49chevy.com

The Daily Dish: Greenwald on Brooks

I don't know who Glenn Greewald is, I guess he's a pretty right-leaning type.  But I do think rather highly of Andrew Sullivan, despite my own left-leaning inclinations, because he at least is somebody who espouses genuine conservatism, not this perverted "compassionate" variation that descended on Bushworld.  I find myself nodding whenever I see Andrew on the TeeVee, i.e. on the Bill Maher show or, recently, as a guest on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, as seen here:

It actually reinforces my respect for Sullivan knowing that he is the doubly oxymoronic Gay Catholic Republican.  But what compels me to mention Sullivan here is this item that appeared on his website yesterday, in which he cites a column by the aforementioned Mr. Greenwald and takes issue with NYTimes 'conservative' pundit -- and Bush enabler -- David Brooks.  The money quote, as cited in Sullivan's blog:

Conservatism has been highjacked by an ideology favoring an authoritarian, constantly-militarist, debt-ridden welfare state. It has no real roots in the Anglo-American conservative tradition. It explicitly rebukes Reagan and Goldwater as outmoded icons. David Brooks has decided to side with the Bush agenda - against individual freedom and for more government power over people's lives.   

Link: The Daily Dish: Greenwald on Brooks.

The real irony here seems to me to be that since Bush and his door--mat Republicans have taken their party SOoooo far to the radically deranged right, what used to be mainstream conservatism has now become middle of the road.  No wonder "liberal" is now regarded as "far left."

The Medium Is STILL the Message

  ...and copyright on subscription websites be damned. 

I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, and I just read this column by deputy editor Daniel Henninger (the right wing's answer to Frank Rich) that describes how the fundamentally different technology behind the Internet is now changing the way we think, and the impact that is having on the culture of politics.  But don't bother clicking on the link to the article, because you can't get it unless you are a WSJ subscriber.  The gist of the article is:

For more than a century, we were conditioned by the world of Lily Tomlin's famous telephone switchboard operator, Ernestine. Ernestine's "switch" was a circuit-switch, which means it connects A directly to B. Conversation or faxed data travels in a predetermined channel.

Packet-switching could hardly be more different. Information departs point A but then breaks into pieces, or packets, and bounces around a shared network almost randomly, then somehow arrives together at point B. The packet is a bundle of electrons, but "packet" is an apt metaphor for how the technology has changed us. Rather than sit still to fully absorb a copper-wire's stiff stream of information, we flip through screens, sorting fragments of data into a final thought or solution.

As I mentioned, the original text of this article is not available online unless you are a Wall Street Journal subscdriber.  However, I think this particular column is so astute and important that I am going to stick my neck out and paste the entire text into the continuation of this blog post.  I consider this "fair use," and if the WSJ thinks otherwise, the worst they can to do me under the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is tell me to take it down.

Steve Jobs Introduces the Solution to iRack

Why Not Bill Richardson?

Amid all endless hype about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, along comes conservative NYTimes columnist David Brooks  -- of all people! -- to take a serious look at New Mexico governor Bill Richardson.  Turns out Richardson might be the most qualified of all the major contenders for the Democratic nomination:

He’s a successful two-term governor who was re-elected with 69 percent of the vote in New Mexico, a red state. Moreover, he’s a governor with foreign policy experience. He was U.N. ambassador. He worked in the State Department. He’s made a second career of negotiating on special assignments with dictators like Saddam, Castro and Kim Jong Il. He negotiated a truce in Sudan.

Most of all, he’s not a senator. Since 1961, 40 senators have run for president and their record is 0-40. A senator may win this year, but you’d be foolish to assume it.

 

It's my considered opinion that the media's preoccupation with Clinton and Obama  -- still 10-some months before the first primary votes are cast and the better part of two years yet before the general election -- is going to have the same effect on those two candidates that all the early 2004 hype had on Howard Dean.  They're going to mutually self-destruct before a single vote is cast.  From such carnage, its entirely reasonable that somebody like Bill Richardson could emerge. 

Of course, that's assuming that Al Gore keeps enjoying his meals and stays on the sidelines, buying carbon offsets.