August 18, 2006
Listen.
The radio show is up! Go here, and click on "Listen" at the 8:00 hour. It's a fast-moving hour with me and Matt Rothschild -- of "The Progressive" -- talking about the new NSA case, Iraq, Lebanon, and lots of American politics (including Lamont and Lieberman, Hillary and Russ, and Mark Green and Jim Doyle).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I thought the most interesting moment occurred when you became host and asked Mr. Rothschild if his "cut-and-run" strategy was the position of the Democratic party and he refused to bite. I think the Democratic party should remain a large tent and include: (1) those who feel our presence in Iraq was ill-founded and remains an impediment to progress there; and (2) those who feel our presence in Iraq was ill-founded and remains necessary due to the unstable nature of Iraq's government and security at this point. In my personal opinion, I do not know which is the better policy, not having been there and also not having sufficient information at hand to make a good decision. However, I do think the difference between having a flexible timetable for withdrawal and "standing down when the Iraqis stand up" is negligible.
They did it again - "this is our friday week in review where we welcome in two guests from different perspectives to talk with you about the news of the week." So naturally, they have the editor of the undoubtedly left-leaning "The Progressive" magazine, and then they have Ann Althouse, to present - with heavy inference - a different perspective.
Simon: Yeah, note that I was more pro-Doyle than him.
Vegetius: I hadn't seen the Hersh piece. I did notice he was citing Hersh and Fisk, but I didn't think it was worth attacking them in a very general way.
I felt like he was using his masculinity to put you down and to assert some sort of authority over the discussion. He kept saying, with a deeper voice than I think he really has "Let me get in here, Ann."
Did anyone else pick up on that?
Stephen: I know what you mean. I think it's better when there's interplay, but he was trying to make it seem like it was off limits to insert any dialogue. I don't like the "let me finish" talk and do think it's a power play. But, don't worry, I wasn't the slightest bit intimidated. In his defense, I took the liberty to hold forth at some length and he probably felt entitled to get equal time. But it is interesting to analyze the sexual politics of it. I was the female and the hawk. That must create pressure on him to reestablish masculinity. Off mike, we were completely friendly, you should know.
Johnny: "Set off simultaneous nukes in New York, DC and LA. I am not a military expert. But my guess is this would work."
I would remind you that 50 state capitals would remain, each with a tripartite government and a commitment to the American constitutional form of government. This is a value of federalism people forget about. The national government can be regenerated from the states, even if Washington is completely destroyed. New York and L.A. are not even state capitals. The destruction would profoundly motivate the widely dispersed population to respond, and no conquering power could possibly control us. As for the military, I don't know the details either, but I assume that they've accounted for the fact that the big cities are nuclear targets, which has been very well-known since the 1950s.
I was thinking the same thing, just yesterday. Blowing up NYC, LA, and DC would potentially end America as we know it. Not the country, although perhaps it would fragment, or at least Texas would separate itself, but the current state-of-being, more than anything that has happened in the past 140-or-so years. This is scary. (It's also sort of chickensroosty.) The best reason I can think of for this not happening, assuming someone who might ever do it also has 3 nukes, is that they would give half a sec's thought to the consequences. If they're Muslim radicals, for instance, they have to consider that Mecca would be vaporized post haste. Now, I don't think that would be a useful reaction on our part, even then. If Bush had responded to 9/11 by saying, "Our response will be truly Christian, and non-violent. I am going to pray at my church, and then at a mosque," and followed through, he would have gone from being the Worst President Ever to possibly the Greatest Human Ever To Be Alive. Seriously. Love is indeed the answer. (Not an oversimplification! Neither is it simple.)
Post a Comment