chez Nadezhda

What's up

nadezhda — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 10:57:41 -0400

praktike has now moved to Cairo to study Arabic, and I can report first hand that Cairo seems to agree with him. He's looking decidedly content and healthy. He's now blogging primarily at American Footprints, where I can also be found with a number of other bloggers.

Note: We've finally, after much grousing and snark from the multitudes, changed the name to American Footprints from "Liberals Against Terrorism." The old address will still work, but the new one is http://americanfootprints.com

Speaking of Cairo

nadezhda — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:09:11 -0400

Recent Google search that brought a visitor to this site: Cairo female escorts.

Maybe it was prak's Egypt photo gallery from last September that did it. Though as far as I recall, there's not a female in sight among all the magnificent architecture and scenery. Google sometimes moves in mysterious ways!

As the Establishment Turns

praktike — Mon, 02 May 2005 12:21:44 -0400

Yet another sign that The Party is intent on imposing its will:

WASHINGTON, May 1 - The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence.

Without the knowledge of his board, the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, contracted last year with an outside consultant to keep track of the guests' political leanings on one program, "Now With Bill Moyers."

In late March, on the recommendation of administration officials, Mr. Tomlinson hired the director of the White House Office of Global Communications as a senior staff member, corporation officials said. While she was still on the White House staff, she helped draft guidelines governing the work of two ombudsmen whom the corporation recently appointed to review the content of public radio and television broadcasts.

Mr. Tomlinson also encouraged corporation and public broadcasting officials to broadcast "The Journal Editorial Report," whose host, Paul Gigot, is editor of the conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. And while a search firm has been retained to find a successor for Kathleen A. Cox, the corporation's president and chief executive, whose contract was not renewed last month, Mr. Tomlinson has made clear to the board that his choice is Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee who is now an assistant secretary of state.

It's really hard to see this as benign, as Tomlinson claims. It may be time for me to get shrill again.

?

praktike — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:24:49 -0400

"The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them."

-Tom DeLay, Constitutional scholar

Damn you, Chief Justice John Marshall!

(via Atrios)

Is This Thing On?

praktike — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:41:44 -0400

Don't know if anyone is still reading this website, but I just wanted to flag this Scott McClellan moment for future use:

Q Have you been tracking these ethics allegations against Tom DeLay? Do you think he has some explaining to do, or as Congressman Shays says, should he step aside?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you've heard from the President, what he has said on the matter, that Majority Leader DeLay is someone the President considers a friend, and he is someone that he has worked closely with to get things done in Washington. And the President looks forward to continuing working closely with the Majority Leader to get things done on behalf of the American people. And that's what we will continue to do. We support the work that he is doing on behalf of the American people.

I'm sure this will come in handy later.

Here's a thought

praktike — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:04:01 -0500

Does Todd Zywicki believe in the efficient markets hypothesis?

I Miss Republicans

praktike — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:00:57 -0500

It's been said before, but it's worth expressing again as we, along with such estimable elephants as Episcopal Minister, former Senator and UN Ambassador John Danforth, contemplate the last gasps of responsible conservatism. Kevin Drum, a braver man than I, has apparently been poking around the Heritage Foundation's website and finds that the Lysenkosphere continues to encroach upon the Laffosphere. Michael Lind tells in Up From Conservatism that his moment of departure from the "conservative movement" was when the rightist punditocracy refused to stand up to Pat Robertson and his paranoid ravings about the "New World Order," which borrowed if not plagiarized outright from a 19th century anti-Semitic tract. It was already clear to Lind at that point (the book was published in 1997) that principled conservatism was dead, consumed or subsumed by angry populism and low-church fervor. In Lind's mind, the Republicans had already become the party of William Jennings Bryan, where they had once been the party of Lincoln.

By the way, I hope Billy Kristol enjoys his new team. It looks like even David Brooks is hinting at his discomfort, but the once-readable Weekly Standard is headed in the opposite direction. A pity.

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg, meanwhile, is not worried about Republicans, though as far as I can tell he doesn't make a convincing case that conservatism is intellectually healthy and coherent. See also Matt Y's comments.

Giant Lobster Freedom on the March

praktike — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:03:32 -0500

Freedom is contagious. And it's not just Pittsburgh anymore, the Washington Post reports today.

Scraping Bottom

praktike — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:42:40 -0500

Wow. Is this really the best they can scrounge up?

