The Bog:
sphagnum moss, dark water, and politics
Monday, October 23, 2006
Leaving a sinking ship with their long knives out . . .

AP: GOP losses could spark partisan warfare

Furthermore, some of Bush's fighting in the trenches is likely to be with fellow Republicans as they seek to find a new standard bearer for 2008 — and distance themselves from an unpopular war, the unpopular president who waged it, and congressional scandals that include inappropriate e-mails to House pages from ex-Rep. Mark Foley . . ., R-Fla.

"There's no question that the Republican coalition is stressed over the way Washington has been handling fiscal matters, the Foley affair, the Iraq war," said GOP consultant Scott Reed. "All of these are coming together at the same time."

Already, Republicans are showing divisions on Iraq policy. Fresh skepticism has come from Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner of Virginia, Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (news, bio, voting record) and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, a longtime Bush family loyalist.

If Republicans lose their majorities, it will be that much harder for Bush to hold together already splintering GOP cohesion on Iraq.

Bush has been quoted by journalist Bob Woodward as saying, "I'll stay in Iraq even if the only support I have left is from my wife and my dog." A Democratic takeover and Republican defections could make that day seem closer.

You bring the popcorn, I'll get the soda and Twizzlers . . .

posted by Dan S. on 12:01 AM | | link

Sunday, October 22, 2006
Exactly right.

This world is just too complicated for schoolyard thinking and tinkerbell planning.

posted by Dan S. on 11:54 PM | | link

And they said it could only come from a Divine Lawgiver!

In my iTunes message window right now, while currently updating podcasts:

'Downloading "Morality"'

It's taking an awfully long time, though . . . .

(the podcast in question being Zachary Moore's Apologia, a "friendly forum for both theists and non-theists to come together in search of some common understanding.")

posted by Dan S. on 11:42 PM | | link

Book review review:
David Brooks wrestles Andrew Sullivan in a fight for The Conservative Soul.

(Oh, don't you just hate that? You get up from the computer for a snack and some errands, and the next thing you know it's 21 months later and we're still in Iraq. But anyway . . .)

Over at the New York Times, conservative Op-Ed columnist David Brooks is reviewing Andrew Sullivan's new book The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back. It's an interesting choice of reviewer, pitting Sullivan's rediscovered careful and cautious conservatism of doubt against Brooks' grand but bland national greatness conservatism.

Now, before Brooks disappeared behind the Times Select wall, I always read his columns with a mix of grudging admiration and mild disgust. They were - how can I put this? - the equivalent of a calm, pleasant, reasonable-sounding man talking to you in a calm, pleasant, reasonable-sounding manner, perhaps with an avuncular arm slung over your shoulders, you starting to nod slightly until suddenly *wham*, he sucker-punches you right in the gut. Except that's not quite right; Brooks would never do anything so violently uncouth, or so obvious. Instead, there were just these constant little partisan digs right underneath the surface, unnoticeable at first, like one of those cuts you don't even feel until suddenly you look down and - Oww! I suspect there may be a part of Brooks who aspires to have the kind of rapier-sharp wit where one's opponent doesn't know they've been decapitated 'til they try to turn their head and - *thump*. Either way, I've always seen him more as the perfectly nice-seeming fellow who happens to spend time furtively funneling bits of broken glass into jars of ideological baby food. (While a Protestant by inclination, one might be tempted nevertheless to call Brooks a pap-ist.)

[What? I've used up my figurative language quota for the week? And my allowance of atrociously wince-worthy punnage? Well, onwards then . . .]

Anyway, this trait's hardly present in the review. Brooks' accurate but slightly sneery note that a Oakeshottian grand-crusade-rejecting conservative would never write the Declaration of Independence might be a poke at the British-born Sullivan, but that seems unlikely. It also, of course, misses the point; no conservative of any sort, by any reasonable definition, would end up writing the Declaration of Independence. (Ah, maybe this is a spark of the old Brooks, with that buried implication of a conservative Jefferson!) Sullivan's conservatism, more an attitude than a politics, ideally would provide the kind of irritatingly cautious warnings that might help prevent things from getting out of hand in later years.

But we're straying out of the shallows now - can't have that - so here's the absolute jaw-dropper, the thing that jumped out of the pages of the Sunday Times and whomped me over the head with a giggle-stick:

I must confess, if I hadn'’t been reviewing this book, I wouldn'’t have finished it. I have a rule, which has never failed me, that when a writer uses quotations from Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and the Left Behind series to capture the religious and political currents in modern America, then I know I can put that piece of writing down because the author either doesn't know what he is talking about or is arguing in bad faith.

As any number of historians, sociologists and pollsters can tell you, the evangelical Protestants who now exercise a major influence on the Republican Party are an infinitely diverse and contradictory group, and their relationship to these hyperpartisans is extremely ambivalent.

And yet in his description of "fundamentalists",” Sullivan captures none of this complexity. His book would have benefited from more reporting - or any. He snips out egregious quotations of various conservative activists from The Nation, or from books critical of the religious right, and he leaves the impression that these quotes represent reality.

Now, you may already know why I nearly sprayed a mouthful of cereal over the poor paper, but just in case, we have to go back, back, back to December of 2001 and Brooks' famous and much-discussed Atlantic Monthly piece on the gulf between Red America and Blue America. In a tour de force of anthropological fieldwork, he drove from his home in Montgomery County, MD, to Franklin County here in PA to compare the two:

Sixty-five miles from where I am writing this sentence is a place with no Starbucks, no Pottery Barn, no Borders or Barnes & Noble. No blue New York Times delivery bags dot the driveways on Sunday mornings. In this place people don't complain that Woody Allen isn't as funny as he used to be, because they never thought he was funny. In this place you can go to a year's worth of dinner parties without hearing anyone quote an apercu he first heard on Charlie Rose. The people here don't buy those little rear-window stickers when they go to a summer-vacation spot so that they can drive around with "MV" decals the rest of the year; for the most part they don't even go to Martha's Vineyard . . .

