Me: Frank Lynch

Home
(Current commentary)

These are my mundane daily ramblings.
For something less spontaneous, I maintain The Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page (over 1,800 Johnson quotes).

Email:
frank
dot
lynch2
at
verizon
dot
net

Bummed. Today at Costco I bought a DVD set of the 1986 World Series between the Mets and the Red Sox, and the box said it was unedited. In addition, it had Game 6 of the NLCS between the Mets and the Astros, a real heart stopper. So I popped in Game 1 of the World Series, and it goes directly to the Mets taking the field. No player introductions, no national anthem. I'm really not happy about the latter, because if my memory serves me correctly, Smokey Robinson did a great one in Boston, and made me shiver when mid-song he switched to a different tune (America the Beautiful? God Bless America?). Now I don't get to see it and I am not happy. (Amazingly, they have time to list the sponsors as they go to a commercial break you don't see, but they don't have time for the Star Spangled Banner.)
Link | | | 9:55 PM | Home
 

I have seen the future office. And it's way cool. In addition to all the deadlines associated with marketing research, there are additional pressures because the company I work for is moving. This means finding time to isolate obsolete stuff which doesn't need to be retained, finding that which should be sent to storage, and packing that which you want to bring along with you. I have the additional pleasure of finally coming to terms with all the detritus of an inherited office: scads of pens in assorted colors I'd rather move than blithely send off to the landfill and so on. (But an isolated Advil tablet was clearly headed for the trash, not my mouth.)

I got my first view of the new office space weeks ago. We're on the 27th floor of a relatively tall building in Chelsea, meaning wonderfully extensive views, and my camera will get a work out. The preliminary floor plan had my office looking South, directly at the towers of American Express (meaning old friends and I could practice semaphore), but that has since changed, and now I'm in a bigger office looking west. The view isn't as fine, but it's still fine, and it's larger.

Across the space, on the eastern side, it's absolutely incredible for someone who loves the urban. There are parts of the country where you'd swear you can't count the stars; in this view you'd swear you can't count the water towers. You laugh (of course you laugh, I heard you laugh, you laughed and laughed...) but the water towers are merely one way of describing the sensory overload from all the details of the city. I love this kind of thing. Truly.
Link | | | 11:38 PM | Home
 

Managing expectations, Bush paints himself as having failed the class. Today the Pharaoh was speaking to a gathering at Freedom House, and after all the plaudits and thank-yous and encomia for fine values, his attention turned to the Iraqi Civil War (since he said we're in "a time of war," I figure that must be what he meant, because via Eric Alterman we see he's not really intent on fighting a war against terror. So it must be the Iraqi Civil War he was talking about, I figure. Anyway, here's something interesting he said:

In the wake of recent violence in Iraq, many Americans are asking legitimate questions: Why are Iraqis so divided? And did America cause the instability by removing Saddam Hussein from power? They ask, after three elections, why are the Iraqi people having such a hard time coming together? And can a country with so many divisions ever build a stable democracy? They ask why we can't bring our troops home now and let the Iraqis sort out their differences on their own.

...

The argument that Iraq was stable under Saddam and that stability is now in danger because we removed him is wrong. While liberation has brought its own set of challenges, Saddam Hussein's removal from power was the necessary first step in restoring stability and freedom to the people of Iraq.

There's actually a lot of sense in this speech. And it jibes well with brutalities which have occurred elsewhere when shackles have been broken: a lot of built-up animosities get unleashed. Think of the flaming necklaces which the fashionable wore after Apartheid. (Oddly, a Todd Rundgren song mentioning them comes up way too high in a Google search.)

So: for all the undeniable sense in the speech, we're left to ask, heads scratching: if this was so sensible, why didn't Bush figure it out beforehand? Heck, it doesn't take an arcane familiarity with these things (as I've just shown) to anticipate this sort of thing. In fact, Miles Copeland (father of Police drummer Stewart, by the way), former CIA spook, wrote a book called "The Game of Nations," in which he described the gaming scenarios the CIA practiced so that, should certain events occur, they would be better prepared with the proper reactions.

So did Bush have no idea that taking the lid off the pressure cooker without easing the pressure slowly would have every ingredient in the recipe covering every surface in the kitchen?

If not, then he and his advisors are as dumb as a neon tetra.

