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

Oh, but we're still seeing lots of progress in new ways that Bush hasn't thought of yet. You probably remember that the purpose of the surge was to create an environment for political change in Iraq, and that when General Petraeus came to Washington with his September report, many were surprised at how the Administration seemed to forget why we sent all the troops over — more attention was given to serendipitous improvements having less to do with the surge than with Sunni tribes cooperating against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. (And hawks were thankful that they could talk about a newspaper ad that Moveon.org placed and focus on the ad rates they got.)

If your memory is razor sharp, you might also remember that the GAO publicly disagreed with Petraeus's conclusions that violence in Iraq had been reduced. Now, in a fit of consistency, the GAO finds the US opportunity for change in Iraq is dwindling:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. and Iraqi governments have failed to take advantage of a dramatic drop in violence in Iraq, according to a report issued Tuesday by a U.S. watchdog agency, which warned that prospects were waning "for achieving current U.S. security, political and economic goals in Iraq."

Iraqi leaders have not passed legislation to foster reconciliation among Shiite Muslims, Sunnis and Kurds, and sectarian groups still retain control of ministries and divide Iraqi security forces, according to the Government Accountability Office report.

Moreover, the Bush administration's efforts to stabilize and rebuild Iraq are plagued by weak planning, a lack of coordination with the Iraqi government and among U.S. agencies, and an absence of detailed information on "the current and future costs of U.S. involvement in Iraq," it said.

The Bush Administration, it would seem, has different goals for Iraq: "success" is no greater accomplishment than passing the problem on to the next President. Bush had sure better hope it's a Democrat.
Link | | | 9:56 PM | Home
 

This land is your land. Unless the land in question is actually Canada's, in which case the State Department will merely goofishly try to pass it off as America's. Next up, Victoria Falls.
Link | | | 9:09 PM | Home
 

Does the local critic matter for movies? Newspapers are cutting back in all sorts of ways, and apparently one position being eliminated is the local movie reviewer. The argument is that reviews of movies are easily available from other sources, and that the people who write reviews which are deemed redundant should either be let go or reassigned to where they might seem more needed. The article linked above suggests that there's a need to bolster the local reporting, good enough on that. But take away the local viewpoint on a movie? Seems like another slouch towards the National Consensus rather than providing a local voice. Cue "Radio Nowhere."

You know me, I think that the "free" Internet is the demon here, that it's too easy to access the views of reviewers at the New York Times or the Journal-Constitution. Of course I think that all web sites should charge for content somehow (except for sites like Amazon, which are basically advertising sites). I'll launch my "free Internet news is hurting investments in reporters" macro, and then return to the story. Ooops, looks like the macro was launched. Well then.

Aside from the economics of content providing on the Internet, I've also felt that individuals benefit from watching movies together, in their theaters, as opposed to just renting. Sure, audiences can be annoying. But I also see the social risk of isolation, and it's good to see movies with other people. I know that the audience for a given movie isn't a cross-section of your town, it's a cross-section of those in your town who want to see this same movie at the same time you've chosen to see it... But still, it's better than watching it in isolation from Netflix.

When your local paper cries "Uncle" and decides that the opinions of reviewers will adequately serve its readers, what's this mean? It means that you're left to build all new relationships with movie reviewers in other cities, who may not share your criteria for a movie and what it should accomplish. I think this is a huge step backwards, seriously. And while it may make sense to bolster the staff of other local reporting, I don't see the sense in robbing Peter to pay Paul. Both have legitimate needs. And I'm still blaming it on the Internet, and all you cheap bastards who are constantly looking for free stuff.

UPDATE: The concept that a local viewpoint on something which the nation reacts to collectively (such as movies) is valueless is a claim to kowtowing to some more 'national' view. In an era of news conglomerates, you can see how this is dangerous when you stop and think that movies aren't the only nationally-available-item. Iraq, for instance: shutting down the local, diverse view on a movie isn't that different from shutting down the local, diverse view on what's happening in Iraq. The elimination of the local movie critic is a step towards the elimination of the local voice on Iraq. And Iran. And whatever is next.
Link | | | 10:02 PM | Home
 

Yemen's stance on terror. The "with us or against us" dichotomy on terror is fodder for jokes and endless blogging, but surely some actions go out of the grey area and into the black. Jamal al-Badawi was part of the attack on the Cole; and Yemen is releasing him to house arrest. To me, in my inferior and ignorant seat here in the US, it makes no sense. But I'm sure it can be justified. I'm sure. Sure. It must, because Bush is wrong, and we on the left are complete and total stupid haters, we can't call something wrong here. But still...

Of course this is wrong, and of course the Admin will see it as such. Get on it, guys.
Link | | | 10:33 PM | Home

"Michael Clayton." Seen it yet? Not telling you how to spend your time, but I think this was a superior movie, a great exploration of moral ambiguity. It was also great to see established movie actors working with actors from television: there were some really nice performances going on. The story line also looped itself back nicely: initially it takes you to a point of conflagration, and then loops back to the days preceding it, and then advances the story further quite nicely. I don't think it ever got "story book," although you might think it ended predictably.