President George W. Bush today announced his intention to nominate one individual and designate one individual to serve in his Administration: The President intends to nominate Timothy D. Adams, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of the Treasury (International Affairs). Mr. Adams recently served as Policy Advisor for the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign. He previously served as Chief of Staff at the Department of the Treasury. Prior to joining the Administration, Mr. Adams served as Policy Director for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign. Earlier in his career, he co-founded and served as Managing Director of The G7 Group, a Washington, D.C. based consulting firm. Mr. Adams also served as Deputy Associate Director of the Office of Policy Development at the White House during President George H. W. Bush's Administration. He received his bachelor's degree and two master's degrees from the University of Kentucky. The President intends to designate Arnold I Havens, of Virginia, to be the Acting Deputy Secretary of the Treasury.

At least John Taylor had a PhD.

Dirty Secret

praktike — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:12:41 -0500

The Moose is disturbed, as am I, by Congress and the President's flagrant abuse of power, logic, medical ethics, and federalism in the Terri Schiavo case. He declares conservatism dead as a result. But here's the thing: there is only a small minority of people in the United States who care about means rather than ends. Democrats generally want to find ways for them government to be used for ends that their interest groups support, and Republicans are the same way if not worse. That's theoretically why we have a government set up to limit abuses of power through checks and balances and so forth. This latest power play does, however, seem more destructive of because it implies that Congress can just come in and call a "do-over" to satisfy a determined interest group, even one that doesn't make any sense.

UPDATE: Alternatively, just read Sam's healthy rant.

Phony Baloney

praktike — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:34:18 -0500

"I was telling Mother in the limousine — I don't remember talking to her about 401(k)s when I was a little guy," Bush said. "I don't remember IRAs, defined contribution plans. This world has changed since I was raised. There's a lot of young kids who now understand what it means to invest, they're comfortable with watching their money grow."

Wonder why he doesn't remember talking about retirement plans with his parents? Are tax shelters considered retirement vehicles?

Sunshine Week: Just Walk Out Please, Journos

praktike — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:42:49 -0500

It's no surprise that The Little News Bureau that could, Knight-Ridder Washington, is leading the charge against the absurd practice of anonymous background briefings:

"It's easy to say that the Bush administration has taken secrecy to a new level. Because it has," said Knight-Ridder reporter Ron Hutcheson, who is the president of the White House Correspondents Association. "But we've let them."

Hutcheson described his own personal walk-out from an anonymous briefing last term. It turned out to be a solo affair. No one followed him.

Dan Froomkin has more on the challenge of getting everyone else on board.

In other Sunshine Week related news, see the ongoing mensch-like work that the indefatiguable Steven Aftergood is doing. In particular, read his Slate piece entitled The Age of Missing Information. Freedom of Information is definitely beating a hasty retreat under the Bush administration, and Steven Aftergood is doing his level best to fight back.

... while we're on the subject, what's up with somebody trying to hamfistedly smear William Arkin? And the Gertz connection here is a bit rich, as Laura correctly notes. Gertz leaks more senstive stuff than anybody, I'd wager.

Wolfowitz has an Arab feminist girlfriend?

praktike — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:44:23 -0500

For those of you dropping by chez Nadezhda from the World Bank today, welcome. Not surprisingly, there are quite a number of you! If you're interested in a discussion of today's reactions from around the globe as well as what the Wolfowitz nomination means for the Bank's future, we're following it here in a comment thread and updates. We'd be especially interested in getting some of the reactions of Bank staff, so please feel welcome to join in the discussion. {And some further discussion here and here.} nadezhda

{original post, Oct 25 2004}

I've suspected for some time that Paul Wolfowitz is far more interesting and less ideologically rigid than he's been made out to be. This fascinating New Yorker profile and some quick googling turned up this article:

In fact, there is a woman from whom Wolfowitz does draw support and backing for his views, but she comes from a very different — and unexpected — background. His closest companion and most valued confidantes is a middle-aged Arab feminist whose own strongly held views on instilling democracy in her native West Asia have helped bolster his resolve.

Shaha Ali Riza is a senior World Bank official who was born in Tunis, grew up in Saudi Arabia and holds an international relations masters degree from St Anthony’s College, Oxford. Close acquaintances of the couple have told The Daily Telegraph that she is romantically linked with Wolfowitz, 61, a fellow divorcee with whom she has been friends for several years.

Even by the discreet standards of Washington’s powerful inner circle, it is a remarkably closely guarded secret. They rarely go out as a couple openly or demonstrate affection publicly, according to friends who are aware of the relationship. They attend low-key Washington social events and visit friends’ homes together and Riza also sometimes goes to official functions and dinners with him, but is not identified as his partner, an acquaintance said.

