Friday, August 13, 2004

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/13/2004 06:13:47 PM

Come to the vomit-in! From the Inbox:

To people who are interested in being naked in a public performance:

If you would like to be in a guerilla street theater production, there is a need for people to play human statues in VOMITORIUM 2004 - MAKE ROOM FOR MORE, which will take place on August 17th, 2004 at 7pm. The location is the fenced-off area of Saint Marks Church in the Bowery (2nd Avenue between 10th & 11th Street) in Manhattan. The audience will be on the sidewalks outside the church, and there will be no charge for the performance.

Vomitorium 2004 is the Opening Night Kick Off Event for HOWL Festival AVANT GARDEN Series. It will be covered widely by the media.

A response to the New and Improved American Empire, Vomitorium 2004 is a theatrical performance, modeled after the opulent parties of the Roman Empire, where guests will engage in consuming astounding amounts of food, and when stuffed to the limit, vomit so that they may gorge themselves again and again. For one evening we will transport the participants and audience to those long-gone days in order to reflect on the fate that eventually befell the Roman Empire, and heed the warning signs of history repeating in the current decline of the American Republic.

Wendy Tremayne, Marina Potok and Dawn Ladd are independent artists who produce works in the NYC area. Marina is a photographer and video artist. Wendy is an artist and activist. Dawn Ladd is an environmentalist and activist. She is the founder of Aurora Lampworks Inc., a company specializing in the conservation and restoration of historic lighting fixtures here in NYC. Last year Wendy and Marina produced NO BUSH, a protest piece in NYC's Central Park during a blizzard using nudes to spell "NO BUSH."

We have several people playing the role of statues. They're nude and painted to look like statues and they are on the set and changing positions approximately every 5 minutes. As the evening progresses, the positions will get more provocative and sexual.

Right now we have three male and one female statue. We would like to even out the numbers, so women especially are encouraged to apply. This is my first public performance of any type and I‚m very much looking forward to it.

The Law: Our work is totally legal, even the nudity (our statues). We have a contract with St. Marks Church. Nudity (and many other things) are legal in the context of art and on private property with a permit. We have all of this.

There will be an After Party immediately following the show, with additional entertainment there. All of the cast and crew will receive a DVD of the film we're shooting and an 8x10 Vomitorium photo.

More information is available at the Vomitorium web site.

I used to think stuff like this was clever.

PS Let me amend that. It is clever. It's not a meaningful educated critique of the Bush administration, but it's clever.

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/13/2004 06:00:41 PM

Them Jooooooos! Backspin - the blog of Honestreporting.com, the watchdog on anti-Israel media bias - comments on the McGreavy resignation:

First one to find an 'Israeli conspiracy' article wins . . . shouldn't take long.

Three responses already.

Thursday, August 12, 2004

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/12/2004 02:01:45 PM

Dear ABC News, Cont. Today The Note runs a follow-up to their request of yesterday.

Forget the fact that that we still can't find a single American who voted for Al Gore in 2000 who is planning to vote for George Bush in 2004. (If you are that elusive figure, e-mail us and tell us who you are and why: politicalunit@abcnews.com.)

I and many other blogs collected fervent statements from former Gore voters, and you can read many of them here.

Today The Note says:

Yesterday, we also asked for examples of 2000 Gore voters who will vote for the president this year. (Yes, we knew about Ed Koch, the mayor of St. Paul, and some others, but we wanted to get a flavor from non-celebrity voters.) Thanks to an assist from National Review Online's Jim Geraghty (he of the excellent Kerry spot column), we received more than 100 responses. We don't know for sure that these folks voted for Gore, but we'll take them at their word. Many took the time to write careful, measured essays, and we sincerely appreciate it. We read every single response.

Then follows about 8 responses.

Meanwhile I got another email from a fellow Upper West Sider:

I live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and boy am I in the minority. In 2000, when I told a leafletter for Hilary Clinton that I was voting for Rick Lazio, he called Lazio a fascist. It's remarks such as those that have turned me off to the Democrat party. The thing was, I voted for Clinton both times (which I regret)and Nader but now am going to vote for Bush. The hate-filled rhetoric of the Democrats is not just loopy - it's frightening.

What scares me is middle-aged professional sober people advocating wacky conspiracy theories with a straight face. These times remind me of the late 1930s in Germany, in some ways, in the willingness of ordinary people to be credulous.

Another email:

What a find, this site! I've felt very alone!! Liberal all my life, I can't understand why my friends have suddenly gone nutszoid! Thanks!!

Strength in numbers, folks!

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/12/2004 02:59:24 AM

Campaign liability? From a Kerry supporter (scroll down):

I attended the Kerry rally in downtown GR MI 8/2. A huge noon time crowd, nearly 10,000, in this very conservative GOP area. The size was beyond everyone's expectations. The rally was held on a 2 acre+ concrete plaza, on a very hot day with the temp on that surface nearly 100 degrees. We had to wait hours for the festivities to begin because of the security checks prior to entrance.

