Tag: Fred Kaplan

Life on Mars, Death from Space.

“I’d give it a 50-50 shot that you could find it somewhere underground. But then that’s a guess.” The NYT surveys the current thinking about prospects of Martian life, and how astrobiologists plan to go about proving or disproving its existence. (To wit, the European Space Agency plans to send an tricked-up rover to the red planet after 2011…hopefully, it’ll get past the Dubya Pentagon’s rash of Moonraker weapons.) Update: In somewhat related news (to the second story), Slate‘s Fred Kaplan assesses the Pentagon’s overly enthusiastic vision for ground-based future tech.

A Line in the Sand.

While the GOP may have bent the rules to facilitate passage of the ANWR drilling bill (set for a vote today), it appears they face a Senate shutdown by the Dems if they keep pressing on Dubya’s wacko judicial appointees. And why not? Dubya has revealed he’s not going to relent on Social Security PSAs, despite their unpopularity, and he continues to appoint controversial right-wing neocons like Paul Wolfowitz to top positions (in this case, the World Bank.) If Dubya and the Right don’t want to compromise, then we Dems shouldn’t play ball. It’s 1993 all over again. (That being said, it’s probably wise of Reid to keep legislation “supporting our troops” out of the boycott…FOX News would have a field day with that one.) Update: By a 51-49 vote, the Senate opens ANWR to drilling, with Dems Daniel Akaka, (D-HI), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) putting the GOP over the top.

Update 2: Slate‘s Fred Kaplan has more on the Wolfowitz pick.

Update 3: Conservative George Will warns against GOP tampering with the filibuster rule.

Bolton’s got a screw loose.

“There’s no such thing as the United Nations…if the UN secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.” So Dubya has picked John Bolton as our new UN ambassador and, guess what? Yep, he’s a right-wing freakshow. Said avowed UN enemy and former Sen. Jesse Helms (no, not yet) of Bolton: He’s “the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon.” Brilliant. (CLW link via BookNotes & Digby) Update: Slate‘s Fred Kaplan has more.

Causing Deprivation.

I was at the movies during Dubya’s State of the Union address — I tried to watch it online this evening after my Radicalism sections, but Quicktime died in mid-sentence, so I just ended up reading it. And, while I thought it was very well-written as per the norm, my thoughts on the address have been colored even more than usual by the punditocracy. So, with that in mind, I’ll avoid being derivative and just direct y’all to the following:

  • Fred Kaplan: “Some of the president’s statements on national security were simply puzzling. Again on Iran, he said, ‘We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium-enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing.’ This is just false.“

  • Chris Suellentrop: “You could call Bush’s idea the Screw Your Grandchildren Act…This was the Greatest Love of All speech, in which Bush asserted that The Children Are Our Future. But before you sign on to Bush’s proposal, be aware that what he’s offering is pretty tough love.“

  • Will Saletan: “Tonight’s State of the Union Address demonstrated again that President Bush is a man of very clear principles. He’s just flexible about when to apply them.“

  • Joe Conason: “Although George W. Bush and the White House aides who craft these public spectacles become increasingly adept at manipulating the feelings of his audience every year, their underlying method remains the same: to shade inconvenient realities with rhetorical vagueness and outright deception.“

  • E.J. Dionne: “Our country could profit from an honest debate about the future of Social Security. Judging from President Bush’s State of the Union address, that is not the kind of debate we are about to have.“

Freaks of the NSA.

“The sources of this anarchism [the Columbine massacre] are 30 years of liberal social policy that has put our children in day care, taken God out of the schools, taken Mom out of the house, and banished Dad as an authority figure from the family altogether.” Slate‘s Fred Kaplan introduces us to J.D. Crouch, conservative freakshow and, naturally, the new deputy national security adviser. In case you were wondering about his foreign policy inclinations, Crouch also appears to be against missile treaties and, er, pro-chemical weapons.

Ballots of Baghdad.

“Few sights are more stirring than the televised images of Iraqi citizens risking their lives to vote in their country’s first election in a half-century, kissing the ballot boxes, dancing in the streets, and declaring their hopes for a new day of democracy. And yet, the challenges and uncertainties that seemed so daunting last week — about Iraq’s security, society, and governance — are unlikely to turn less daunting next week, next month, or the month after.”
After a smoother Election Day in Iraq than feared (thanks in part to a 24-hour ban on motor vehicles), Slate‘s Fred Kaplan surveys the road ahead, which includes the drafting of a new constitution.

Freedom, Yeah!

“America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.” Really? Well, dang, that was easy. But who’s going to break the news to China, Russia, and the Saudis, for starters? As per many of Michael Gerson’s Big-Moment speeches, Dubya’s Second Inaugural was a well-crafted piece of prose with some nice rhetorical flourishes and an eye to history. But, stylistic flair aside, Dubya might as well have been declaring himself the President of Mars, for all the grounding this speech had in contemporary reality.

“The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.” Freedom…I can dig it. Reminds me of the end of Braveheart. But, as Slate‘s Fred Kaplan already aptly questioned, “What is this thing called ‘freedom’?…Does ‘freedom’ always mean a Western-style, or pro-American, democracy? Whatever freedom is, how do we go about spreading it?” And, for that matter, isn’t this the guy who once told us there “ought to be limits to freedom?”

I know we shouldn’t expect nuance from this president, but today’s speech was even worse than usual (as well as being somewhat distasteful, given the very real problems with “freedom” Iraq is facing right now.) The only things I learned from Dubya’s speech are that freedom rains down like a benediction (in fact, exactly like a benediction) on the peoples of the world, and, whatsmore, that evildoers hate them some freedom. And that was about it. Seriously, he sounded like he was kicking off that goofy rave in the second Matrix.

On the domestic side, I was somewhat surprised that Bush didn’t push the Ownership Society meme a little harder — he only mentioned it once — but I guess that’ll probably get more run in the upcoming State of the Union. (Perhaps he didn’t want anyone reminded of Colin Powell’s “You Break it, You Own it” Pottery Barn rule when they were supposed to be drinking in the sweet, sweet freedom.) That being said, Bush did manage to squeeze in some Grade-A chum for the pro-lifers — “always remember that even the unwanted have worth” — which he then half-heartedly tried to mask with a plea to end racism. (Freedom, yeah! Bigotry, no! Serenity now! I think I got it.)

All in all, the inaugural wasn’t an embarrassing speech as delivered — Gerson’s too good at his job for that. But, like too much in this administration, it was all style and no substance, offering false simplicity and sanctimony in the place of good ideas or hard-won truths. In short, it was just like Dubya.

Silent Lucidity.

In the dead of night (EST), and quieter than the Teddy Bear’s picnic, the Bushies handed Iraq over to the interim government two days early. I agree with Slate‘s Fred Kaplan – this actually seems like a good call for once by the Bushies. I guess they already figured out how much trouble the “Mission Accomplished” banner can cause.

And yet outmaneuvered.

Unfortunately, the diplomatic savvy on display in this surreptitious Iraq transfer hasn’t extended to other world hotspots, as Kaplan notes with North Korea. “By his own careless arrogance,” writes Kaplan, Dubya “has stunningly mishandled this confrontation. He has allowed North Korea—the most rickety spoke on his “axis of evil,” a dangerous regime by any measure — to reach the crest of becoming a nuclear power. He has dismissed numerous opportunities to nip this disaster in the bud. And now he comes up with an old formula that evades the recent shift in the balance.” (The disarmament deal proffered by the Bushies now is insubstantially different from the one suggested by President Clinton a decade ago, the one pooh-poohed by Dubya upon his arrival into the Oval Office.)