A dull thud in the distance
Header

Fingerprints

November 21st, 2009 | Posted by Aosher in Politics | Politics - US - (0 Comments)

davenoon at Lawyers, Guns and Money notices that Sarah Palin (or Sarah Palin’s ghostwriter) has an epigraph problem:

I realize this is a pedantic complaint, but would it be possible for Sarah Palin to launch her chapters with epigraphs that aren’t of dubious origin?

The first chapter, for example, opens with a quotation from Lou Holtz that the former football coach apparently wrote exclusively for this book. (Alas, as it turns out, Palin and her ghostwriter were simply mangling a nearly identical aphorism that — while always attributed to Holtz — never leads back to an actual source and only appears in “inspirational” books of quotations.)

Chapter Two is introduced by a fake quote from Aristotle, who never in fact wrote that “Criticism is something we can avoid by saying nothing, doing nothing, being nothing.” Instead, such banalities are more properly credited to a book called Seeds of Change by Denis Waitley, a hack motivational speaker and author who once served as an executive for a skin-care Ponzi scheme.

So far as bungled epigraphs go, the third chapter is arguably the winner so far, attributing this nugget of wisdom to the renowned former UCLA basketball coach John Wooden:

Our land is everything to us…. I will tell you one of the things we remember on our land. We remember than our grandfathers paid for it — with their lives.

Now, if that’s not the sort of thing you’d expect a hall of fame basketball coach to say, that’s because, of course, he didn’t. Students of American Indian history might recognize that passage as belonging instead to John Wooden Legs, the post-WWII Northern Cheyenne tribal leader who — though a contemporary of John Wooden’s — was not the same guy.

I can’t help wondering if it was deliberate. I don’t know much about Lynn Vincent, but in her position, I’d be tempted to tip observant readers the wink as well.

Obama and the Nobel Prize

October 9th, 2009 | Posted by Aosher in General | Politics | Politics - US - (1 Comments)

Renard Sexton and FiveThirtyEight has made the most credible attempt I’ve seen thus far at justifying the bizarre inclusion of Barack Obama into the pantheon of Nobel peace laureates.

The justification for the prize, while certainly unexpected and a bit tenuous, is indeed rooted in fact. Obama has long been a booster for non-proliferation, and his speech and lobbying at the UN General Assembly and Security Council proved to be quite successful.

On climate change, the Obama administration has taken the toughest line against carbon emissions of any White House so far in terms of concrete regulations by Federal agencies [...] Though cap-and-trade or other large scale programmes are clearly the purvue of Congress, the executive branch’s efforts in the realm are likely to be a major portion of the US effort.

Regarding diplomacy, the committee was likely in part referring to the re-elevation of Susan Rice’s post, the US Ambassador to the UN, to a cabinet level post, as well as his public addresses and promised strategic changes toward diplomatic action over rapid military decisions – such as Iran. The G5 plus one meeting with Iran, where Undersecretary of State Burns officially met with the Iranian negotiator, and found a way forward on nuclear energy processing was the first concrete outcome of this strategy.

Sexton’s analysis is spot on – while the Committee’s claims are indeed justifiable, they are too stretched and too abstract to really be credible. When viewed through the prism of today, in which Obama has largely failed to steer effective climate policy through Congress, has largely failed to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons and has largely failed to improve the image of America outside of its traditional western-European and Arab-petrostate clientelle, this award seems to be designed to reward effort and intent rather than achievement. Viewed through the prism of January 2009 – which was when Obama was innaugurated and, two weeks later, nominated for the prize – it looks farcical. The above rationale evaporates when you consider that Obama’s nomination came before his agreement with Russia to cut nuclear arsenals, before any hint of engagement with Iran, before Susan Rice had been appointed to the UN and before any significant moved had been made on emissions.

More importantly, like the award given to Al Gore two years ago, it represents a direct attempt on behalf of the Nobel Committee to promote an agenda within the domestic affairs of a country – an idea that is both intuitively and strategically a bad idea. Those who disagree with the Nobel Committee’s decision will regard the brand as tarnished; those, like me, who have a degree of personal approval for Obama but would rather that prizes were given for achievements rather than intentions will regard the Nobel Peace Prize, sadly, as having irrevocably jumped the shark. The Peace Prize was was never designed to be a political tool; it was intended to reward peaceful policies, not further them. Its credibility to do either is now severely diminished.

The bloom of the rose

September 16th, 2009 | Posted by Aosher in General | Politics | Politics - US - (0 Comments)

If even George W. Bush recognised the failings of the Sarah Palin pick…

“I’m trying to remember if I’ve met her before. I’m sure I must have.” His eyes twinkled, then he asked, “What is she, the governor of Guam?”

Everyone in the room seemed to look at him in horror, their mouths agape. When Ed told him that conservatives were greeting the choice enthusiastically, he replied, “Look, I’m a team player, I’m on board.” He thought about it for a minute. “She’s interesting,” he said again. “You know, just wait a few days until the bloom is off the rose.” Then he made a very smart assessment.

“This woman is being put into a position she is not even remotely prepared for,” he said. “She hasn’t spent one day on the national level. Neither has her family. Let’s wait and see how she looks five days out.” It was a rare dose of reality in a White House that liked to believe every decision was great, every Republican was a genius, and McCain was the hope of the world because, well, because he chose to be a member of our party.

I suppose it’s not a huge surprise – the man may not have been an exemplary human but he was a career politician. He would have known what he was seeing. And the last sentence is also unfair – Bush and McCain were not friends, for all that the White House said from the podium.

Questions of the week

September 11th, 2009 | Posted by Aosher in Politics | Politics - Middle East | Politics - US - (2 Comments)

Sometimes I wonder what they’d do with Bin Laden, if they ever found him. Would it be a big trial then a quiet but lengthly jail sentence? Or would Obama strip down to his shorts and administer a good thrashing, Putin-style, on a scaffold at the centre of Pennsylvania Avenue?

Would the American public and press be prepared to accept the quiet dignity of civilised justice? And would the President of the day be able to resist the popularity bump that would be associated with an overwhelming and barbaric display of public catharsis?

Lockerbie

August 25th, 2009 | Posted by Aosher in Politics | Politics - UK | Politics - US - (0 Comments)

I have a couple of problems.

First: the press really are vile in this country. “COWARDLY BROWN DUCKS LOCKERBIE QUESTIONS”, they lead, just hoping and praying that the PM leads with his chin and actually says something, giving them the golden opportunity that they crave to deliver the second arm of the pincer movement and complain about overstepping the boundaries of devolved power. The tension between the British and American versions of the free press is based on this: the British press are not content to be “just” the fourth estate; they want to be unelected, irresponsible, malign actors in the second, third, and where possible, the first as well. That the American press is too supine is beside the point; the criticisms of the British system are accurate and fair. It was once said that countries get the politicians they deserve; these days, they get the press that they have solicited, patronised and permitted, and the British example is an indictment of the sorry state of public discussion in this country. All beside the point; Brown’s silence on the matter is absolutely the right thing to do.

Second, there are now calls for Libya to pay damages to the victims of IRA terror. The rest of the world remains mystified by our insistence on demanding that every insult be met by monetary compensation. It is perhaps a good way of testing commitment – an apology costs Ghaddafi nothing – but when there are fairly calls for this, that or the other African or Middle-Eastern petro-state to cough up for the perceived slight of the week, I start to wonder what kind of a world we are creating.

No-one has come out of this with any dignity whatsoever.