“Most people would never guess there was a relationship, even if they saw them together,” he said.

It is a sign of the sensitivity surrounding the relationship that the few friends willing even to acknowledge it last week did not want to be named. “Shaha Riza runs around with Wolfowitz a lot. I gather she is his current girlfriend but they are very careful about this,” said one.

As far as I know, this hasn't been denied.

I also found this strange page that asserts that Riza is under surveillance by some strange combination of the Mossad and the Mujahedin-e-Khalq.

Bizarre world we live in.

In the Spirit of Sunshine Week

praktike — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:29:00 -0500

The Washington Post has a
good editorial today:

WHAT DOES Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" have in common with the Bush administration? They're both unabashed about putting out fake news. The Bush administration's version consists of video news releases -- government-produced, government-funded spots packaged to look and sound like regular television reports, complete with fake news reporters signing off from Washington. These are intended to be, and often are, aired by local television stations without any indication that the government is behind them. The Government Accountability Office found this kind of phony news to be impermissible "covert propaganda." It warned the government last month that such prepackaged news stories must be accompanied by a "clear disclosure to the television viewing audience" of the government's involvement. The Bush administration is now instructing its officials to ignore the GAO -- which is where (in addition to the question of comedic content) the administration and Mr. Stewart diverge. He wants you to know his news is phony.

Although this administration apparently isn't the first to use video news releases, it seems more enamored of them than its predecessors. For example: A spot commissioned by the Transportation Security Administration lauds "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security," which the "reporter" describes as "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history."

It's humiliating that local news stations, however short-staffed and desperate for footage, would allow themselves to be used this way. Indeed, as the New York Times reported Sunday, some have even lopped off government attribution when it was included or pretended the government reporter was one of their own. Even so, it's disingenuous for administration officials to blame the stations, given that many releases are crafted precisely to disguise their government origin.

This technique is both illegal and unwise. As a legal matter, the prepackaged news releases run afoul of the prohibition on the use of government funds for domestic "propaganda." The administration's interpretation -- it's okay to hide the source as long as the spot is "purely informational" -- is untenable: Highlighting some "facts" and leaving out others can be even more persuasive than outright advocacy, which is why the administration chose this device. More important, this kind of propaganda masquerading as news is a deceitful way for a democratic government to do business; fake journalists paid by the government to deliver its version of news are as disturbing as real commentators paid by the government to tout its views. White House press secretary Scott McClellan defended the video news releases on Monday as "an informational tool to provide factual information to the American people." Nice sentiment, but why, exactly, wouldn't the administration want to let the people in on one of the most salient facts: who, really, is doing the talking?

Bush was finally asked about this practice at one of his rare press conferences:

Q Mr. President, earlier this year, you told us you wanted your administration to cease and desist on payments to journalists to promote your agenda. You cited the need for ethical concerns and the need for bright line between the press and the government. Your administration continue to make the use of video news releases, which is prepackaged news stories sent to television stations, fully aware that some -- or many of these stations will air them without any disclaimer that they are produced by the government. The Comptroller General of the United States, this week, said that raises ethical questions. Does it raise ethical questions about the use of government money to produce stories about the government that wind up being aired with no disclosure that they were produced by the government?

THE PRESIDENT: There is a Justice Department opinion that says these -- these pieces are within the law, so long as they're based upon facts, not advocacy. And I expect our agencies to adhere to that ruling, to that Justice Department opinion. This has been a longstanding practice of the federal government to use these types of videos. The Agricultural Department, as I understand it, has been using these videos for a long period of time. The Defense Department, other departments have been doing so. It's important that they be based on the guidelines set out by the Justice Department.

Now, I also -- I think it would be helpful if local stations then disclosed to their viewers that that's -- that this was based upon a factual report, and they chose to use it. But evidently, in some cases, that's not the case. So, anyway.

Q The administration could guarantee that's happening by including that language in the pre-packaged report.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I don't -- oh, you mean a disclosure, "I'm George W. Bush, and I" --

Q Well, some way to make sure it couldn't air without the disclosure that you believe is so vital.

THE PRESIDENT: You know, Ken, there's a procedure that we're going to follow, and the local stations ought to -- if there's a deep concern about that, ought to tell their viewers what they're watching.

Weak, weak stuff for the leader of the free world.

Meanwhile, Friends of the Earth has uncovered more deliberately misleading VNRs.

