I’LL BE ON LAURA INGRAHAM’S SHOW in a little while, talking about guess what?
Archive for 2006
April 5, 2006
IN THE MAIL: Rachel Bronson’s new book, Thicker than Oil : America’s Uneasy Partnership with Saudi Arabia.
PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: Apparently, the effort has gotten Trent Lott’s attention:
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, the Republican from Mississippi, has had it to here with Porkbusters and other critics of pork barrel spending like Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, who think the federal government has better things to do with $700 million of the taxpayers money than tear up a just-repaired coastal rail line and replace it with a new highway.
Said Lott when asked by an AP reporter about criticism of the project he has long championed and which was just funded in a Senate Appropriations Committee bill to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as additional Hurricane Katrina relief:
“I’ll just say this about the so-called porkbusters. I’m getting damn tired of hearing from them. They have been nothing but trouble ever since Katrina. We in Mississippi have not asked for more than we deserve. We’ve been very reasonable.”
The government just spent $300 million to repair the rail line that Lott and his fellow Mississippi Republican Senator Thad Cochran want to tear up and replace with a highway to serve the heavily populated coastal region.
I guess he’s hearing from people he’d rather not. You know, the ones who don’t have their checkbooks out.
UPDATE: N.Z. Bear writes: “I’m sorry to say it, but we have just barely gotten started making the likes of Mr. Lott tired. So I hope he’s ready for many sleepless nights to come.”
Bill Quick: “Since when does anybody ‘deserve’ somebody else’s hard-earned money?”
ANOTHER UPDATE: Jane Meynardie emails: “It is my understanding, based on local press reports and town meetings discussing the recovery plan, that the government did not spend $300 million to repair the rail line. CSX spent that money from its insurance proceeds. The local government could not give CSX any quick assurance that it would be able to afford to buy out the right-of-way and, in the meantime, CSX wanted to serve its 2 customers along the existing line (reasonably enough).”
That’s not what the AP story says, but I suppose it’s possible that they’ve made a mistake.
HOMELAND SECURITY UPDATE: “When he wasn’t sending pornographic movies to and asking for explicit photos from a teenage girl in Polk County, a Maryland man was bragging about his job as a spokesman at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, law enforcement officers said.”
OVER AT WINDS OF CHANGE, a roundup of alternative energy news.
VIA HOWARD KURTZ I see that Andrew Sullivan was slamming me for “barely mentioning” Tom Delay’s resignation. Well, here’s what I said:
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), the House Republicans’ number-one fixer and enforcer, has announced that he will give up his seat. DeLay is under investigation on charges of campaign finance violations, but I’m happy to see him leave for other reasons: He was the architect of the Republicans’ “K Street strategy” – a program of incorporating lobbyists and interest groups into the process of governance – that has been disastrous for Republican ideals.
DeLay’s defenders say that the K Street strategy is merely a reprise of what Democrats have been doing for decades, and they have a point. But Democrats are supposed to be the party of Big Government. Republicans are not, and the K Street strategy has led to a serious abandonment of their principles. (DeLay lost me back before the scandals broke, when he pronounced, inexplicably, that there was no fat left to cut in the federal budget.) I don’t have much hope that DeLay’s departure will do much tug the GOP back toward its principles, but it can’t hurt.
“Silence?” You decide. I will confess, though, that I don’t care about the story very much. I care about issues more than people, and Tom DeLay has never been much of an issues guy. He’s always been a backroom guy, a fixer (that’s where he differs from, say, Newt Gingrich, with whom he’s being compared now). As Mickey Kaus notes, those traits can come in handy. But guys like that are pretty replaceable. To the extent that DeLay stood for anything, though, it was the win-at-any-cost, outdo-the-Democrats-in-pork mentality that I think is bad for the country and, for that matter, the Republicans. I can see how people stories like this are a bigger deal to inside-the-beltway types who actually knew DeLay and who followed his activities more closely than I do, but just as I never felt any particular urge to defend DeLay, I don’t think his departure matters all that much either.
UPDATE: Reader John Barton agrees: “Andrew Sullivan looking for DeLay commentary reflects his DC location. From inside the beltway it’s a big deal. I suspect that for the rest of the world outside the beltway it’s never been a very interesting subject. I never liked DeLay, wish there were fewer like him, I’m glad to see him go, and that’s about the end of it.” Indeed.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Jim Miller emails:
Glenn, its also quite possible that Sully meant comments on your blog and hadn’t seen your other short comment in Guardian Unlimited.
I personally don’t recall your spending much time defending Delay, so I’m not sure why you were required to dance on his grave, despite its being fairly big news.
Sullivan’s larger point is not unreasonable, that the right side of the blogosphere would prefer to “move on” and not dwell on the matter. I think it can be easy for people to forget that its not like you are happy with the Republicans; you just are VERY unhappy with the Democrats.