Finally the Kerry entourage arrived; but before the candidate spoke, up stepped Theresa. Instead of expressing a few words of gratitude to the long suffering crowd and making a short intro speech for her husband, we were treated to a too long, and may I say self indulgent discourse. There on the stage was our wonderful gov., Gennifer Granholm, who was permitted to say nothing. None of the down ticket people were allowed a word either; although in that heat they may not have been welcomed by the crowd.

Theresa took all of the air out of the rally. People started to leave before Sen. Kerry finished. They had to go back to work, find water or start back to home through heavy traffic. We don't need this. I expressed my feelings to the campaign thru Kerry's blog, but I don't have any hope that anyone will listen. Sooner or later the media will start reporting on these instances and then the Bush people will climb on the criticism wagon having been given permission by the media.

Kerry's people need to get a clue and play more to the comfort of his supporters during these hot weather weeks of the campaign. They and he also need to realize that although we like and admire Theresa, we go to these events to hear the Sen. speak.

Maybe this is what the big fight was about.

PS Teresa, release your tax returns.

Wednesday, August 11, 2004

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/11/2004 10:11:04 PM

Welcome, fellow LGF readers. Permalinks will be fixed and comments will be enabled soon. Really. Meanwhile, many links about that mythical "Gore 2000, Bush 2004" voter here.

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/11/2004 10:06:38 PM

Firefighter. Red Adair - one of the most incredible persons of the 20th century - died last week.

Red Adair’s greatest glory came following the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein followed-through on his threat to ignite the oil fields of Kuwait. The anti-war forces and many environmentalists predicted global doom from the smoke shutting out the sun’s rays, from the oil flowing into the Persian Gulf, and from the economic chaos caused by disruption of world oil supplies. Where greenies and weenies bemoaned catastrophe, Red Adair saw a job which needed to be done. Fast. He met with President George H.W. Bush to advise on the logistical issues in getting firefighting equipment to the Gulf quickly, and set to work with his team to extinguish the fires in the highest-producing fields of Kuwait. The experts had predicted it would require three to five years to completely extinguish the Kuwait oil field fires. Red got it done in nine months.

Read the whole thing, and the linked -to articles too.

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/11/2004 06:03:57 PM

Brief Martha Stewart moment. Frozen fruit is my mainstay in the summer. It's nutritious, flavorful, not too caloric or carbful (berries and citrus, anyway), and it keeps you cool.

Frozen orange pops: Buy large navel oranges. Quarter skin, avoiding cutting into flesh as much as possible. Peel off skin, keep oranges whole. Place whole skinless oranges in freezer. Suck and chew on when frozen solid; it's like a popsicle but better for you. Takes about 20 min. to eat one.

Frozen berries: Easy. Buy fresh, place in freezer in containers. Eat frozen as a snack. Cools you down, tastes good, not as caloric as ice cream or even sorbet. Blueberries work best for me. Especially when they are at their most plentiful and you buy 8 boxes and know you aren't going to manage to eat them all fresh but you just couldn't pass them up, they were such a bargain.

Too much fresh fruit on hand because of farmer's market bargains? As the peaches, melons, strawberries, etc start to go soft and mushy, cut into chunks and combine into a fruit salad. Add a bit of lemon juice and honey to preserve and bind the flavors. Put in a sealed container in - you guessed it - the freezer. Add new bits as more fruit starts to go bad. When you take it out and defrost it, after the wild abundance of summer has passed, it will be sort of a cold mushy compote which tastes really good. (If the weather's already getting nippy when you use it, you can eat it hot. You can turn it into a cobbler or pie, too, I would think. Or add to your granola or yogurt in the morning.)

Tomato is technically a fruit, although this is not a frozen recipe. I haven't tried to freeze tomatoes. This is one of the recipes I inherited from my mom, who was great at improvising with what was in the fridge.

Tomato salad: Get a ripe Jersey beefsteak tomato, or some other variety which is large, sweet and juicy when fresh. Slice thinly from top to bottom and fan out slices on a large plate. Chop scallion fine and dribble in a line over the slices. Dribble olive oil and soy sauce to taste on top (I use soy sauce instead of salt on lots of things where it adds flavor), then grind fresh pepper over the whole thing. Serve. (If you want to get fancy, add a few capers or use a specialty flavored olive oil.) It also looks elegant and works as a party hors d'oeuvre.

Okay, one more. This isn't a fresh fruit recipe, it's just an easy summer meal.

Quick Italian tuna snack or lunch: Combine a can of tuna with prepared caponata or kalamata olive tapenade, to taste. Add a chopped hard-boiled egg if you want. Serve as is or spread on crackers. Really quick, tasty, no cooking, uses prepared ingredients you can buy in bulk and keep forever.