I'm amazed at how many different movies I thought I was watching at the same time. "The Road to Perdition," for instance. Clooney's character is not the altar boy, and you have a sense that he's surrounded by evil and could well die. And "Dangerous Liaisons": the bad corporate counsel spent so much time rehearsing lines for a PR interview, it reminded me of Malkovich and Close putting on all their make-up for the day. And my wife coyly talked about Tom Wilkinson stripping, a la "Full Monty": not for the same reasons, but a crisis nonetheless.
Link | | | 10:14 PM | Home
 

"I could have figured that out even if I was just eleven." That was Zoe's reaction when I told her about FEMA's fake press conference — the one where the press wasn't given sufficient notice to show up in time, and they decided to fill the "questioners" roles with staffers. (All of whom, of course, depend on paychecks and have a natural inclination to not ask anything controversial. Mustn't do that, of course, career slope and all that.) I suppose it's a start that FEMA has apologized for the stupid masquerade. But if the White House hadn't joined in with the growing chorus of disapproval, would FEMA had had adequate good sense to apologize all by themselves?

The White House reaction is telling:

Q Dana, on Tuesday, FEMA's deputy administrator held what was called a news briefing to talk about the California wildfires. And from what we understand, the questions were posed not by reporters, but by staffers, and that distinction was not made known. Is that appropriate?

MS. PERINO: It is not. It is not a practice that we would employ here at the White House or that we -- we certainly don't condone it. We didn't know about it beforehand. FEMA has issued an apology, saying that they had an error in judgment when they were attempting to try to get out a lot of information to reporters, who were asking for answers to a variety of questions in regards to the wildfires in California. It's not something I would have condoned, and they, I'm sure, will not do it again.

Q Who is responsible?

MS. PERINO: FEMA is responsible, and they have taken that -- they have accepted that responsibility, and they issued an apology today.

Q But isn't -- a follow-up on that. Isn't there a normal morning call with all the press secretaries of all the agencies here, and whether somebody is having a press briefing or not is discussed?

MS. PERINIO: We have a variety of ways that we talk to the -- communicate to the communicators in the agency. FEMA is not on that daily call, no, and I don't know if the DHS -- the head of DHS communications knew about it either. But FEMA has apologized for the error in judgment.

Q Dana, why didn't this raise alarm bells, in terms of credibility, with anyone there?

MS. PERINO: You'll have to ask them. They have admitted that they had an error in judgment. I would agree with that. They've issued an apology. You'll have to ask them about why they decided to do that.

Q But isn't the President concerned, at a time when he is traveling to the area to talk about a very significant natural disaster -- there have been issues about FEMA in the past, trying to make a distinction about progress made, and for them to effectively pretend to hold a news conference, doesn't the President have concerns about that?

MS. PERINO: I just said that the White House did not know about it before hand, and the White House condones* [sic] it. And they have apologized for it. They had an error in judgment, they've admitted that. And I think that what they were -- I don't think that there was any mal-intent. I think that they were trying to provide information to the public through the press, because there were so many questions pouring in. It was just a bad way to handle it, and they know that.

Q Will anybody be reprimanded?

MS. PERINO: You'll have to ask FEMA.

I mean, this is not exactly a stinging rebuke: "error in judgment" was about as far as it went. Of course, if they had done anything similar to the way Romney jettisoned Larry Craig from his campaign retinue, there would have been plenty of room to point fingers over hypocrisy, given all else that's gone. The WH never really said they were wrong to put columnists on the payroll, or wrong to issue PR clips as if they came from independent reporters. At best they said they wouldn't do it again, not that there was any guilt or recognition that this is what 1984-ish governments do. Absolutely not!

UPDATE: DHS head Michael Chertoff erupts.
Link | | | 9:18 PM | Home
 

Hilarious! Ron Paul has been getting attention in the GOP Presidential field, due both to his unique (for the GOP) position that we need to disentangle ourselves from Iraq, pronto, and for his relatively libertarian views. Apparently the right wing blog Red State thinks he gets too much attention from visitors who post about him: the topic is not allowed at the dinner table. Regular readers of political blogs are used to "trolls," commenters who are either offensive or are very much against a specific blog's POV. But Red State is banning commentary from supporters of a GOP candidate.

We've seen this kind of "conform or get out" attitude elsewhere: the acronyms of RINO and DINO are frequently used. And efforts are made to shout down politicians who aren't extreme enough for their tastes. But this kind of clubby ban on supporters of a candidate in your own party is the first I've heard.

(An offhand comment: I don't think it's fair to call someone of an opposing view a troll if they're civil and discuss reasonably. The Town Square should welcome frank discussion. But that's how the word is often used.)
Link | | | 9:53 PM | Home
 

Trevi Fountain goes red, thanks to a vandal with enough sense to dye its water without hurting it. Sure, immediate reactions saw it as an affront, and probably hated the idea of a permanent stain, but when it was found to be harmless attitudes softened. Of course, if this were the U.S., you can imagine the reaction: this was obviously an appeal to the Red Hand, the so called "artist" (GMAFB!) is therefore a terrorist, and must be hunted down. Banksy might get away with inserting his parodies onto the walls of the Brooklyn Museum of Art and other New York museums, but This. Will. Not. Pass.