Good points all. However, the “right side” of the blogosphere contains plenty of people who aren’t at all happy with the DeLay approach to politics and governance. Sullivan’s tendency to lump ’em all together says more about his approach to blogging and politics than it does about the people he’s describing.
MORE STILL: Gerald Montaigne emails: “It appears that Sullivan chooses the subjects that you are supposed to be blogging about. For the life of me, I don’t understand why he persists in the belief that you have some larger responsibility to the blogosphere and a lack of comments on your part constitutes proof positive of… well whatever point Sullivan is trying to make at the time, I guess.”
Perhaps I should put up a post calling him a racist because he doesn’t blog about Darfur as much as I do. But in truth, I never give any thought to the question of what Sullivan isn’t blogging about, and I think it rather odd that he spends so much time on the question of what I’m not blogging about.
THE WEEK MAGAZINE names Ed Morrissey its blogger of the year. It’s well-deserved.
THE LATEST Carnival of Blog Coverage is up!
THE RAPTURE OF THE NERDS: My TCS Daily column is up.
UPDATE: Some thoughts in response, from Phil Bowermaster.
Let’s say you were part of a group designing the news media from scratch. Someone says that it would be a good idea to have competing news media — daily newspapers and weekly magazines, radio and television news programs. Sounds like a good start.
Someone else says that it would be a good idea to staff these news media with people who are literate and well-educated. Check. Then someone says let’s have 90 percent of the people who work for these organizations be from one of the nation’s two competitive political parties and 10 percent from the other.
Uh, you might find yourself saying, especially if you weren’t sure that your party would get the 90 percent, maybe that’s not such a good idea. But that’s the news media we have today.
Read the whole thing. (Via Newsbeat1).
AUSTIN BAY ON IMMIGRATION:
Securing economic justice and political reform in Mexico is key to any truly effective long-term solution. The Mexican people know it. A decade ago, I met with a number of businessmen and women in northern Mexico who were “dollarizing” their businesses because they did not trust the corrupt central government. I also met several northern Mexican political activists who detailed their plans for ending the Institutional Revolutionary Party’s (PRI) decades of one-party rule.
In 1997 and 2000, those plans led to opposition-party victories. Vicente Fox’s presidential election, however, was the end of the beginning for Mexican reformers. Mexico’s bitter mix of statist economics, poverty and elite corruption frustrate quick change.
Mexico’s elites do indeed export their unemployed, as well as potential political dissidents. That policy must end. On the other hand, U.S. businesses benefit from low-wage workers (many coming from Mexico). The U.S. birthrate has declined, and immigrants compensate for that decline. America must confront those facets of the immigration problem.
U.S. demand for illegal narcotics feeds Mexican corruption. Narcotics trafficking negatively affects political and economic conditions in Mexico (and thus has an impact on immigration). Getting real control of the borders means curbing America’s appetite for illegal drugs.
Or just legalizing them, putting the narcotics lords out of business.
MORE ON THE FBI’S TECHNICAL PROBLEMS: “The big culprit is FBI culture.”
MICKEY KAUS: “Does Gloria Borger really think the economy is the Republicans’ weak spot?”
April 4, 2006
ARNOLD KLING ON fear of confrontation: “Unfortunately, large segments of American society no longer have the ability to confront real evil. People lack the confidence and moral clarity to stand up to intimidation. . . . One can view Islamic militants as armed versions of unruly teenagers. We should not feel guilty toward them. We should demand reasonable and decent behavior from them, rather than excuse their tantrums or their crimes.”
That would require thinking of ourselves as adults, which is unacceptable to many.
ERIC MCERLAIN POINTS OUT something that hadn’t occurred to me:
I’ll leave the media bias charges to somebody else, but here’s another angle that folks in the sports biz ought to think about: What in the world are the folks who run NASCAR going to think about this when they find out?
Last time I looked NBC was still one of the circuit’s broadcast partners, and now NBC News is attempting to provoke a racial confrontation at a NASCAR race, one that is sure to not only paint certain individuals as racists, but paint the entire NASCAR culture as racist too.
If I were at NASCAR HQ, I’d be blowing a gasket about now, and getting on the phone to NBC Sports in New York. After all, this is ocurring against a backdrop of NASCAR’s increased efforts to bring minority drivers and owners into the series, and expand its appeal outside of the traditional Southern fan base.
In other words, something like this may very well cost NASCAR some money. And while there are undoubtedly racists at any large sporting event that draws literally hundreds of thousands of people each weekend, I can’t help but think that NBC’s choice wasn’t a coincidence.
Nope, but it seems even dumber now.