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/11/2004 03:03:54 PM

Dear ABC News,

I saw your request here for emails from people who voted for Gore and are now going to vote for Bush. You claim not to have heard of any. Wow. Where you been? Just in my personal experience, I estimate 8-10 face-to-face, and I estimate 30-40 people in discussions on blog comment threads over the past 6 months.

I voted for Clinton both times, don't regret it, voted for Gore in 2000, was very upset at the Florida voting dispute. I am feminist, pro-environment, pro-gay-rights, pro-choice, very civil libertarian and supportive of improving human rights around the globe. Fiscally I am moderately libertarian. I found Gore a good match in 2000, although he seems to have become fairly deranged since.

I will be voting for Bush this year, because the war on terror trumps all other issues right now, and Kerry is clueless (not to mention has no character or positive track record). Also I don't like Kerry's demagoguery on outsourcing. The candidate most in line with my political profile would be Leiberman, but the Dems didn't want him, so I am going with Bush.

Judith Weiss

If you want to send an email to ABC News on this topic, the address is politicalunit@abcnews.com. (Remember to specify what it's about in the subject line.)

UPDATE: More here. And here's another letter to ABC.

Opinion Journal took a similar informal poll last month, which led me to this blog. Read the FAQ.

UPDATE: This story seems to be growing legs. Here's another letter to ABC, with lots of comments. Ilyka: "had I voted for Gore in 2000, I'd be writing a similar missive myself." Lots more links here. And here's the official webhome for all us misfits. (Technically not my home since I was always an Independent, but I usually voted Democrat.)

UPDATE: From my email: N.O. Pundit has some thoughts on which "decided" voter is more likely to defect. David writes:

Try being a Conservative living in Berkeley. Yes, that Berkeley.

You get berated for reading a Wall Street Journal in a cafe.

After awhile, you just learn to shut up. Arguing all the time is tiring. Sometimes I'll do it just for kicks, but more than once a month is a chore.

I knew Berkeley was worse than Manhattan's Upper West Side, but you won't get berated here for reading the WSJ because financial services are a big industry in NYC and everyone has friends on Wall Street. That doesn't mean half your friends don't think Bush is the Spawn of Satan.

UPDATE: Dear ABC News, After you've finished interviewing Roger Simon you should talk to Cathy Siepp. (Actually, I don't know if Cathy was ever a wussy liberal or sprang fullblown from the brow of Ayn Rand as a "do me" libertarian. But she certainly would blow the stereotypes lurking at the back of ABC News' assumptions.)

UPDATE: LGF picks up the drumbeat, producing another testimonial. I could have written this one. This one too:

In 2000 I believed that Mr. Gore would (with, perhaps a bit less charisma) continue building on the legacy of prosperity & progress established by Bill Clinton. It was my belief that Mr. Gore would be able steer an acceptable middle course for our country while prudently ramping up American compliance with international treaties in a manner that would not harm our industrial base or economy.

After the torturous electoral resolution my primary reaction was one of anger tempered by a (small) bit of patience. While President Bush has done some things that I may find personally irritating ( repudiation of the Kyoto accords, World Court of Justice, etc.), his unequivocally committed, level headed approach to securing a safe & terror free future for we of the United States, as well as all other persons of goodwill has provided proof to me that he is most assuredly the man that we must have in power to lead our country for the next four years.

I have a lot of friends like this guy's mom, who really don't trust Kerry, but who are not receptive to Bush and/or Republicans because they are working off of received wisdom from the political universe they have inhabited their whole lives.

Here's someone who disagrees seriously with Bush on different issues than I do, but I certainly agree with this:

I can no longer throw in my lot with a party that venerates Michael Moore. I can no longer throw my lot in with a party that thinks the war on terrorism is just a metaphor, like Johnson's war on poverty or Reagan's war on drugs. I can no longer throw my lot in with a party that thinks that the insane ramblings of a Jim McDermott constitute rational public discourse, or that the breathless appeals to international mediators of an Eddie Bernice Johnson are anything other than a national embarrassment.

As late as mid-May, I was still tentatively planning to vote for Senator Kerry in November. His key platform planks seemed to be more or less identical to the President's, and a change of leadership at the top would do a lot to heal the schism that's divided our country. But then I started listening to what he was actually saying. . . .

Now, back to the post that started all this. Read the comments and notice how many former Nader and Libertarian voters are going for Bush this year.

UPDATE: I'm just going to draw your attention to a few more of these which are particularly eloquent, or otherwise delicious:

I'll blow their little minds. I not only voted for Gore in 2000 (and Nader in 1996 to give the finger to Clinton, whom I voted for in 1992), but I went to the anti-Bush protest at the inauguration in Washington, DC. Travelled 5 hours on a blinking bus to do it, too.