If they were aware of the potential, then you have to marvel at the brazen way they rolled the dice, in light of the thirty-some-thousand civilians who have died as a result of the invasion and ensuing violence. I'm not forgetting all who have died in our forces, their lives are also valuable, numbers are numbers. And to be honest with you we should be angry about every single innocent life, whether born in Baghdad or Brattleboro. Personally, I am left with a conclusion that Bush et al care too little about human life; an interesting idea when you think about how hard they work to protect the unborn. But I digress.

Further. Sovereignty in the U.S. resides with the people, not the government. We entrust the government with it, to act according to our wills as spoken through referenda and elected representatives. If Bush had anticipated the explosion from the release of the pressure cooker, and failed to be frank with us about it as he sought to gather public support, he was actually spitting on the sacred trust between us, as the people who have the sovereignty, and him, as the trustee. When Bush says he hates Big Government, you know he sees it as something spiteful; yet we do not demand he behave in a spiteful way. He has chosen to do that all on his own.

I wish absolutely the best for his wife and his daughters. I also wish the best for him: but he needs a long session with his confessor.
Link | | | 8:43 PM | Home
 

I guess even the Good Shepherd has his limits. First, let's state straight off that the ideals laid out in the Bible are very tough to adhere to. Recognizing the difficulties for a rich man entering the gates of heaven being like passing a camel through the eye of a needle: that's a great metaphor, yet you don't often see people like Ken Lay or the President taking it to heart.

But how do you draw the line? Should you look at the difficulties, and simply forgive those who can't surpass them, or should you say "try harder"?

The parable of the Good Shepherd talks about reaching out to the lost when you can feel confident that the herd, overall, is going to be okay. You go out and find the lost sheep. That's all there is to it. It's a spiritual concept, not a "bangs for the buck" one.

With me so far?

The New York Times is reporting that the Archdiocese of New York is pursuing structural changes: closing parishes and schools where the numbers don't make sense, and opening more where they do.

"A lot of these are just no-brainers," said Msgr. John J. Jenik, pastor of Our Lady of Refuge in the Bronx and a member of a panel of lay leaders and priests convened by the archdiocese that recently reviewed the reorganization plans. "When you've got diminishing numbers of priests, large cash investments in places, dwindling numbers and economies of scale, it's not wise stewardship."

I believe I left the Catholic Church with good reason, and yet I am always inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt, thanks to my many years in it and my belief that overall it's a good force. But this seems in such contrast to the concept of the Good Shepherd exerting his resources for the rare lost sheep. I just don't know: maybe the idea is that these "underserved" communities represent the lost sheep, but that still sounds like a bang for the bucks kind of argument. The disinherited will be asked to go further for their services, and I hope they can.
Link | | | 10:39 PM | Home

I know you don't live or die by whether I post a thousand words on Andy Card and his whispers into the President's ear during the deer-caught-in-the-headlights stare, but my attentions are elsewhere tonight. A few people made some donations into the Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page's tip box, and I feel like I should find post some new material. Maybe something here later.
Link | | | 8:24 PM | Home
 

An abdication of its role? Over at Alternet, Rory O'Connor gives CNN's Jonathan Klein a chance to respond to complaints about CNN's coverage of the news, and especially the war in Iraq. Klein doesn't seem to feel there are issues with the amount coverage; merely saying something is enough for him. I was struck by this point Klein made:

To Klein, however, the coverage of the memo is a "good example" of what CNN is doing right. "The Downing Street memo was reported on CNN," he said. "Perhaps not as often as certain partisan extremists would have liked it to be but it certainly was not ignored by us or by the mainstream media in general. "It's true the memo was also widely covered by alternative media," he added. "So does it matter if it was or was not covered enough by the mainstream to satisfy a highly partisan crowd? The great thing about the new media landscape is that people can get information if they need it. Thank God there is lots of opportunity now to get more information from sources other than the mainstream."

Isn't that just great? Because of the existence of the "new media landscape" is that CNN doesn't need to really communicate the news; all it has to do is give an item superficial coverage, and it will feel it has done its job, relying on word-of-mouth and so on to inform the public. The beauty of this, of course, is that it frees CNN up to cover more important stuff like runaway brides.
Link | | | 10:26 PM | Home

War Monger. Somebody's lying — either George Bush or a British adviser. According to the New York Times, a memo from a British adviser to Tony Blair says that in a meeting in late January, 2003, Bush told Blair he was intent on going to war with Saddam Hussein even if the UN inspectors found no WMDs. This was days before Powell would make his presentation to the U.N., and obviously before Blix and El Baradei would rebut it: no wonder Bush was deaf to all suggestions that the inspectors be given more time, as he had already made up his mind.