. . . I've crossed the Meatloaf Line; from here on there will be a lot fewer sun-dried-tomato concoctions on restaurant menus and a lot more meatloaf platters.

Amazing! Unfortunately, when Sasha Issenberg of Philadelphia Magazine carefully retraced Brooks' epic journey into the wilds of Pennsylvania, it turned out that many of his carefully-collected facts were - how shall we put it - slightly embroidered, and his virtuoso generalizations often just that (and easily disproved to boot). And such accusations - that he would benefit from actual reporting, that he simply "present[s] his readers with the familiar and ask[s] them to recognize it," (says Sasha), that "too often, Brooks's "archetypes" are really just old-fashioned stereotypes. It should go without saying that most people are more complicated and contradictory than stereotypes allow for," (says Nicholas Confessore) have followed his later work.

Perhaps Sullivan should pay attention to Brooks' criticism. After all, he knows what he's talking about.

It gets better, though. While I was gawping at this bit, my eyes lit on a section I had somehow skipped over, right in the middle of the quote:
The intellectual brutality Sullivan describes in these pages, and which does mark American life, has more to do with bad character and political partisanship than theological rigor, and Sullivan is wrong to claim its roots are religious in nature. The people who are most destructively closed-minded in America are people like Donald Rumsfeld, Ann Coulter and Howard Dean, and they are not exactly religious nuts.

Agree or disagree about from which stagnant sinkhole these roots grow, but - three examples of "the people who are most destructively closed-minded in America"?

* Donald Rumsfeld, whose unshakable self-certainty did as much as anyone's to create the disastrous quagmire in Iraq,

* Ann Coulter, whose "humor" involves rambling about "ragheads," suggesting rat poison for Supreme Court Justices, regretting that Timothy McVeigh didn't go into the New York Times Building, and musing that "It would be a much better country if women did not vote." (Although the general consensus seems to be that she doesn't actually believe any of it, and just does it for the attention, and revenue. Maybe so.)

* And the moderate Democratic former governor (of Vermont, for goodness sakes!), '04 presidential candidate and DNC chairman Howard Dean, whose infamous Dean Scream had all the dangerous craziness of someone's thinning-haired suburban dad getting a little carried away and trying to pull off a rebel yell.

Now that's a glimpse of the old Brooks! Not quite at the top of his game, but who can blame him for being a little frazzled this fall?

posted by Dan S. on 3:16 PM | | link

what is a bog?
Definitions, definitions
1. ". . . one of North America's most distinctive kinds of wetlands . . . characterized by spongy peat deposits, acidic waters, and a floor covered by a thick carpet of spagnum moss." *
2. A relentless, hard-driving mix of political commentary, recipes, idle ramblings, and so on.

More about bogs here.

why "the bog"?
Something about the blog format made me think of spagnum moss slowly growing, forming layer after layer of peat deposits many feet thick, sometimes preserving (in Europe) ancient bodies . . . Also, it rhymes.

Powered by Blogger Attack Iraq? No!

Songs currently stuck in my head
despite all my best efforts

"My Happy Ending," by {yech} Avril Lavigne:
"Let's talk this over,
It's not like we're dead . . "

and "Laiska" by Varttina:
Laiska luotu laulmann
oikosormi soittamaan
yskin oita viettelen
unetonna laulelen

Toppling off the bedside book-pile:
Classroom Management for Middle-Grades Teachers , C.M. Charles & Marilyn G. Charles
Teaching U.S. History as Mystery, David Gerwin & Jack Zevin
Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska, William W. Fitzhugh & Aron Crowell
Arctic Crossing: A Journey Through the Northwest Passage and Inuit Culture, Jonathan Waterman
Northern Tales: Stories from the Native People of the Arctic and Subarctic Regions, Howard Norman (ed.)
Life in the Cold, Peter J. Marchand
Wandering Through Winter, Edwin Way Teale
The Winter Vegetarian, Darra Goldstein

Teas of the week:
Tea of Good Tidings: Winter Fruit Blend,
The Republic of Tea
Russian Caravan,
Jacksons of Piccailly

on the web:
Land of links:
The American Prospect
Common Dreams
FAIR: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
The Nation
The Progressive
Washington Monthly

Organic Consumers Association
Eat Wild (pasture-based farming)
NOFA: Northeast Organic Farming Association
Consumer Supported Agriculture
Edible Wild Kitchen


Blogging away:
Vassar blogs
And yes, we've been co-ed since '69...
E's Den
Useless! Worthless! Insipid!

Other blogs
Alas, A Blog
Atrios' Eschaton
Body and Soul
Daily Kos
Digby's Hullabaloo
Dispatches From the Culture Wars
Echidne of the Snakes
Feminist Blogs
Interesting Times
Late Night Thoughts asleep?
Long story; short pier
Making Light
Mouse Words
One Good Thing
The Panda's Thumb
Respectful of Otters
The Sideshow
Sisyphus Shrugged
Matthew Yglesias

old peat (archives):
December 22, 2002
December 29, 2002
January 12, 2003
January 19, 2003
February 2, 2003
February 16, 2003
February 23, 2003
March 2, 2003
March 9, 2003
March 16, 2003
March 23, 2003
March 30, 2003
April 6, 2003
June 8, 2003
October 5, 2003
January 16, 2005
October 22, 2006
November 5, 2006
November 12, 2006
November 19, 2006
November 26, 2006
September 16, 2012
December 23, 2012

Search Engine Submission

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by