But they'd have to drag me down the street backwards and buck-naked before I voted for that buttwipe Kerry.

I shall send them a polite missive.

UPDATE: One more email (I think the emails actually got sent as comments, but KT's comments have been screwed up for some time now):

Oh -- heavens! -- no one in this house can talk about their politics. My husband and I are artists and the kids are in progressive schools with ultra-liberal teachers. And all our neighbours have Kerry signs on their windows. All of these are nice people, understand. They have taken these positions out of self-protection, some because they're gay, some because they're ex-hippies, some because they have liberal degrees and still haven't grown past college indocrination and therefore think left = right. All of them because they feel something in the republican platform attacks them personally. (A lot of what they think is threatening is made up by MSM, but never mind.)

Thank heavens for the privacy of the home, where we can close doors and windows and read out loud to each other from Frank J's outrageous imao.us And rant to each other about our days and what someone we otherwise respect went into pointless rage over Bush or the war, or...

And yet, guess how we're all going to vote come election day?

Ultimately only ONE poll counts and that's November 2nd. I'll be there with bells on. You?

You bet. But I'm voting in NY so my vote isn't going to count. And in 2000 I was voting for Gore in TX (and I was so proud of myself!) and my vote didn't count then either. :-(

Flora McDonald syndrome, anyone?

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/11/2004 02:46:55 PM

NYC weather report. I sure am glad I didn't put off going to the store earlier today. There's a monsoon out there. But it's kinda cool from 25 floors up. And now I don't have to turn on the A/C in my apartment. Ahhhhhhh.

 
posted by Rachel Barenblat 8/11/2004 02:37:30 PM

So long, farewell, auf wiedersehn, goodbye... I'm stepping away from Kesher Talk. I'd like to thank all of you for reading my posts here, and for the conversations they've engendered.

I'm making this change for two reasons. One is limited time; the other is that, despite Judith's notable efforts to convince me otherwise, I'm just not convinced that KT and I are a good fit.

I'm still blogging regularly at Velveteen Rabbi, so if you're interested in talking about Jewish liturgy, holidays, books, mysticism, poetry, and prayer, please join me there.

Many thanks to Judith and the rest of the KT team for inviting me to blog here, and to all of you for reading. I wish you all a fruitful holiday season!


It was great having you here, Rachel. Trying to blog on more than one blog at a time is lots of work, as I found out during my Command Post days. Everybody, go visit Rachel at Velveteen Rabbi. -- Judith

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/10/2004 10:23:26 PM

Pontificating on the fad of the moment. So I just got back from the panel discussion at Makor on blogs and politics. I took illegible notes and will attempt to transcribe some of them later. Short version:

Moderator: Our panelists are all journalists who are now going to pontificate about blogs, which are not journalism. Guys?

Daniel Radosh: Blogs are entertaining, have no political influence, and my position as media professional is safe from all you geeky little people. Nothing personal.

Jeff Jarvis: Power to the people! It's a conversation! We are not a nation divided! Iran! Down with the priesthood! No more gatekeepers!

Geraldine from Salon.com: Uh, whatever they said. I could care less. I didn't even know what a blog was until they hired me to write one. When is this thing over?

QandA's: Let me tell you my wacky conspiracy theory! Let me promote my new book during my question! Let me ramble incoherently! What's a blog?

And a good time was had by all.

UPDATE: David Teten was simul-blogging right in front of me (but I'm not that geeky!) - he's got the transcription.
Jeff.
Daniel. (Yes, he did say he was geeky. StarTrek-type geeky, even.)

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/10/2004 03:47:35 PM

Anyone but Kerry Dept - Swiftboat vets. Most recent "Anyone but Kerry" entry here. The previous ABK entry has links back to all the others, at the end.

If you're wondering why I haven't written about the Swiftboat Vets accusations against John Kerry, I did.
In May.

Recent developments:

Instapundit is following the story closely. When you have hundreds of readers a day sending you material, you can put together impressive collections of facts like this entry about Kerry's Cambodia claims. (More links to more link-filled links here.)

QandO factchecks the usually reliable Factcheck.org. (I don't think FC is being partisan, I think they are just not responding quickly enough to the flurry of contradictory information swirling around this issue right now.) But Spinsanity picks an overlooked nit.

Here's another overlooked point:

Many of you seem to be asking why the enlisted crewmen of Kerry's boat would support him. Here's a fact that many don't know. On the day Kerry received the Silver Star. He put his crew in for medals also. 2 Bronze Stars w/combat V and 3 Navy Commendation medals w/combat V were awarded based on Kerry's lies in addition to his Silver Star.

