India... lives peacefully with its Muslim minority.

Gujarat riots killed 1,000 people...

Italian firms, such as Alcatel

Alcatel is French.

Posted at September 20, 2007 11:35 AM in response to Darfur In Human Figures

Ben: Syvanen makes a valid point that you might want to address.

No one questions the horror that is Darfur but the Democratic Republic of Congo (always a good sign when a country manages to shove both Democratic and Republic into its name...) is so, well, look at the figures. In 2006 the Lancet reported 4 million deaths in 10 years. That's 20 times your Darfur estimate.

So, to put it crudely, why should we care about Darfur when no one seems to give a damn about a much worse catastrophe?

Why the selective outrage?

Oil? Is that it? The Big China Threat? Is Congo's sin not to have oil?

Posted at September 19, 2007 6:22 PM in response to Darfur In Human Figures

There's a reporting-related factor that, probably even more than credulity, helps explain why Democrats are waffling on starting the withdrawal.

So, now he tells us. The Dems are wusses because they waffle and they waffle because Big Media ain't cooperating.

Damn! Gitlin had almost convinced me that the New Democrats, netroots and all, were empowered and vigorous and persuasive and visionary. But evidently if CNN isn't doing its part, it's waffle season big time for our 21st century libs. Pity.

PS Valdron nailed it: Americans don't like to get their butts kicked but Gitlin's field of view is too cluttered with American flags and too addled by dreams of the Good Empire to see that.

Posted at September 8, 2007 6:51 PM in response to Gone Missing

Hofstadter wanted to write a book that would consist solely of reviews of that very same book.

Maybe Etzioni's next project.

His post above is like putting two mirrors on opposite sides of Etzioni and being treated to an infinitude of Etzionis.

There seems to be some interest in this staggeringly brilliant comment of mine.
But never mind what I think. Here are the ratings by others:

Rated 5 by 2,000,000,000,001 users. see individual ratings.

Posted at September 8, 2007 5:17 PM in response to Security First: What Others Say

TPM Cafe is short on humor, but this was hilarious. I bet in the next installment we'll get Etzioni's fabulous 3rd grade report card.

Unfortunately, Etzioni left out the best part from Matthew Cole's review:

Take heart, conservatives: Mr. Etzioni is not against bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities.

That's a relief!

For those of you who, like me, can't get enough of Etzioni's hilarious self-promotion, the very same exact material can be found here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/7/15055/08254

and here

http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2007/09/07/security-first-what-others-say/

and here

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/9/7/151511/4675

Google is not kind to shameless promoters.

Posted at September 7, 2007 5:23 PM in response to Security First: What Others Say

Nukes flying over Louisiana??

Maybe the US Army Corps of Engineers' latest scheme for rebuilding the levees?

Posted at September 5, 2007 3:57 PM in response to Staging Nuke for Iran?

Some tips for DoD:

1. Call it Agent Green, not Agent Orange.

2. Need more fertilizer? Kill more Iraqis!

3. Why we need a strong military:

"We need a strong army so that we can invade oil-rich countries in order to ensure the steady supply of fuel for the army that we need so that we can invade oil-rich countries in order to ensure the steady supply of fuel for the army that we need so that we can invade oil-rich countries in order to ensure the steady supply of fuel for the army that we need so that we can invade oil-rich countries in order to ensure the steady supply of fuel for the army that we need so that we can invade oil-rich countries in order to ensure the steady supply of fuel for the army that we need so that we can invade oil-rich countries in order to ensure the steady supply of fuel for the army that we need so that we can invade oil-rich countries in order to ensure the steady supply of fuel for the army that we need so that we can invade oil-rich countries ..."

Posted at September 5, 2007 3:45 PM in response to A Greener, Meaner Military?

Gitlin rates my comment a 1.

Doesn't reply to it.

A classy guy. Proves my point.

Posted at September 3, 2007 7:26 PM in response to The Bulldozer and the Big Tent

OK, I'll be blunt. This is my biggest disappointment with TPM Cafe. When they wheel in the "thinkers" like Gitlin or the happily-defunct AA crew, we are invariably treated to a bowl of intellectual oatmeal.
(I'll explain why later.)

I am not saying we need Sandel or the ghost of Rawls to preside over the proceedings, but could we have once in a while a discussion about first principles from the main posters that rises above grade school platitudes?

Over at American Prospect, Tomasky has, on occasion, valiantly tried to ask the big questions: who are we as progressives and what do we stand for? But he's been a lone voice in the dark.

This is not the pursuit of intellectualism for its own sake. It's the simple observation that, if you want to motivate people to work their asses off in pursuit of a goal, you have to give them something more inspiring than "smart counterrorism," and "reliable fuel supply."

I think the Dems need to go back to the root of their creed, which is the belief that, whether rich or poor, sick or healthy, pale or dark, male or female, gay or straight, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Wiccan, we are all in it together. And that to be a true patriot is not the desire for a "Strong America" but, for example, being heart-broken that our brothers and sisters in New Orleans are aching.

This is ideological stuff. Right-wingers would never call New Orleans residents our "brothers" and "sisters." Republicans believe that people in New Orleans should help themselves. (Unless they're hedge fund managers.)

We find it difficult to be proud to be American when we know that 47 million of us have no health insurance and poverty has been rising. Right-wingers have no problem with that. It means our definition of patriotism is different.
They get off knowing we have a new aircraft carrier; we get off knowing 47 million of compatriots are now insured.

But before we get to the specifics (health care and all), let's talk about WHY we want health care for everyone and poverty relief and so on.

It's NOT because we are better people. Republicans can be fine, decent human beings.
It's because we look at society differently.

And that's the point we need to examine before we can move further.

We believe the common good ought to be the highest priority of government. Not an afterthought (a la tides raising all boats).
And we believe good government is possible.

These are the questions I'd like to see debated here. But they won't be. They won't be because Republicans have won the intellectual debate.

Think about it. Liberals don't even dare call themselves liberal! (Imagine a day when conservatives don't dare call themselves conservative.) Bush has no qualms using half a trillion dollars of our tax money to throw down the Iraqi toilet (to the applause of Hillary and Gitlin), but imagine a liberal proposing half a trillion dollar reconstruction program for New Orleans.

What kind of patriots are we anyway, when we react to the destruction of one of the crown jewels of urban America with a giant shrug?
If something like that happened to Paris, the French would raise a trillion dollars worth of taxes to save the city. Because they care about their capital city. But we don't give a damn about our own cities and we dare call ourselves patriotic! Interesting, isn't it?

Government is viewed, even by Democrats, as the necessary pill one has to ingest, not as the noble vehicle that it can be for implementing our views on social justice and the pursuit of the common good.

So, in fact, I'd argue that our disagreements are very profound; and they ought to be debated and not swept under the rug.

But the power-starved Dems (they call themselves centrist even though they're way to the right) won't discuss it, and so they'll tell us in long, learned ways, how they really really care about the glory of motherhood and apple pie and little kittens more than the other side does.

I think we need to recapture the pride of our beliefs. And then the courage of our convictions.

But the likes of Gitlin are done with beliefs. Tactics is what it's all about from now on.

They've truly surrendered.

Posted at September 3, 2007 2:50 PM in response to The Bulldozer and the Big Tent

Sarkozy, the right-wing guy now president, had an electoral platform based on a 10-point program.

The socialist Royal had a 100-point program.

We know who won.

Posted at September 3, 2007 1:23 PM in response to The Bulldozer and the Big Tent