To some extent this isn't news: we already had the Downing Street Memos which said our intelligence was being fixed to the policy of invasion. But how much more of this will we need before America — all of America — comes to realize that we were lied to about the most important decision a country can make?

The Times also points out the hubris which Bush and Blair both felt, by the way:

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

Those fools: they acted as if they were putting on some silly secondary school play as a fund-raiser. Did they really have no idea what they were doing?
Link | | | 7:36 AM | Home
 

If you blinked, you might have missed the rapid burn-out of Ben Domenech, a conservative blogger who had been hired by the online subsidiary of the Washington Post, washingtonpost.com. First, there was controversy over whether the Web site was pandering to conservative critics in hiring a conservative with no real journalism credentials; second, there was criticism for the unmeasured tone in some his writing at the Web site RedState.org — where, for example, he called Coretta Scott King a Communist. washingtonpost.com rallied around him, but Domenech quickly became radioactive for all involved when many instances were found where he'd plagiarized others' work: many instances, and from famous outlets like Salon and writers like P. J. O'Rourke. While Domenech dug in his heels over the first two issues, he fortunately realized the third issue had made his position untenable and he resigned. This all happened over the course of just a few days.

Anyone who wants to read Domenech now is left with task of winnowing out the plagiarized content and trying to figure out what's really Domenech. Much of the intelligently written stuff belonged to others, and we are left to wonder whether if, with adequate effort, all we will be left with is fiery lines like this, in the comments, under his pen name Augustine: "But I've just gotta say it: Dan Froomkin is without question a lying weasel-faced Democrat shill." Or calling Coretta Scott King a Communist. I am naturally reminded of a line often attributed to Samuel Johnson, without evidence: "Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."

The post mortems (pun recognized but unintended) are kind of interesting: washingtonpost.com editor Jim Brady may feel relieved that the plagiarism arose, because it gives him an out when everything about the hiring stank. (See one reaction to Brady's statement here.) "Post mortem" may be true in more ways than one, because an apparent post mortem over at redstate.org almost acts as if Domenech is now close to death or already dead:

And for his failing, his career is in ruins, and his public reputation is in tatters. It is a long road back for Ben Domenech. And he's going to pay a steep price to regain lost trust among colleagues, readers, and friends.

There's a lot in redstate's review that's worth reading, and I'll bother to quote bits as I see fit. As for that first one, Domenech is only 24; I think it's a bit premature to call what he was doing a "career," since he's so fresh out of college, and has already worn several hats. And even if it were a career, it was an unjustified to call it that, since he supposedly obtained his prominence with washingtonpost.com on the basis of his writing, much of which wasn't his. So I shed crocodile tears for Domenech.

Another interesting point is earlier in the bit:

A young man took something and called it his own. He owes apologies to those writers, his editors, and especially his friends who have rushed to his defense in the past 48 hours. It is an embarrassing offense -- and one rightly criticized.

All of the leadership of RedState has struggled mightily over the past few days, and have tried at every step to take the right course of action. Now that the story is complete, we can move on.

What I particularly love about this is that they seem ready to move on without having taken any action. Gotta love that: conveniently. Isn't this so reminiscent of what's been happening with the White House? Soon, no doubt, Domenech will be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

The piece concludes:

Our critics can raise their glasses and toast to what they think is success — tearing down a flawed conservative. But therein lies their greatest weakness: destroying a conservative is not to destroy conservatism. And while they put all their energy and venom into this campaign, it is worth remembering that for all the noise — they have yet to present a real alternative to an America that rests on the foundation of freedom, free markets and family. Against that, the only answer they have is yet another personal attack.

Now, you gotta love that: liberals haven't presented an alternative to those values because those values are held by liberals just as strongly as they are held by conservatives. This writer has sought solace in the most illusory fancy, that his political opponents are not what they really are. (He forgot to call us moonbats, by the way.)
Link | | | 10:34 AM | Home
 

My suggestion... I'm not writing tonight, but you should REALLY look at this photo. It's not the kind of shot I take, but it's nothing less than superb.
Link | | | 11:06 PM | Home
 

What we have here is a failure to understand the Constitution. Okay, let's run through the basics:

• The President does not write laws, he only approves them or vetoes them.
   