People, this was group medalgate! This was the most highly decorated boat in the history of the war for 1 action. It was a minor fire fight against about 20 local VC by 3 boats (18 crewmen) and about 70 South Vietnamese troops on the boats.

And yes, I'm a member of swiftvets and a decorated riverine sailor. We are not "shills" for Republican Pary. We are not Pro Bush. We're simply Anti-Kerry for the reasons stated at www.swiftvets.com.

This guy posted anonymously, but this would be easy to check.

An email exchange with one of the vets sponsoring the ad.

I thought this was a clever slogan. It sure is one more example of that whole flip-flopping thing.

If you still think - after finding out journalists overwhelmingly support Kerry - there is no liberal media bias, note the difference between the scrunity given Bush's national Guard duty and Kerry's Vietnam service, for example:

It's interesting to note that when the Bush was AWOL/deserter/liar story was in full play a few months back, the press went so far as to interview a dentist that had signed an exam record to question whether his signature had been forged. I guess the point was to try and establish that the record was altered to help Bush. Now we have the Swift Vets' charges and the press can't even be bothered to look critically at what they say actually happened. And there's 250+ of them! I've always felt there is media bias but even I am astonished by the utter lack of analysis of anything Kerry has ever done in Vietnam or public life.

Kerry almost certainly falsely stated that he resigned from Viet Nam Vets Against the War BEFORE the fateful meeting at which the plot to assassinate several pro-war US Senators was debated. Yet when both FBI records and some of his supporters verified that Kerry had spoken forcefully against the proposal to murder Senators (to Kerry's credit at the time), most of the press did nothing. Can you imagine if Bush had been caught in such a falsehood, saying that he didn't attend a meeting where others were proposing to murder US Senators when he had been present and helped to persuade them not to do it?

And he gives several other examples of "nothing to see here, folks, move along."

More on media spin of the SwiftVets story.

Some people really don't want the story to get out. However,

The veterans group said it has at least 5,000 new contributors and has raised more than $230,000 since the ad started running last week.

Heh.

Finally, you may want to visit a comprehensive "factchecking John F Kerry's ass" site, which isn't getting much attention right now since the SwiftVet.com story is in the news. It focuses more on Kerry's testimony against the war after he came back, rather than his conduct in combat.

Lots more where that came from (says the woman who bookmarks everything and keeps them all in neatly labeled folders). Keep checking back.

UPDATE: More from my fellow NYer Scott at Slantpoint. More links from Glenn on the Cambodia issue, which I don't find as devastating as the fact that no one in Kerry's chain of command supports him, and only one of his fellow swiftboat officers (his peers) supports him. That's a lot of co-workers and bosses unwilling to give a good job reference to someone who plays up the old job where they worked with him in his resume cover letter, and ignores his career of the past 20 years. Would you hire this man for CEO of USA Corp.?

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt interviews someone who served with John Kerry. (On his very own swiftboat, even.) If you scroll down, you can watch the mini-news-cycles as they spin around. Lileks on same:

I was assembling thoughts for my weekly editorial column, and I realized that I couldn’t write about Christmas in Cambodia. Not possible. The news cycle for editorial pages sometimes takes a week; it is a stately procession with the pundits atop their floats doing the queen-wave. Here comes George Will! Here comes Maureen Dowd! Oh, I love a parade. It’s the summation of the conventional wisdom! In sequins! This doesn’t work in this fresh century, when news cycles are banging and revolving like pistons in a lawn mower.

. . . Christmas in Cambodia was finally mentioned Monday on Fox news, which may be the tipping point. The other channels are now free to discuss the issue by discussing the controversy, which is the standard excuse. For Fox to break a story – well, it’s like Paris Hilton hiking up her skirt to show a new tattoo that depicts details of a planned Al Qaeda attack. Consider the source! But the tattoo seems unusually detailed, and coincides with reports from other sources. Perhaps that’s the food chain of the future: Drudge > blogs > Fox > CNN > New York Times > Maureen Dowd. A relay race with a lit stick of dynamite as the baton. Can she bury it in a pail of sand in time? Stay tuned!

UPDATE: Glenn has more, including a rejoinder to someone trying to make comparisons with Bush.
Spin spin spin spin spin.

UPDATE: Big media is still using stale talking points. Big media still ignoring and misrepresenting the Cambodia story.

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/10/2004 02:19:15 PM

The fad of the moment. Sorry for the short notice. Tonight, at Makor, a panel on political blogs, with Jeff Jarvis, Daniel Radosh, and others. The link has directions, time, cost, etc.

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/10/2004 09:04:03 AM

A New York State of Mind. Random NYC cool stuff:

NYWiki.com is a wiki by and about New Yorkers. If you live here or have in the past, or know interesting things about New York, go over there and contribute.

The font of freedom is Gotham. The story of how a typeface was chosen for the WTC memorial.

A site about New York's ethnic neighborhoods, past and present.

