deep thinkers have been telling newsroom leaders they can't survive without "non-traditional revenue sources," since no one is actually buying ads or purchasing the print edition.

But in regular business, a lot of revenue comes from cashing in on your brand name. But a newspaper's good name is supposed (I know, I know, supposed) to be all about an added layer of integrity, which means you can't cash in on your brand, not in a cheesy way like this. As bad as this looks for the Washington Post, the bigger picture is that the noose around American newspapers' necks suddenly feels a little tighter.

(Associated Press photo)

Posted by Will Bunch @ 12:50 PM  Permalink | 46 comments
Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Michael Jackson thrived when Ronald Reagan was president. Six months into the Obama administration, he was dead! What are we to conclude?

Thank God Rush Limbaugh is here to answer the question:

Michael Jackson's biggest successes, and as it turns out his final successes, real successes took place in the eighties. That was Billie Jean, Thriller and all this. I mean he was as weird as he could be but he was profoundly, because of his weirdness, an individual. He wasn't a group member. He reached a level of success that may never be equaled. He flourished under Reagan; he languished under Clinton-Bush; and died under Obama. Let's hope the parallel does not continue.

Really! Where exactly was President Obama on the afternoon of June 25 -- can he account for his whereabouts for the entire day?

As for the Reagan's administration's role in MJ's musical burst of creativity during the 1980s, there was none. But it is worth noting that Reagan's steep cut in marginal tax rate for the upper bracket meant that Jackson kept a lot more of that surging income -- which he then squandered on a bad real estate investment while racking up millions of dollars in credit card debt before he died from lousy healthcare. So maybe in a perverse way, Limbaugh is right: Michael Jackson was a parable for the Age of Reagan.

Posted by Will Bunch @ 8:39 PM  Permalink | 94 comments
Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Well, I guess when it comes to nation building there's nothing like a few thouand troops, after all:

Thousands of U.S. Marines descended upon the volatile Helmand River valley in helicopters and armored convoys early Thursday morning, mounting an operation that represents the first large-scale test of the U.S. military's new counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan.

It looks like the nut of the operation is this:

The U.S. strategy here is predicated on the belief that a majority of people in Helmand do not favor the Taliban, which enforces a strict brand of Islam that includes an eye-for-an-eye justice and strict limits on personal behavior. Instead, U.S. officials believe, residents would rather have the Afghan government in control, but they have been cowed into supporting the Taliban because there was nobody to protect them.

Obviously time will tell whether or not that "belief" is a valid one. The one thing that's clear tonight is this: The operation in Afghanistan is exactly what the Washington Post calls it: Obama's War.

Posted by Will Bunch @ 7:56 PM  Permalink | 4 comments
Wednesday, July 1, 2009

I've heard former CIA man Michael Scheuer before on the Michael Smerconish Show and elsewhere, and I recall that he seemed at first to hail from the Sensible Party in our national security community. But like a lot of folks these days he's now swimming in the deep end of the pool:

Yesterday, Glenn Beck guest and former CIA official Michael Scheuer openly hoped for a terrorist attack on the United States, saying, "the only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States...It's an absurd situation again, only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary." Beck nodded solemnly.

This is the same Michael Scheuer who, a few months ago, played patriotism police arguing that anyone who didn't support the United States using torture to interrogate terrorist suspects was anti-American...now he's begging for a terrorist attack on the United States. This is a pretty awesome example of how the right conflates their political interests with the interests of the country as a whole. If there's no terrorist attack, then Americans are safe. But Scheuer can't be right if there's no terrorist attack. And Scheuer being right is actually more important than Americans staying alive.

Exactly. There are so many off-base assumptions here -- that things that people don't like about our government right now are worse than the slaughter of 3,000 innocent Americans, that only "as much violence as necessary" prevents more terrorism (see how this is being re-thought in Afghanistan). That Glenn Beck didn't jump up and object to Scheuer's remarks is telling, yet also not surprising. Sadly, this kind of thinking found its way into my own newspaper a couple of years ago. It was horribly wrong then, and it's horrible wrong now.


Posted by Will Bunch @ 12:19 PM  Permalink | 108 comments
Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Just don't ask how they make back bacon.


Posted by Will Bunch @ 11:45 AM  Permalink | 2 comments
Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Journalist Dan Froomkin, fired by the Washington Post for reasons that many still find hard to fathom, nails the state of modern journalism in an interview with NYU media guru Jay Rosen:

And yet “the sense that, if you have a belief that you publicly espouse, you can no longer be fair about reporting a subject is problematic,” Froomkin continued. “Reporters have beliefs, they have values—the key is for them not to let those beliefs affect their reporting. Downie wanted people to disenfranchise themselves.” Besides, Froomkin continued, there are principles that journalists do, and more to the point should, stand for—accountability, transparency, fair play, human rights—and “there’s nothing wrong with journalists wearing those values on their sleeves.”