Do I need to back this up? In her recent "Diary of a Mad Law Professor" column in The Nation, Patricia J. Williams wrote of the legal horrors which confront someone who planned on an exhibit at a modern art museum which included Petri dishes. The artist's wife was dying in the middle of the night, and he called the police, who saw the petri dishes and feared bioterrorism in the works. Even though the FBI quickly decided the cultures were completely harmless, federal prosecutors are continuing to pursue the case as mail fraud (forms which specified why the bacteria were being shipped were not properly filled out). And the case, as rare as it is, is being charged under the Patriot Act: meaning a case which ordinarily wouldn't be pursued is, and the potential penalty doubles from ten years in the slammer to twenty, thanks to the Patriot Act. Read it here ($). I guess this the prosecutors are really desperate for terrorism convictions: maybe it's a "use it or lose it" attitude some bureaucrats have over budgets.

Pass a law, and it's bound to get abused. Maybe some more than others. Over at Open Left, emptywheel brings a pertinent police action to our attention: the Broward County Sheriff's office persuaded Google to release IP information on Blogger comments (Google owns Blogger) to trace someone who left a threatening comment on a blog... But allegedly misrepresented their pursuit as related to child porn, a threat which Google had already agreed to out.

Is it any wonder then, that we should be reluctant to grant the telecoms a freebie for their cooperation with the Bush Administration over cooperating with unwarranted wiretaps, both before and after 9/11? I'm sorry, but ignorance doesn't cut it, and "we were only following orders" doesn't cut it either.

If Trevi Fountain were here in the U.S., maybe it deserves to be stained. Perhaps not to awaken a film festival (the supposed motive for dyeing Trevi's waters). Perhaps we need something similarly dramatic to demonstrate how much we've lost in our sense of freedom and individuality since Bush and Cheney retitled the Constitution to something in their own names. Nothing life threatening, or anything that might harm anyone. Just something to make a point: a giant Last Supper mural, perhaps, with Bush saying "Is it me, Lord?"
Link | | | 10:11 PM | Home
 

The unexpected, glorious consequences of Bush and Iraq. Time was, not so long ago, when conservative bloggers like those at Powerline looked at the post-Iraq world and saw portents of positive change in a post-invasion world, and celebrated Bush's butterfly effect: it was a retroactive reading of cause and effect, kind of like the Bible Code.

But in their views it was legitimate: how else to explain Libya's willingness to open itself up, Ukraine's blue revolution, Lebanon's move away from the influence of Syria? Never mind that there were other explanations (in the case of Libya, the Brits were the impetus, not us, and it started long before we invaded Iraq), or that the effects of these causes might have been shortlived, or that freely held elections allowed bad people to come into power. Never mind, don't quibble with the details, the details don't count, it's the personality cult which matters. That and only that. Well, at least to them: with Bush's continually tanked approval ratings, it's clear that the vast majority of Americans haven't been drinking the same Kool Aid.

This week Jon Stewart used his comedic freedom and bully pulpit to highlight Turkey's growing anger to intrusions from the Iraqi Kurd terrorists PKK — and contrast Bush's call for cooler heads with our invasion of Iraq, on preemptive pretexts which ultimately had no merit. Now of course the threat of a renegade band of terrorists plunking a couple dozen soldiers isn't of the same magnitude as a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud; it would be silly to put the two on the same scale. But on the other hand, the former intrusion is a reality, and the "mushroom cloud" was at best a bogey man under the bed, if not an outright lie.

Bush's butterfly wings have had all sorts of "unintended consequences," but calling them that is a euphemistic lie. I have not read the State Department's pre-war report on what was anticipated, but I do know from news reports that it was rejected by Bush et al and it was largely accurate. And of course I also know, as do you, that Condoleezza Rice claimed that no one could have ever anticipated anyone flying jets directly into buildings, too, even though the intelligence agencies presented that very scenario. So forgive me if, in my VERY wild imagination I figure that some imaginative person raised the possibility that a very fragile coalition might be vulnerable to renegade factions deciding they knew what was best and wouldn't follow the policies of those above them.

It doesn't take a Master's degree in Mideast culture or history to see this as coming. I've alluded to sectarian violence in Ireland before here (Irish history is a side interest of mine) and I know that elements in the IRA haven't always "behaved," and its membership has not been monolithic. I mean, seriously, the Good Friday accords have run into trouble because hard liners have rejected the terms and gone off on their own.

Is the Bush Administration genuinely surprised that the PKK would strike while the iron is hot? Did the Bush Administration really expect that Turkey would feel that the PKK is a mere gnat, to be ignored, and that Turkey would be confident that the PKK wouldn't be emboldened if not resoundingly responded to?

Or (duh), was this all just another case of wishful thinking on the Bush Administration's part, along the lines of flowers and candies strewn in the streets?
Link | | | 9:44 PM | Home
 

Back to top.