Overheard in New York. Just what it says.

Monday, August 09, 2004

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/9/2004 11:03:42 AM

Bush Derangement Syndrome Dept. I have written admiringly of Leon Wieseltier on this blog on several occasions. When he is dissecting bad arguments, as in his evisceration of Tony Judt's "bi-national state" nonsense last year, or explaining a complex subject, such as the intersection of global antisemitism and American exceptionalism, he is inspiring and compelling. However, Weiseltier seems to unquestioningly accept the conventional East-Coast-Dem-lib wisdom on US foreign policy, contra the evidence, for which I fisked him a few months ago.

But Weiseltier's finely tuned moral outrage always has a bracing effect on whatever issue is on the table, and here he applies it to a pretty despicable example of the self-important rage of the chattering classes, a hate-Bush tract thinly disguised as a novel. Near the end of the piece he again seems to find credulous whatever the Democratic Party tells him, but first he eloquently decries the debilitating and dangerous condition which Charles Krauthammer calls Bush Derangement Syndrome:

Liberals must think carefully about their keenness to mirror some of the most poisonous qualities of their adversaries. It was never exactly a disgrace to American liberalism that it lacked its Limbaugh. But demagoguery now enjoys a new prestige. Thus, a prominent liberal thinker writes a book against George W. Bush that refreshingly prefers ideas to innuendoes, and a sympathetic reviewer in this newspaper laments that ''instead of 'Reason,' which the left already has too much of, the Democrats need a book titled 'Brass Knuckles.' '' The argument for liberal demagoguery is twofold, tactical and philosophical. There are those who believe the Democrats cannot succeed without the politics of the sewer. These are the same people who believe it is the politics of the sewer to which the Republicans owe their success. This view significantly underestimates the depth and the nature of George W. Bush's support in American society, and significantly overestimates the influence of the media and its pundit vaudeville on American politics. Rush Limbaugh did not elect a president and neither will Michael Moore. All the professional manipulation of opinion notwithstanding, reality is still more powerful than its representations. If it is not, then all politics is futile.

The philosophical argument for liberal demagoguery is that it is merely an expression, or an exaggeration, of American democracy. But then this must be true also of conservative demagoguery, which also claims to speak (but rather less plausibly) in the voice of the common man. It is when politics becomes a competition in populist credentials that demagoguery, and the sophistry of the slippery slope, flourishes, and the voice of the common man is stolen. The demagogue's gravest sin is not incivility, it is stupidity. Does the Bush administration love capitalism too much? But it is also possible to love capitalism too little. The greatness of capitalism, after all, is that it may be politically corrected. Was American power used improperly, or for ill, in Iraq? But it is also possible for American power to be used properly, and for good. Is the friendly opinion of the world a condition of American security? Often, but not always.

So far, so good. Now Weiseltier adopts the Party Line:

The incompetence of the Bush administration in world affairs, too much of which was ideologically ordained, does not alter the fact that the United States must sometimes deploy overwhelming force against extreme wickedness. It will be disastrous, for liberalism and for America, if the indignation against George W. Bush becomes an excuse for a great simplification, for a delirious release from the complexities of historical and political understanding that it took the American left decades to learn. . . . The good news is that the politics of Bush-hatred may be at odds with the culture of Bush-hatred. Neither John Kerry nor John Edwards appears to live in the universe in which ''Checkpoint'' was set or in the universe in which ''Checkpoint'' was written. Whatever the merit of their opposition to the Bush administration, the spirit of their opposition is not dark. They are not taking the radical bait.

How I wish that were true. But it isn't.

Slate's Timothy Noah is also disturbed by the novel and its author's ambiguous relationship to his characters.

UPDATE: Roundup of opinions on Checkpoint. Includes long excerpt from a piece by PJ O'Rourke, which I would love to read except the typeface and color make it almost impossible to decipher. :-(
Consensus seems to be : It's a joke, son. Unfortunately, I know far too many people who actually think like Baker's unhinged protagonist, and to claim Baker is being too subtle for us hamhanded literalists is just another way to not take the problem of partisan hatred seriously. Weiseltier takes Baker seriously, and rightly so.

UPDATE: The Weiseltier review seems to be causing controversy in the literary world.

Saturday, August 07, 2004

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/7/2004 09:41:22 PM

The Fence, cont. Daniel Gordis, an American-born Israeli, writes about viewing the Fence with a Palestinian co-worker. She shows him her Arab town in hopes he will recoil at how oppressive it is, but he has a different reaction.