• The Senate cannot pass a law and send it to the President without the House of Representatives passing the same law.
   
• The House of Representatives cannot pass a law and send it to the President without the Senate passing the same law.

This is pretty basic stuff, right? I mean, it's in the Constitution. You'd have to be the thickest hockey puck on the planet to think it would be otherwise, right? I mean, the federal government is not in the habit of running rampant over the U.S. Constitution, right? I mean, that would be like proclaiming that you hate America, right?

Well, I don't doubt that I've made you think "now what?" And it would take the blindest Bush supporters on Earth to support Bush on this. And not just Bush, but the Republican leadership in the Congress at the same time. Short summary? More evidence that the law of the land no longer holds precedence with these thugs.

Here's the deal:

• The Senate passed a spending law, with broad implications. In it was a Medicare provision with a specific restriction on the number of months a procedure would be allowed.
   
• On its way to the House, a clerical error occurred: the months allowing the procedure was inadvertently changed to a longer time period, at the cost of $2 billion.
   
• So the House voted on a more liberal law, which narrowly passed.
   
• The two bills were never reconciled, meaning the Senate passed one bill and the House another.
   
• The President signed the Senate's bill, a bill which the House never voted on.
   
• The GOP is supporting the process because while the House never voted on it, GOP House leaders support the Senate bill. They claim this meets the standards laid out in a 1892 decision from the Supreme Court.

The story is here. But think about the implications. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, has said that he doesn't represent the majority of the House, but the majority of those in the House from his party. If you have a situation where there enough Republicans align themselves with enough Democrats, the will of the House is not the will of those Hastert thinks he serves. Hastert's approval of laws, then, doesn't represent the feelings of the House.

What this amounts to is opening the door for overturning basic provisions of the Constitution of the United States. It is a bald-faced assault on the principles of the country; it is saying "I Hate America." America is not purple mountains; it's not Chevy trucks or baseball. The Constitution is the whole deal. If we lose it, we lose the country.
Link | | | 11:45 PM | Home

All sorts of room for optimism now. General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, seems to be starting to understand the magnitude of the problem. This just in from the AP:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- The U.S. military's top commander said Wednesday that he underestimated the extent of the reluctance of the Iraqi people to accept a unified government, and he thought citizens would more quickly embrace the idea of a central government.

"I think that I certainly did not understand the depth of fear that was generated by the decades of Saddam's rule," said Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in an interview en route to Saudi Arabia. "I think a lot of Iraqis have been in the wait-and-see mode longer that I thought they would."

Doesn't anybody do their homework anymore?
Link | | | 7:57 AM | Home
 

Gore Rocks On! It's time we all got a grip: Al Gore is the most outspoken, articulate, intelligent, coherent critic of what's happened to the country since the Pharaoh (thanks again, Bob, for the reference) was christened in 2001. Think of all the brilliant speeches where he talked about how difficult it would be to pursue genuine terrorists (OBL) while tracking down the bogey men under the bed (Saddam Hussein); think about his speech on Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, and how it threatened to be unchecked with no end-date, seeing as how the President has talked about the war on terrorism as never- ending.

Everything Biden says reeks of decorum; Durbin? As much intensity as Paul Tsongas. Reid? Very skillful, but he's a violin, and while he might silence Bill O'Reilly with a cold stare, the Fox cameras wouldn't capture it.

I'm not saying Gore is our last hope, but Ezra Klein has an appreciation worth reading.
Link | | | 10:28 PM | Home

Let some other President clean up my mess. That's kind of, sort of, what Bush said today when he said our troops will be there past his term:

Asked at a White House press conference whether he could foresee a complete withdrawal from Iraq, Mr Bush held out little hope. "That will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq", Mr Bush told reporters.

This pessimistic forecast — as true as it may or may not be — has an effect with two positive outcomes for Bush: one, it lowers the bar of expectations for Bush so that he can now go around saying "I told you so but you weren't listening;" and second, should the White House next be held by a Democrat (not unlikely, given Bush's approval ratings — would any Republican nominee run by running against Bush's record?), it foists a very difficult burden on that next President. All the better for the GOP, of course.

One thing is for sure: by lowering the expectations, Bush is lowering the goal and adopting lame duck behavior. You accomplish less when your goals are low, and Bush seems more than content to be a slacker.

Oh, and remember this expectations lowering statement from Rumsfeld?
Link | | | 9:05 PM | Home
 

Back to top.