Who Knows?

Walter Shapiro's article outlining several different conclusions to the Democratic primary is really worth a read. The CW has it, correcty, in my view, that a nominee pushed over the edge by superdelegates would be very bad for the party. I'm optimistic that this won't happen, but it certainly looks like this race could very well drag on into June. This isn't necessarily all bad. If the race does go on into June that means that John McCain will not have as much time to construct a line of attack on a presumptive Dem nominee. When it was all but certain that Kerry had the nomination by mid February in '04, Bush began the flip-flop argument very early and the media coalesced around it, and the argument stuck. It looks like St. McCain will not have this luxury.

On the flip side, this could allow McCain crucial time to mend his image with the GOP base. However, considering how some of the right-wing noise machines heavy hitters have sounded off in recent weeks, no amount of time may be sufficient for St. McCain to make things right.

Good vs. Evil

I've been meaning to link to this great article by Gershom Gorenberg for a few days now. It's pretty much a berated point now, but one of the great failings of the Bush administration's foreign policy has been the unencumbered embrace of a good vs. evil mentality. Gorenberg states it perfecty here:

...The neocons are Cold Warriors sorry that it was cold. Their policy vision is quasi-theological: Whether or not there is a God, there is most certainly a devil. The evil empire is gone, but the axis of evil is present. It would not do to compromise with the devil, or contain him. His territory must be pushed back, transferred to democracy and American hegemony. This way of thinking restores a sense of order when looking at the Middle East -- two sides, facing each other. Of course Saddam and Al-Qaeda were in cahoots: They are both bad, so they must be allies. In this conception, the new world order looks just like the old -- it is bipolar.

Terrorism is a tactic as oppossed to a theology. That is why the label "War on Terror" is so misleading. It would be like calling a campaign to fight child obesity the "War on Eating", except we don't want to stop children from eating, rather we would like to discourage overeating and the consumption of excess amounts of unhealthy foods. There is no doubt in my mind that terrorists are evil. However, terrorism is a tactic used in a greater campaign. The goal of that campaign is not necessarily evil. Many terrorist groups have legitimate causes. Unfortunately, the utilization of terror has the effect of deligitimizing those causes in the eyes of the world. We also must be careful as to what groups we label terrorists. Insurgents fighting against Americans aren't terrorists. Bush and the media seem to define anyone that shoots at an American utilizing guerilla tactics a "terrorist." One problem, we used the same tactics in the Revolutionary War, and we take credit for that. If China, Russia, and Europe banded together to invade America, I'm sure we would cheer when American militias shot RPGs at Occupation forces. We would have reason to cheer, after all, our used of guerilla tactics has enabled us to mount an effective resistance against the Occupation. This seems to get lost in the fray of our conversation.

Disclaimer: I shouldn't even have to write this, but, I feel I need to to clarify my stance in this post. I find terrorist groups such as Al-Qeada and Hamas abhorrent. I in no way sympathize with these groups or their tactics. While I disagree with the label "War on Terror" and some of the resulting consequences of the campaign against "terror", I do believe the terrorist threat is real and am pleased that it has been, and continues to be addressed. Moreover, while I oppossed the war in Iraq from the beginning and still do today, I support the American campaign in Afghanistan. I have friends and family that serve in the military. I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for their service and courage in the name of their country.

Great Picture

I'm a Liberal, Hear me Roar!

You should definately give this Nation column by Eric Alterman a read. The fact is, as Alterman points out, that the positions most Americans hold on the major issues are often on the liberal side of the coin. While I don't have a huge problem with the word "progressive", in fact I like it, and its meaning very much, the word that describes the politics of a center-left Democrat is "liberal". In other words, I agree with Matt Yglesias when he says that "liberalism" is a political philosophy, whereas, "progressive" is a word for a coalition that puts liberalism into action. That being said, it's comforting that in this election Democrats are comfortable calling themselves progressives, as opposed to 2004 when Kerry and Edwards were going out their way to explain how conservative they are.

"We've got to give them some stimulus. We've got to give them some tax relief."

That's St. McCain on the campaign trail recently, lending his thoughts on the economy. Well St. McCain of Arizona was the only flipping Senator that neglected to show up to vote for the "green" stimulus package last night. He had recently pointed out that a stimulus bill was needed desperately. John McCain should be hammered for this. He has been proclaiming himself the frontrunner since Supercalifragilistic Totalitarian Tuesday, wouldn't that enable him to free up some time to get on a fucking plance and vote for the package. My understanding is that the stimulus package failed by a single vote. This bill would've increased the amount of people getting tax rebates (actually lifting the cieling, therefore more rich people would get rebates, shouldn't the GOP like that), provided incentives for renewable energy, and increased unemployment benefits. Once again, it failed by a single vote. Brad Plumer has got a great post over at the The Plank detailing some of the other votes that St. McCain, son of God, heir to the throne of the Lord, has missed. The real tragedy is that the media will most likely let this slip by. The Chris Matthews', Anne Kornblut's, and David Gregory's of the world (not to mention countless others) will ignore this completely in order to continue their fawning coverage of the heroic and manly St. McCain.

Enough has been said. God help us all...

Shaquille O'Neal: World's Greatest Irishman

Marion and Banks for Shaq? Um...what? This seems like pure lunacy to me. A team that had previously prided itself on its fearless and adrenaline charged style of play has ditched Shawn Marion and Marcus Banks for a 325 pound, injury prone, old man. I don't understand this one bit. Over at ESPN J.A. Adande has this gem, where he attempts to understand Phoenix's intentions with this trade. When theorizing that Suns are trying to buy a ring he laments:

I'd rather see them go out like Tom Hanks in "Saving Private Ryan," pulling out his pistol and firing away at the German tank in a last desperate effort to save the bridge. Or show some of that same defiance as Denzel Washington in "American Gangster," making one last trip to Asia to import more heroin even though everybody's telling him the game is over.

Bravo! The Suns were the team in the West that I always really liked. I always felt that despite having a number of extraordinary players: Nash, Stoudamire, Marion, etc.; that what really drove them was there chemistry. Shaq has an ego the size of Rhode Island and that's exactly what Phoenix doesn't need. Plus, this trade is going to create a plethora of annoying headlines about Shaq and Kobe duking it out for the crown in the West. This is a tragedy folks, a down-right crying shame!

OK, so maybe Webb shouldn't be VP

Perhaps I spoke too soon when advocating for Jim Webb as the VP nom. Ezra has a great post detailing how the Senate plays to Webb's strengths. His military knowledge and passion for ordinary soldiers is unmatched in the Senate. Anyways, check out the post.