Obsidian Wings

It's only shocking if you're the sort to make snap assumptions.

You know, I don't know whether this is mere politics, or whether there's some actual sentiment behind it... and I find that I do not much care. I am not overly fond of the woman, but I also have no real quarrel with her and I respect her political instincts, which are quite good - I approve of gestures of this nature, no matter if Senator Clinton's* one of the ones making them. So, kudos.

And Happy Thanksgiving, folks, if I don't get a chance to say that later.

Via Day by Day.

skipping town

I'm going to NYC in about 45 minutes for a job interview and Thanksgiving, and when I return I will be in finals heck until December 17 or so. So blogging will be light to non-existent (depending on how bad a procrastinator I'm being) until then--but I trust Moe and Von will keep this place going in my absence. Thanks for reading--this has been a fun start.

constitutions

In a post that strongly (and convincingly) rejects the idea of breaking Iraq into three countries, Juan Cole says:

The alternative is to build into the new Iraq guarantees against a tyranny of the Shiite majority. Have a bicameral legislature that over-represents the Sunnis slightly. Have a bill of rights. Have elected provincial governors and legislatures with their own local purview that the central state cannot over-rule, and make them key to any amendments to the constitution. In other words, learn something from a success story: the US constitution.

This raises two related, but slightly different, questions for me:
1. is it more important to our success in Iraq that we have the right constitution, or the right people in charge?
2. to the extent that the U.S. should impose its will or use its influence on what Iraq's government will look like, should it focus on the content of the constitution, or the people in charge?

Who Wants to Marry Dennis Kucinich?

from the Cleveland Plain-Dealer:

At a New Hampshire candidates' forum, he was queried about first ladies,and the Cleveland Democratic congressman didn't waste his chance to drop the proverbial handkerchief. "As a bachelor, I get a chance to fantasize about my first lady," the twice-divorced Kucinich replied. "And you know, maybe Fox will want to sponsor it as a national contest or something. But in any event, I would want someone who would not just be there by my side, but be a working partner because I think we're in an age when partnerships are imperative to making anything happen in the world.

And I certainly want a dynamic, outspoken woman who was fearless in her desire for peace in the world and for universal single-payer health care and a full employment economy.

"If you are out there call me," he concluded with a flourish reminiscent of "American Gigolo."

You've got to admire a guy who lists no age or physical restrictions, but does demand fearless advocacy of single payer health care.

A New Hampshire political website has taken him up on this, and there are 80 candidates so far. Vote for your favorite! Or enter yourself. The website has offered to fly the lucky winner out and pay for the date. And,

"Kucinich said he really doesn't have time to date because of his busy campaign and congressional schedule but agreed to go along with the contest "out of respect for the feelings of the people who wrote in."

Man, at this rate we're never going to get any of these guys to drop out before March.

UDPATE: one of the candidates admits to organizing Palm Beach County for Nader in 2000. Wow--the 2000 election now has its Steve Bartman. (Fortunately, she's also a former bodybuilding champion so no one will mess with her.)

Bush and Chalabi

From a Washington Post article on Chalabi, via Atrios :

“Nobody knows how the president will finally come down on Chalabi. Right now Bush reportedly remains unconvinced that Chalabi is the one to lead Iraq into a democratic future. Jordan's King Abdullah didn't help matters: When he met with Bush recently, he is said to have delivered a broadside against his old nemesis, who was convicted of embezzling millions from a Jordanian bank. According to a friend of Abdullah's, the president reacted to the information with outrage at Chalabi.”

As Atrios asks: did Bush really not know this until recently?

I've known this for months, and I'm no expert. It's been widely reported in the press. And it's a key piece of information in deciding on Chalabi's role.

"According to a friend of Abdullah's" is not exactly impeccable sourcing, so perhaps it's just inaccurate. And I suppose he could have been doing a "shocked and appalled" song and dance for the King of Jordan, but I don't see what that would accomplish--the benefits would seem to be outweighed by the appearance that Bush does not know what's going on.

A few weeks or months back, there was an article or interview with Bush that noted that he never reads newspapers, instead relying on summaries and briefings from his staff. A lot of Democrats said this showed his ignorance, incuriousity, lack of critical thinking, etc. But some veteran Washington journalists said, "what's the big deal, all Presidents do that" and I thought it was overblown. Now I wonder.

Literary Commentary. Here, have some hip boots.

Crooked Timber's discussing an interesting little event that went on at the National Book Awards dinner Thursday. Short version: Stephen King got an honorary award, made a speech where he essentially informed the judges that they needed to read more genre fiction and an author named Shirley Hazzard got contrasted to King by just about everybody commenting on it.

Now, looking over the links, it would seem that the proud philistine contingent is underrepresented in this debate, so I am stepping up to the plate.

Question About McAullife

Hopefully, it'll automatically publish Monday morning (yup, playing with site features).

So, anyway, I was reading through this dKos post and I was struck with something: why are the Democrats keeping him around as head of the DNC? Rather than scurrilously speculate, I decided to simply ask for commentary from, like, actual Democrats and stuff: I figure that the ones here can give me an answer without spitting or starting long, arcane threads about labor unions.

But do read the thread, anyway. I especially loved the part where somebody revealed (with all sincerity) that my side holds secret leadership meetings to decide the party line; we have simply got to start checking IDs...

comic relief

if you've read about the horrible events in Mosul, you'll need it. So, here you go, from Aunty Beeb:

"Mr Blair, who is said to be a big fan of the show, recorded his dialogue in April for an episode in which Homer Simpson meets him in London.

Actor Sir Ian McKellen and Harry Potter author JK Rowling appear alongside in the show, called The Regina Monologues."

The Regina Monologues?

It sounds like it already aired. How did I miss this?

MA poll on gay marriage

According to today's Boston Globe,
"Massachusetts residents, by a solid margin, said they supported the Supreme Judicial Court's landmark decision legalizing gay marriage, according to a Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll.

The poll of 400 people, the first survey of Bay State residents since the court's historic ruling, indicated that 50 percent agreed with the justices' decision, and 38 percent opposed it. Eleven percent expressed no opinion."

The politics of fear

A lot has been written about the Republican ads in Iowa in New Hampshire, which begin, "some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists." I don't really have much to add about that line; I think you all can guess what my reaction was. But this line, via Maureen Dowd's column today, was new to me:

" 'It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known," Mr. Bush says, in a State of the Union clip."

I don't usually have much patience for Dowd, but she has it right. This is fear-mongering for no good purpose. Experts generally agree that biological and chemical weapons kill people in horrible ways but are not any better than conventional weapons at killing large numbers of people (if it's not done right, they're probably worse). So one vial or one canister would not be very likely to bring a worse day of horror than 9/11. Nuclear weapons are a different story, but there was no serious nuclear threat from Iraq in the short or medium term, and we knew it.

And of course, it seems increasingly clear that Iraq had no biological or chemical weapons either.

They have a history of this sort of thing.