Month: October 2010

A preview of the Republican civil war to come

“With all due candor, appearing on your own reality show on the Discovery Channel, I am not certain how that fits in the American calculus of ‘that helps me see you in the Oval Office’,” Mr Rove told The Daily Telegraph in an interview. He added that the promotional clip for Sarah Palin’s Alaska could be especially detrimental to any political campaign. It features the mother of five in the great outdoors saying: “I would rather be doing this than in some stuffy old political office.” Mr Rove, who remains a major force on the US political scene, also implied that Mrs Palin lacked the stomach for the rigors of a presidential primary campaign, which will begin early next year before the first polls in 2012.

Mr Rove was asked if the 46-year-old Mrs Palin, who is among the front-runners for the next Republican nomination, would be a wise choice if the party wanted to seize the White House from President Barack Obama. He replied: “You can make a plausible case for any of them on paper, but it is not going to be paper in 2011. It’s going to be blood, it’s going to be sweat and tears and it’s going to be hard effort.”

He said Mrs Palin had done a “terrific job” in 2008 when Senator John McCain took her from near obscurity to the vice-presidential nomination, but added: “Being the vice-presidential nominee on the ticket is different from saying ‘I want to be the person at the top of the ticket’.

“There are high standards that the American people have for it [the presidency] and they require a certain level of gravitas, and they want to look at the candidate and say ‘that candidate is doing things that gives me confidence that they are up to the most demanding job in the world’.”

Kevin Williamson argues that the left doesn't take it seriously enough – but doesn't manage to convince Kevin Drum, the person with whom he's arguing. Adam Serwer calls the debate a "racket":

 [Voter fraud allegations provide] a pretext for one side to try and disqualify the other sides' voters, to cast doubts on the legitimacy of their opponents' victory should they actually lose, and justify more restrictive voting laws that are more likely to negatively affect Democratic leaning constituencies. That's why despite the ongoing non-existence of voter fraud, Republicans continue to pretend it's a problem. It's a lucrative and ideologically useful myth. It also distracts from very real ongoing structural problems with our voting system – problems that get overlooked because of the disproportionate focus on sensational accusations of voter fraud.

Joe Miller Halloweens Murkowski:

On how he came out, and met his partner:

So we get this story today with this headline:

Activist Tells of Torture in North Korea Prison

And I have no doubt he was tortured. But we know the NYT is a real stickler for the word "torture" and refuses to use it in its news pages for waterboarding, hanging people in stress positions for long periods of time, freezing people to near death, and all the techniques the Bush administration used against prisoners under its control in the war on terror. So presumably, this time, we have evidence that the torture used in this case by North Korea was much, much worse (if indeed that's possible).

But all we find out in the NYT is that Park was subject to "beatings, torture and sexual abuse." We know that beatings and sexual abuse were never described as torture by the NYT when it came to the US. So what do we know about the rest of Park's treatment?

We know only what he tells us – and that is "sexual torture."

“As a result of what happened to me in North Korea, I’ve thrown away any kind of personal desire. I will never, you know, be able to have a marriage or any kind of relationship.”

Again, the North Korean regime is arguably the most evil and disgusting one on earth and I'm sure Parks' treatment was horrifying. And maybe it was more extreme than the stripping, sexual humiliation, rape and sexual abuse at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib. And perhaps the abuse in general was worse than was credibly reported at Camp Mercury and Camp Tiger and Camp Nama, under Stanley McChrystal's eagle eye… but the point is: we don't know, and neither does the NYT.

But they use the word "torture" plainly, clearly and loudly, in a headline no less, because the treatment was inflicted by a foreign power. When it comes to torture by the US, the euphemisms and circumlocutions and Orwellianisms come flooding in. And if you haven't seen this NYT "torture euphemism generator" from Boing Boing, here it is. Hilarious and utterly depressing about the rank cowardice and chauvinism of a major and great newspaper.

Larry Sabato gives final predictions:

Before Labor Day we issued a projection of +47 net gains for the Republicans. … Even at this late date, we see no need to do anything but tweak the total R gains, based on more complete information now available to all. Thus, we are raising the total to +55 net R seats. We consider 47 to be in the ballpark still, but more of a floor than a ceiling.

He also forecasts an 8 seat Republican gain in the Senate. It's a big wave.

(Photo: David McNew/Getty.)

Dave Roberts coined the term. Yglesias provides a definition:

Well of course much like a deficit hawk or a national security hawk or an inflation hawk, a climate hawk is tough-minded and awesome and entitled to worshipful media coverage. We’re very serious people who want to confront the major challenges of our time. Are we environmentalists? Perhaps. But many of us aren’t really “nature-lovers,” we just think it would be unfortunate if low-lying areas were flooded, while vast new regions of the earth are stricken with drought. We recognize that the particulate pollution from burning coal and the geopolitical consequences of oil dependence are both dire enough to make a compelling case for energy reform even apart from the greenhouse gas issue.

(Hat tip: Cohn)

Seymour Hersh visits the front lines:

There is surprising unanimity among cyber-security experts on one issue: that the immediate cyber threat does not come from traditional terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, at least, not for the moment. “Terrorist groups are not particularly good now in attacking our computer system,” John Arquilla told me. “They’re not that interested in it—yet. The question is: Do vulnerabilities exist inside America? And, if they do, the terrorists eventually will exploit them.” Arquilla added a disturbing thought: “The terrorists of today rely on cyberspace, and they have to be good at cyber security to protect their operations.” As terrorist groups get better at defense, they may eventually turn to offense.

A reader writes:

Just wanted to say that I think it’s wonderful that you are being so clear and direct and sane in talking about the things that are happening in our politics these days, whether that means calling out the GOP and the broader right wing for their disgraceful nihilism, identifying the incoherence of the Tea Party, giving Obama credit and criticism to the extents that they are due, or whatever else.

I’ve long appreciated your writing for your insights into our politics and culture, but in this present era of madness, its directness and boldness are especially refreshing. Thanks for not backing down, for not allowing yourself to be cowed into silence, and also for not losing hope in an environment that so easily breeds cynicism.

Ben Goldacre combines a misleading Daily Mail story on breast cancer (which has a major caveat in paragraph 19) with research on how we read newspapers:

[B]y the time you get to a story length of 8 to 11 paragraphs, on average, your readers read only half the story. A minority will make it to paragraph number 19, where, on this occasion, a fraction of the readers of the Daily Mail would have discovered that the central premise of the news story – that a new trial had found a 40% reduction in cancer through intermittent dieting – was false.

Caveats in paragraph 19 are common. This evidence strongly suggests that they are also a sop: they permit a defense against criticism, through the strictest, most rigorous analysis of a piece. But if your interest is informing a reader, they are plainly misleading.