Temporary Restraining Order on Meigs
ArchPundit
Judge orders a temporary injunction.
On top of that, a pilot’s union is calling for an economic boycott even though there is an airport 20 minutes or less by train from Meigs.
April 2003
That’s Funny
Dust in the Arts argues that he was reasonable:
Actually, I didn’t mention anything about race in the original post and added a note (based on a comment) about al Fuqra, a black Muslim group, within an hour of making the entry. Whether the "two clowns" were officially terrorists or not is moot to this little (petty) spat. The point is that, had the police been looking for ? even open to looking for ? Muslims, specifically black Muslims, they would have caught the two much sooner.
What he is missing is that he kept pushing the Islamic Terrorism angle. It had nothing to do with terrorism. It had to do with two kooks. The comment wasn’t in regards to his mention of black radicals, indeed it was about his serial efforts to try and blame it on an al Qaeda connection regardless of whether there was evidence for it or not.
He offers no evidence that the police weren’t looking at all leads other than some demented sense of whites being victims of the big bad white society.
His point makes no sense because the crime wasn’t an act of terrorism as he kept positing. Looking for black muslims in particular only makes sense because of the two individuals. It could have been two white fruitcakes in this case given the motivation. The race and religion didn’t play a role in this crime, their mental state did. His obsession on race is irrational. Go figure.
Meigs Feedback
After the initial shock wore off, Steve Neal has reliably come to Da Mayor’s defense. George Ryan doesn’t blame him, but he does blame Fitzgerald.
My view is that while it might have not been done as heavy handed as it was, Meigs is much more useful as a park. Air Traffic Controllers are suggesting that their moving will cause a problem–if that is the case, the FAA can keep some one in the area, but still make it a park.
Wrigley Compromised Reached
It’s hard to imagine that Andy McPhail can be that hard to work with and apparently he is not, the City of Chicago and the Cubs came to a compromise language to designate Wrigley Field as a landmark.
So Much for Responsible Budgeting from the Republicans
The one advantage of having a relatively close split in the Illinois Senate is that Blagojevich has to pick up some votes on particular bills. Unfortunately, it seems some Republicans rolled over on his pension bond plan.
Don’t get me wrong, this may be a good strategy, but I would prefer to have it vetted better. I assume when something is too good to be true, it probably is.
History and Its Importance
A while ago Calpundit poked fun at this Patrick Ruffini for suggesting that the US could take out a dictator every three to six months or so. Kevin was pointing out the difficulties such a program of intervention would entail.
I wonder how many warbloggers agree with this kind of thinking? Are they seriously under the impression that the world can be made a safer place by knocking off miscellaneous dictators a few times a year? And that this would, somehow, reduce the threat from terrorism? And that either (a) we can also help rebuild several countries a year or (b) we don’t need to bother?"
The points being would such a strategy be effective in making the world safer, could we rebuild that many countries, and whether some think that is important.
Ruffini responded by misrepresenting Kevin and trying to claim Kevin thinks dictators make the world safer. This, of course, turns Kevin’s argument around from one about the impact of such rapid interventions on the likelihood of terrorism, whether it actually makes us safer, and the responsibility of rebuilding to being a binary choice between neo-con visions of glory versus cold-hearted realism. In comments, Patrick insists his comments are meant to say that we could do this, but not that we necessarily should.
Fair enough. But today, Patrick takes on Gary Hart’s comments on Hart’s blog about foreign policy and his recent speech in San Francisco.
Ruffini makes some strange comments about the speech. So let’s compare what Ruffini says compared to Hart:
Ruffini:
Admire what? Does Hart really expect the rest of the world to be bowled over if we simply returned to amoral realpolitik? After neutering our foreign policy and stripping away all those quixotic notions of democratic idealism, what exactly will there be left to respect and admire?
Hart:
America’s alliances must be based on more than common enemies and must increasingly require more equitable sharing of the burden of creating stability. Throughout the Cold War our practice of expediency was based on the belief that the enemy of our enemy was our friend. It led us, for example, to support a corrupt and repressive regime in Iran until the Shah fell and then to support an even more dangerous regime in Baghdad in a war against Iranian militants who dethroned the Shah. If that policy of expediency ever served our larger purposes, it no longer does so. And, further, it is against our principles.
This is an explicit rejection of ‘amoral realpolitik’.
As is this:
In the closing decades of the Cold War we oscillated between a policy of "values"?human rights?and a policy of "interests"?power and its applications. We should not separate our values from our power or our power from our values. A truly great power exercises that power humanely, judiciously, and fairly to all. Power exercised for its own sake, or for the sake of a selfish or expedient interest, is ultimately self-defeating.As a successor to the central organizing principle of containment of communism, I am instead offering the framework for a foreign policy based on democratic principles?a policy that is resolute but is also one the American people can be proud of.
Ultimately, it seems Patrick couldn’t quite get himself past the bullet points. Gary Hart may have trouble getting through to a younger generation if the attention span is this short.
Ruffini goes on to make several strawman arguments about Hart didn’t say. Hart doesn’t rule out force as Ruffini claims, he proposes a NATO Intervention Force even.
But one of Ruffini’s claims is particularly interesting:
In fairness, Hart does outline two points in his speech that aren’t procedural ? using our economic might for foreign aid and, yes, encouraging democracy. The first raises the question of whether Hart is really no better than the "ideologues." If a democratic intervention in Iraq won’t work, what makes him think a financial one will? Here, he’s just worshipping at a different altar.
If one bothered to finish the speech one is criticizing, the comment is a bit strange. It isn’t primarily about Iraq, it is about the synthesis of a policy based in values and interests. That being said, Ruffini might want to note that opening markets is a rather excellent way to encourage democratization. For effective markets there must be property rights. And effective property rights need effective arbiters called courts. And to be effective courts must have some independence which is highly unlikely in dictatorships. A significant pressure on many countries under dictatorial control is economic growth–that pressure can be an effective tool to encourage democratizations. This isn’t a new argument, but Ruffini seems completely ignorant of it.
The larger issues presented by these posts include the inability to understand these issues in some sort of historical context. Hart makes an explicit historical argument concerning these issues, but if one is too rooted in the rhetorical excesses of the day one will have no way to address the actual argument made. The more heated of the neo-cons and their supporters do not seem to place any importance of examining how to achieve democracy given our current historical examples. Democracy in most places had to evolve through indigineous political institutions. Those exceptions to this, are exceptions that prove the rule.
Perhaps a more traditional conservative could give them some advice:
Our patience will achieve more than our force.
A Fitting Tribute
I’m not sure if I ever commented on Michael Kelly’s columns, but to no one’s surprise, I thought they were nearly unreadable. It seemed somewhat strange then, that he was editor at two of my favorite magazines, the New Republic and the Atlantic. In fact, he has made the Atlantic one hell of a magazine again. Josh Marshall covers the difference between Kelly’s columns and his role as an editor. He will be missed for his excellent work as an editor and my prayer’s go out to his loved ones.
Did CNN Get Hacked?
Because this kind of stupidity would be to implausible to be funny in the Onion.
Woolsey should not be allowed to step foot in Iraq for about 10 years.
Let me make this very clear, if this draws us into a regional conflict involving Syria and Iran, this entire undertaking is a failure. A huge one. We might defeat their armies, but I damn well don’t want to see the Israeli response nor do I want to see us occupying an entire region of the world. I’m already disturbed by the lack of an exit strategy in Iraq, I don’t even want to contemplate an exit strategy from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and more. Plus the fall of the Pakistani government.
Up DATE: Go see Duke over at CounterSpin Central
Supreme Court Decides Iraq
Paul cracks me up.