Posted by Will Bunch @ 10:18 AM  Permalink | 19 comments
Tuesday, June 30, 2009

...isn't the start of the Al Franken 6/10 Decade, but this highly sensible pronouncement about future policy in Afghanistan:

National Security Adviser James L. Jones told U.S. military commanders here last week that the Obama administration wants to hold troop levels here flat for now, and focus instead on carrying out the previously approved strategy of increased economic development, improved governance and participation by the Afghan military and civilians in the conflict.

Notes Jones:

"This will not be won by the military alone," Jones said in an interview during his trip. "We tried that for six years." He also said: "The piece of the strategy that has to work in the next year is economic development. If that is not done right, there are not enough troops in the world to succeed."

More common-sense foreign policy. As regular readers know, there was a time when I was supportive of suggestions of sending more troops into Afghanistan; because I felt there was a clear reason for going there in the first place (as a matter of self-defense, given Afghanistan's role in 9/11 and as a staging area for possible future attacks), there has seemed hope at times of a positive outcome (i.e., a stable democracy). Also, a military strategy that relied too much on air power was causing way too many innocent civilian deaths. But it's become increasingly clear that a military-oriented strategy isn't working there because...it's a military strategy. If we've decided for the reasons noted above that Afghanistan is where we wanted to engage in nation building, then maybe it's time to do more building and less blowing up.

One footnote: The scoop on this comes from the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, so here's one of those cases where access actually is worth something.

Posted by Will Bunch @ 9:40 PM  Permalink | 91 comments
Tuesday, June 30, 2009

The gamblers thought it was an empty threat. Politicians talked about the casinos, of course, as sure as they talked about corruption and alcoholism. It didn't mean that vice was going anywhere.

But on Tuesday night, finally and anticlimactically, the games drew to an end -- a last spin of the roulette; the final blackjack hand; one more jangle at the slots.

Dang, too bad this is not Pennsylvania, but Russia. And I'll bet their casinos aren't even ugly like ours.

Posted by Will Bunch @ 7:56 PM  Permalink | 7 comments
Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  126
About Will Bunch
Will's book: Learn about it here and purchase it here.

Will Bunch, a senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily News, blogs about his obsessions, including national and local politics and world affairs, the media, pop music, the Philadelphia Phillies, soccer and other sports, not necessarily in that order.

E-mail Will by clicking here.

PLEASE COMMENT WITH PASSION...

...but not with racial slurs, potentially libelous allegations, obscenities or other juvenile noise. Such comments will, at our discretion, be deleted in their entirety, and repeat offenders will be blocked from commenting. ALSO: Any commenter advocating killing any government official will be immediately banned.

Thanks.

Blog Roll
Philly/National
 
Atrios
 
Kiko's House
 
Suburban Guerilla
 
Booman Tribune
 
All-Spin Zone
 
Dick Polman
 
Philly (Dragonballyee)
 
Afro-Netizen
 
Rowhouse Logic
 
MyDD
 
Bad Attitudes
 
Billmon
 
iFlipFlop
 
CorrenteWire
 
upyernoz
 
Tattered Coat
 
Fables of the Reconstruction
 
Slacktivist
Philly
 
Citizen Mom
 
The Next Mayor
 
Philly Future
 
Philadelphia Will Do
 
Philebrity
 
Young Philly Politics
 
Phillyblog
 
Welcome to Phillyville
 
Phawker
 
A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
 
Keystone Blog
 
Philadelphia - America's Hometown
 
BlankBaby
 
Above Average Jane
 
Phillyist
 
Metroblogging Philadelphia
 
The Clog
Politics
 
Josh Marshall
 
Daily Kos
 
Juan Cole
 
Oliver Willis
 
Andy Borowitz
 
War and Piece
 
Wonkette
 
BuzzFlash
 
Raw Story
 
Cursor
 
Crooks and Liars
 
Swing State Project
 
Kevin Drum
 
Talk Left
 
AmericaBlog
 
Hullabaloo
 
Mad Kane
 
Think Progress
 
Jesus' General
 
The Carpetbagger Report
 
Majikthise
 
Echidne of the Snakes
 
David Sirota
 
Glenn Greenwald
 
TBogg
 
Fire Dog Lake
 
Taylor Marsh
 
Matthew Yglesias
 
Jon Swift
 
Drudge Report
Sports
 
Beer Leaguer
 
The 700 Level
 
Balls, Sticks and Stuff
 
Shallow Center
 
Philling Station
 
Phillies Nation
 
A Citizen's Blog
 
The Good Phight
Media
 
Romenesko
 
Editor and Publisher
 
Pressthink
 
Buzzmachine
 
The Inksniffer
 
Media Bloodhound
 
Eat the Press
 
Mickey Kaus
 
Media (Huffington Post)
If you must
 
Blinq
 
The Corner
 
Instapundit
 
Andrew Sullivan
 
Free Republic
 
James Taranto
 
Blonde Sagacity
 
ScrappleFace