It was, as my friend expected, an unsettling day for me. But not for the reasons that she'd thought. No one can deny the massiveness of the wall. No one can deny that it's ugly as sin. Or that it poses real hardships. Or that it may not have been built in all the right places. But no one can deny, either, that the reason that we, like many other Israeli parents, worry much less about whether our children will make it home is because of that wall. And that the reason that Jerusalem, and much of the rest of the country, has been exceedingly quiet recently, for almost five previously unimaginable months, is also because of the wall. And that before the wall, this was a different country. A country terrorized. By people who came from places like Abu Dis. Who, for the most part, can no longer get in.

It was their absolute unwillingness to even mention Israel's need for the fence that, contrary to her expectations and her hopes, slowly but inexorably eradicated most of the misgivings I'd had about the fence, at least in principle (there are without question some spots that have to be moved). My friend and her sister are Israeli citizens, in addition to being Palestinian (a long story). They live on opposite sides of the fence. (Another long story.) But both speak Hebrew, both work in West Jerusalem, and both understand Israeli culture as well as anyone else. And neither, in an hour of talking about the fence and a day of touring the area, ever mentioned any reason why Israel might do such a thing.

Previous post on the fence, with lots of links.

Friday, August 06, 2004

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/6/2004 06:52:22 PM

Love makes the world go round. A hat tip to Protocols for this story on Paul Wolfowitz's inspiration for his zeal in spreading democracy in the Middle East.

The US deputy secretary of defence was one of the original architects of the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein and remains an enthusiastic advocate of spreading democracy in the Middle East, despite the setbacks in Iraq. For his detractors, it is evidence that he is pursuing an agenda hostile to Arab regimes, particularly ones as virulently opposed to Israel as Saddam's. Critics have also latched on to the fact that his sister, Laura, a biologist, lives in Israel as proof for their theory. . . .

In fact, there is a woman from whom Mr Wolfowitz does draw support and backing for his views, but she comes from a very different - and unexpected - background. The Telegraph can reveal that his closest companion and most valued confidantes is a middle-aged Arab feminist whose own strongly held views on instilling democracy in her native Middle East have helped bolster his resolve. Shaha Ali Riza is a senior World Bank official who was born in Tunis, grew up in Saudi Arabia and holds an international relations masters degree from St Anthony's College, Oxford. . . . Ms Riza's childhood in Saudi Arabia did much to shape her commitment to democracy, equal rights and civil liberties in the Arab world as she experienced at first hand the kingdom's oppressive regime, particularly for women.

More here.

This does not seem incongruous with anything else I know about Wolfowitz, but as the article points out, it will surprise those who demonize him. I am also going to guess that the secrecy of their relationship is for her physical safety, given the misogynistic and zenophobic hatred and violence too many of her ethnic group like to engage in.

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/6/2004 04:47:20 PM

Technology. I've had it with Blogger. That's all I'm going to say.

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/6/2004 04:12:13 PM

The latest meeting of the recovering progressives support group. Previous meetings here and here.

In the last support group, we pretty much vented about trying to discuss politics with friends and family members. Today we're just going to hear some testimony to cheer us up and steel our resolve.

First, the uber-blogger himself is one of us. A reader emails:

Before the war in Iraq, I would imagine you were usually considered a centrist. Now, whenever I see you mentioned in the media, it's "Conservative blogger Glenn Reynolds." . . . if you are for the war, no matter how liberal your other beliefs are, you are conservative. If you are against the war, you are normal. What gives?

Glenn responds:

I've pretty much given up fighting it, because yes, that seems to be the definition. Pro-gay-marriage, pro-choice, pro-drug-legalization, but pro-war? You're a "conservative."

Sound familiar?

Lynn, another self-described liberal, says she's ready to start stumping for Bush, and she's in a swing state too:

I'm pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, against the establishment of religion (any religion) in our public schools and courthouses, against total repeal of the Federal Estate Tax and in favor of (reasonable) regulation of firearms. I'm a card carrying member of the Environmental Defense Fund (with a few reservations). . . . I know all too well that this country has enemies who have declared war against us and intend to win. And I know that their plans for America don't include the right of women to make reproductive choices. Or fashion choices, or travel choices, or choices of their spouse or just about any other choices. I know that their plans for America don't include the right of gays to live, let alone to marry, or the right of anyone to practice a religion other than theirs.

I know that with all its problems and complications, our justice system stands head and shoulders over what they have in mind for us. And I know that in order to put the kabosh on their plans, we need a President who has a clear grasp of who the enemy is and of who our friends are. That President isn't George W. Bush, in my opinion, but he's a hell of a lot closer than the alternative.

Now let me introduce Phyllis Chesler, who has been a high-profile feminist activist dates since the 60s:

"I put an American flag in my window right after 9/11, and I was challenged: 'Have you gone soft in the head and become a patriot?' " she says. "I see no problem between the kind of ideals I hold and the fact that I hold them in America. America has given me the kind of freedom that I would not have in Saudi Arabia, that I would not have in Afghanistan."