UPDATE: Hmm. A couple of readers say that this is NBC’s last year of sharing in NASCAR broadcasts, after which the consortium will be to Fox, ABC, and ESPN. Is NBC trying to give NASCAR a goodbye kiss? Apparently, its coverage was poorly received: “Ratings for NBC’s coverage, like those for Fox’s, have consistently increased throughout the six-year contract. But NBC has often gotten a tepid or worse response from many die-hard racing fans, some of whom have complained that the network appeared to lack passion for the sport. . . . The network didn’t believe the package was as valuable as what NASCAR was asking for it. When the new deal was announced in December, published reports said the agreement was for a total of $4.5-billion, or 61 percent higher than the previous deal signed in 2000.” More here.
And reader Eric Hall offers a new assignment: “Dateline NBC ought to take some Christian-looking people to Riyadh and see how things work out. Don’t forget the bikini-clad sister.”
ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Betsy Gorisch emails:
My husband and I are serious NASCAR fans, and for a number of years now we have been underwhelmed by NBC’s coverage of the latter half of the season. We’ve always thought that they cover the races as though they imagine that only a bunch of dimwits could really care about watching. Perhaps their single most annoying feature is something they call “going through the field.” This feature consists of having a reporter discuss what’s happening with each car, one by one, while the race is going on–what’s up with the tires, what the team leader thinks about the gas mileage, and so forth–and meanwhile ignoring the race! It’s insulting to anyone who actually wants to see the RACE. My favorite analogy for this tiresome exercise is to think of watching the bottom of the 7th inning of a World Series game, and the announcer cuts to a sequential close-up of each player while saying things like, “Well Bob, the right fielder is having trouble getting his cleats to hold the turf and the webbing on his mitt is too loose. His cup is tight, and he’s going to have to do something about that before the next inning. Now let’s move over the the center fielder.” And so forth–and meanwhile the game is going on but you can’t see what’s happening. No one would put up with something similar in any other sport.
This latest hidden camera exercise seems like a clueless PC parting shot at a sport NBC has never understood anyway. No real race fan likes the NBC portion of the season, and the Dateline guys are simply confirming what a lot of us have been pretty sure of all along–the whole network is contemptuous of its audience. It’s no surprise that they would assume the stands are packed with a bunch of lousy bigots. Good riddance to them, that’s what we say.
With NBC’s financial woes, this kind of an attitude on the part of viewers seems like a bad thing. And in response to McErlain’s question above, it’s not so much what the NASCAR people will think, but what potential future sports partners will think.
Meanwhile, does this mean (1) NBC’s news is bravely independent of NBC’s business interests, because they’re willing to stick it to NASCAR; (2) NBC’s news is only willing to stick it to NASCAR because NBC no longer has much of a business interest here; or (3) NBC’s news is just as clueless as NBC’s sports?
MORE: More advice here:
If I ran Fox, I’d be figuring out who NBC’s Muslim “ringers” were and putting a not-so-hidden camera crew all over them during the race. This would totally blow NBC’s story out of the water.Also, throughout the broadcast of the race I’d be replaying clips of the original faked Dateline story about the trucks catching on fire and making snarky comments about keeping the Dateline crew away from pit road.
Heh. Indeed.
Damian Penny:: “Next up: NBC is going to try sneaking Bibles into Saudi Arabia. Yeah, right.”
Hello, New York Times? I’d like to cancel my subscription today. No, I’m not protesting your Middle East coverage, your treatment of any ethnic minority or weird religion, and I am certainly not upset about some petty delivery problem. Nor am I angry about the gruesome picture you recently printed on Page One or your deletion of my favorite continuing feature.
I’m canceling because the redesign of your Web site, which you unveiled yesterday, bests the print edition by such a margin I’ve decided to pocket the annual $621.40 I currently spend on home delivery.
Uh oh.
CATHY SEIPP: “Wretched as Pepper Dennis is, it serves as a useful guide to various unexamined messages and wish fulfillment fantasies pop culture sends to girls in 2006.”
NOAH SHACHTMAN calls the FBI the Federal Bureau of Luddites. Hey, they’ll all have email by 2017. And Blackberries by 2098.
JUDITH WEISS has thoughts on Flight 93.
UPDATE: Read this post by Jim Geraghty, too.
At the box office this weekend, Ice Age 2 clobbered Basic Instinct 2 hauling in $70 million dollars, compared with less than $3 million for the Sharon Stone movie. One film is about a prehistoric creature’s struggle to survive and find love, the other is the animated sequel to the movie Ice Age.
And “heh,” again. That one’s worth two.
TOM MAGUIRE rounds up the latest Libby material.
NBC LOOKING to make news.
If they air the show, I want to see the raw, unedited tape.
A QUESTION: “DEAR NEW YORK TIMES: When the largest single fatality-causing event for your (well, our) soldiers in recent months is a single vehicle wreck, isn’t it officially time to retire the theme that we’re losing the war?”
JIM BENNETT has more thoughts on immigration and a possible third-party Presidential run.