McCain, Warner, Graham: Remember when...?

Sometimes it's interesting, in a bittersweet way, to go back and read news articles from the past -- for example, this one from a little less than two weeks ago -- and reflect on a more hopeful time for America.
After that Jerry Falwell incident, I wonder how chummy a reception McCain will get from Jon Stewart (whom he seems to count on for his "hip" factor) next time he's on, based on this whole torture thing...
What happens behind those Oval Office doors during Senate-White House negotiations?
Based on the blatant contempt for the Geneva Conventions over there, you gotta wonder...

Who's Afraid of Bob Woodward?

So everybody is talking about this book, State of Denial: Woodward (I mean Bush) at War, Part III

It's coming out on Tuesday and all the cool kids in Washington and the surrounding blogopolis are gonna read it, so I thought I better mention it, even though I'm kinda busy myself with reading Virginia Woolf for school.

Crazy about that Andy Card thing, though.

Everything, indeed everything in moderation

Too much testosterone kills brains cells

And as a chick, the results of the estrogen test conducted "to be fair" made me chuckle quite daintily.

Indeed, the scientist who conducted the study happens to be a woman. But I don't find it surprising that the hypothesis may not have occurred as naturally to some of her male colleagues, particularly the ones who have been busy conducting tests like this, which I hate to say seem to depend for their conclusions on much fuzzier, or "softer," if you will, data and methodology.

Not that there's anything wrong with being fuzzy, of course, in moderation.

Macaca '08, RIP

If there is a drop of sanity left in America, anyway, George Allen won't be the Republican nominee for the White House.
I suppose a radical moderate shouldn't be indulging in catty name-calling, but, hey, he started it.
The thing is that, although I take for a given that all politicians are a bit slutty, once in a while one just rises above the rest in terms of that "ick" factor, and George always had that effect on me. I hate to say it, but I'd almost rather see Cheney at the top spot; at least he keeps a low profile (although I probably only say that because he's not running.)

But the main thing I'm glad for right now is that I don't live in Virginia, where Allen's "moderate" Senate competition is only vaguely more appealing.

While I'm being gleefully juvenile, it reminds me of a certain "South Park" episode.

Couldn't those waffling appeasers over at DNI even bother to translate "cause celebre" into English?

So here's the nugget from the declassified NIE that's just been leaked, wrangled, digested and spun with whirlwind speed over the last few days in Washington (along with some other boring parts about how lots more different kinds of people are even more excited about trying to kill us than ever before):

"We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

So what's the gist of this?
Could it possibly be what moderate voices in both parties (although admittedly more of them on the Dem side) have been saying over the last year or so, that it was a mistake to go into Iraq because, false pretenses aside, it was bad strategy for the so-called war on terror and has only made things worse, but since we're in it deep now, we need to figure out a way to get out smart and make sure the Iraqis have their Shiites together with their Kurds and Sunnis so we don't leave behind what would amount to the world's largest terrorist training camp.
It's a good thing Rove, Cheney & co. decided to just find a way to spin this, or else they'd have to accuse their own intel people of flip-flopping, waffling, or whatever new term they've coined for a foolish inconsistency.

Clinton on Fox: Pissed, yes; Blindsided, no.

According to Slate's John Dickerson, who called it pretty well, I think.

And finally, a fun little Right-Winger parlour game

Name three other things Mark Twain, Noam Chomsky and Osama bin Laden have in common.

And in that vein, is Satan the new Hitler this season?

Generation Last?

So these kids believe, in a fairly political take on Christianity...

(I mean, I can empathize; I grew up believing I would leave this earth before age 30, and this even before aspiring toward poetry as a career choice.)
But with kids on the other side of the world believing just as fervently in their own vision of reality, and each side casting each other as the bad guys, what kind of future are we looking at?

Interesting, too, how evangelicals who don't happen to be depicted in this film, "Jesus Camp" are getting just as freaked out as the rest of us (or myself, at least) about how wacky these people look on film.

But you can only push a moderate so far: Clinton on Fox News Sunday

Bill Clinton gets closer to killing Chris Wallace (I mean bin Laden) than anyone since.

I know what Bill means about the little smirk, but I think Wallace was born that way; must come from somewhere back on his mother's side.

Here's the full transcript.

On the perils of being too nice

I caught Afghan President Hamid Karzai repeating the following sentiment on a "Late Edition" interview this afternoon with guest host John King.

Here is an excerpt from a Time Magazine article from earlier this month:

TIME: President Karzai, let me ask you about your own style of governance. A number of people have said that one of the best things about you is that you consult with a wide range of Afghans, people within your government, your cabinet...

Karzai: I am criticized for that.

TIME: At the same time there are a number of people who have said that is the wrong approach. You are too nice to be leading the country in this way in this time. Do you think you are too nice?

Karzai: Well it's not bad to be nice. It's a very good thing to be nice. But look. What was the problem in Afghanistan? Why did Afghanistan fall to terrorism and the trouble that caused you trouble as well in the rest of the world? The trouble was twofold.

(and he goes on to offer a coherent argument, which is something in itself. Whether or not it's a valid one, I couldn't say. I'm no expert on Afghanistan. But I can't help but root for the nice guy every once in a while.)

It always gives me a sense of satisfaction to hear the obvious confirmed.

Spy agencies say Iraq war is hurting U.S. terror fight

Hey There

So by way of introduction, before someone calls me an oxymoron (I'm sure I've been called worse) here's a nutshell defense of what I mean by "radical moderate."
I'm not talking middle-of-the-road, let's-not-rock-the-boat sort of moderate.
What I like about the classical concept of the golden mean with regard to ethics (if you're looking for my take on geometry, I'm sorry to say that I missed that boat back in eleventh grade) is that it's not about where you end up on the spectrum but how you arrive there. And just because the center may at times resemble, for instance, what used to be the Right, that doesn't mean moderates have to pack up and head east. Just because the current mode is to view George H.W. Bush as a moderate doesn't mean anything more than the fact that a decade or so ago, Bill Clinton seemed to look like one. Although I respect the latter in many ways, neither are precisely the model for my conception of what a radical moderate would look like in the political realm.
It's not about carving out a niche in the spectrum or compromise for compromise's sake but a state of mind and the corresponding behavior of thoughtful consideration and open dialogue.
A passionate dedication to thoughtful consideration and open, unprejudiced dialogue informed by firsthand research and mutual respect (as opposed to the current mode of either polarized vitriol or spineless compromise) seems like something worth fighting for.