This is, to put it mildy, an embarrassing situation for the world's oldest democracy. I'm wondering where the so-called libertarians are on this one.

(thanks to dKos for the links)

ANWR, RIP

praktike — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:20:37 -0500

Alas:

Amid the backdrop of soaring oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate on Wednesday voted to open the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, delivering a major energy policy win for President Bush (news - web sites).

The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster — a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.

... not completely over yet, as the Times explains:

For drilling to take place, the Senate will later have to pass a measure explicitly authorizing the opening of the wildlife refuge to drilling, something that until now has been prohibited. Then the House of Representatives would have to explicitly authorize drilling as well.

UPDATE: Steve Soto has an interesting theory on why Hawaii's two Senators voted to drill.

Cool, Refreshing Chaiterade

praktike — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:48:29 -0500

I'm enjoying Jon Chait's blogging chez TPM. He notes today that America's elderly are by and large opposed to privatization because they're nice people who care for their families and fellow Americans. I can't help thinking, though, that the way Bush sneers, "you'll get your checks" has to bother a lot of these folks. It bothers me. It just sounds so ... condescending. Nasty, even.

That said, apparently according to John Zogby (and Nadezhda) there is, in fact some empirical support for the Mallabyian conventional wisdom that the Democrats need to do something to show that they, too, believe in some kind of opportunity society.

How To Write Like a Conservative

praktike — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:20:27 -0500

First, choose an aspect of popular culture that you find offensive. This can be anything from Janet Jackson’s breast to “Desperate Housewives” to low-cut jeans. Label it un-American, and claim it is a symptom of the downfall of society. Then completely ignore the fact that popular culture is created by market forces and that most large media and entertainment corporations are owned by conservatives and contribute heavily to the Republican Party. Now you are free to blame popular culture, and by extension, the downfall of society, on liberals.

Yes, yes, the culture war trumps the class war and Hillary is making all the right moves. But it's still a big sham worthy of mockery. Don't tell anyone.

via Tim Blair, of all people.

Did David Brooks Just Compare Josh Marshall to Yasir Arafat?

praktike — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:28:03 -0500

I think he did. But I'm not sure. Is he serious? Should I laugh at this, or be grossly offended? Chait? Yglesias? DeLong? How do you feel about being compared to Yasir Arafat?

Bull, Moose

praktike — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:07:56 -0500

Grow up, bloggers, he says:

If the plutocratic G.O.P. is ever to be defeated, Democrats will have to win the confidence of the American people that they are a tough party that will vanquish our enemies. That is why Joe Lieberman is so vital to the donkey. If those on the left have their honest disagreements with him or any other Democrat, that is fair and to be expected. However, the Moose would argue that those voices on the left who would transform the party into a dogmatically left-wing party serve the wishes of Rove and company in a profoundly significant way.

Worth noting is that the adult Moose does not engage with substantive criticism of Joenertia's own sloppy embrace of plutocracy and the Moose's weak defense thereof. Of course, the Moose is rarely ever substantive: all is political in Mooseville.

Also worth noting is that Joe Lieberman's value to the Democratic Party in terms of burnishing its image is highly, highly questionable, since he mainly serves as a foil and an enthusiastic voice in favor of some of the most questionable aspects of Bush adminstration policy. Joe Biden is an example of a hawkish Democrat who also voted for the bankruptcy bill (being the Senator from MBNA and all), yet arouses much less intraparty ire.

So to the estimable Moose, I would ask: why is that?

... see also Matt Yglesias' response.

"The Pravdafication of Civic Discourse"

praktike — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:14:11 -0500

In the spirit of Sunshine Week, I've decided to come out of my hidey-hole as regards domestic policy and recommend this piece by Josh Marshall. Reading it has left me with a palpable sense of disgust and powerlessness. What can I do about it? I'm pretty damn sure that destroying NPR is not the answer.

I can't help but think that MoveOn.org really ought to be training its guns on this broader issue rather than on the John Bolton nomination, as lousy a choice as he seems to be. Likewise, the ACLU is busy suing Donald Rumsfeld. I suppose it's not a question of either/or and Bolton and Rumsfeld are surely worthy of attention in many ways, but still, I find it odd that what seems to really animate both organizations is opposition to the Bush administration's foreign policy rather than the underlying culture that enables it--call it Pravdafication, Putinization, whatever. Maybe DailyKos will awaken from its self-indulgent navel-gazing and pitch in?

{update to fix typo & double-posting}