She knows about Afghanistan. Her first husband was an Afghan Muslim, and she lived with his family in Kabul in the early 1960s. For six months, she says, she "was pretty much held hostage." It was an experience that profoundly influenced her. "I first learned how different the Judeo-Christian West and the Islamic East really are long ago . . . when I was a bride living in Afghanistan in an era of pre-Taliban gender apartheid," she writes. "Afghanistan had never been colonized, so there were no Westerners to blame. It was there that I learned how not to romanticize wily, colorful, Third World tyrants."

That experience helped forge her feminist views, and she sees a bitter irony in progressives' opposition to the war on terror, which began by destroying the repressive Taliban regime. . . . "I didn't understand Americans who are progressives, feminists, liberals and leftists, why the day after we invaded Afghanistan, everybody began treating this as if we had just invaded Vietnam," Ms. Chesler says. "We were in a time warp, we were back in the '60s. You would think ... there would be some euphoria. Suddenly, women can go about and put their faces into the sun. It's a good thing. And girls and women can go to school and become literate. It's a good thing. And yet, the habit of criticizing one's own government was so deeply ingrained that they could not see this invasion as a good thing, even momentarily." [ emphasis mine - ed ]

Several months ago I posted a story by recovering progressive Samuel, one of the regulars at Roger Simon's blog. Here he is again on his conversion away from the Democratic Party. Samuel writes long eloquent personal narratives - I recommend reading both in their entirety.

Finally, Moe Lane has some thoughts about his political niche:

It's interesting to be part of the Left of the Right (which isn't the same as being in the Middle). Nobody seems to know quite what to do with us, you understand. We're too wishy-washy for the True Conservatives, too frustratingly obtuse for the True Liberals; the Centrists don't understand why we and the Right-Democrats won't join them in a broad coalition and the Just Plain Nuts keep giving us odd tracts to read.

UPDATE: More depressing testimony, but unfortunately too true, from my experience.

UPDATE: Why so many of us are in the closet:

That's always the problem: it's always someone we're dating, or a family member or someone else we similarly don't want to piss off. We can flame each other on the Net all we want, but when it comes to the people we really care about, we can't just tell them off, can we? I've had to keep quiet in a thus-far year-long ongoing e-mail conversation with someone I'm collaborating with on a creative project, because he keeps peppering every message with moronic slurs about Bush and Republicans. . . .

Also why Bush might get a bigger turnout than the mainstream media think: too many artists, teachers, office workers, etc. who can't say what they think for fear of their jobs and social lives, but who can vote as they please. Thank God for the secret ballot.

UPDATE: Welcome, Vodkapundit readers! My letter to ABC News is here.

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/6/2004 03:24:12 PM

Party hardy, dude! I've been to several of these "Party for Bush" events. Last month 4 of us LGF-reading-quasi-liberals (well, Peggy says she's not a liberal any more at all!) got together to visit two parties of the many that took place on the same night, one on the Upper East Side and one on the Upper West Side. We felt so glamorous and continental, all we needed were floor-length fur coats and satin gowns, and tuxes and top hats, and 30s-era taxicabs. Anyway, the stereotypes are so true, folks:

UES: terraced penthouse, preppie suited middle-management types, catered finger food, and a well-stocked bar including Pimm's #1. (Mary envisioned watercress sandwiches and plaid martinis but we didn't see any of those. But I bet you could have asked the bartender for a plaid martini and gotten one.)

UWS: outdoor pub on the Hudson pier, beer and Cokes, jeans and t-shirts, cute metrosexual dot.com entrepreneurs, paunchy grizzled techie nerds.

Frank wrote an account of the most recent party on the pier, where I met him and several of his friends. (Turns out most of them read LGF too.) We didn't get into who had always been a conservative, and who was still a liberal but hawkish, but we all had anecdotes about feeling lonely and a bit intimidated by the preponderance of virulent anti-Bush opinion in our town.

Hmmmm. Time for another recovering progressives support group meeting.

 
posted by Judith Weiss 8/6/2004 10:56:19 AM

Antisemitism watch. Silent Running is covering a wave of grave desecrations and burnings in New Zealand. (You can click back from that URL to more posts.) Pix here.

Silent Running also covered an appearance at a Melbourne university by Daniel Pipes, who got the same reception he usually gets by anti-Israel protestors. Start here and click back.

Random tidbits: A friend of Melanie Phillips gets an earful at a bookshop in Oxford. Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook poses at a protest against Israel's "apartheid" wall in London. Lots of defacing with swastikas in San Francisco.

UPDATE: More from Roger.

UPDATE: More here and here on the San Francisco incident. What were defaced were campaign posters for a Democratic candidate for district supervisor, who is an Israeli-born Jewish businessman.

UPDATE: On the New Zealand grave vandalizing.

UPDATE: NZ parliament passes a motion against antisemitism.