Pre-WWII America (in Color)

I just came across these incredible images over at DailyKos.com. The diarist, JohnnyGunn, introduces the images thus:

When we think of America during the Great Depression, we often picture it in shades of grey.  It was a grim era and nearly all of the photographs we see are in black and white.

[...]

Color presents an entirely different image.

[...]

As the 1930s came to a close, Kodak came out with Kodachrome film – the first commercially viable color film available to the general public.  In 1937 and 1938, the colors were still not stable and accurate, but by 1939 Kodachrome was producing color images of remarkable precision.

He’s right. In color, that no-less grim period seems hopeful and the future brighter.

Read JohnnyGunn’s diary, it’s a compelling presentation of pre-WW II America — and he’s got a lot more pictures, too.

David Broder: The Bloviating “Dean”

David Broader is often referred to as the "Dean" of the DC press corps, because of the perceived authority with which he writes about entrenched establishment interests in DC. The so-called Dean of the DC press corps is less interested in the factual consequences of policies, and more concerned with the process of compromise and the personalities involved. Over the years, this bloviating Dean has demonstrated a clear right-of-center bias; that is, he favors the Republican viewpoint, as he provides a certain establishment shine to the Republican talking point of the day. And, as you can imagine, given the
bloviating Dean’s penchant for relaying on pro-institutional and establishment frames, his natural bias for the Republican viewpoint, the Dean was no fan of the Clinton White House, given how Bill "disrespected" the Oval Office (read, how Bill Clinton received a blow job in the Oval Office).

At any rate, here we see one more example of the bloviating Dean ignoring the grim consequences of current Republican policies re: Iraq, as, instead, he focuses on a personality driven process of what respectable consensus in DC should look like:

Whatever the final impact of the Iraq Study Group report being issued today, for the 10 commission members this was an exhilarating experience, a demonstration of genuine bipartisanship that they hope will serve as an example to the broader political world.

[...]

The nine men and one woman serving on the commission — five from each party — represented a wide range of political backgrounds and philosophical views. Several had been on opposing sides in past presidential campaigns.

[...]

"This process has been a lesson in civility."

Hmmm… never mind the real world "impact" of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), instead, let’s appreciate what an "exhilarating experience" this exercise was for the ten old-establishment-hands that comprised the ISG.

As for the bloviating Dean’s idea that the ten old-establishment-hands of the ISG "represented a wide range of political backgrounds and philosophical views," let’s remember:

1. By the Dean’s own accounting, the ISG was comprised of 5 Democrats/5 Republicans, by definition this does not constitute a "wide range political backgrounds and philosophical views" — it merely represents two political views, even if within the two parties there are varying viewpoints on an issue.
2. None of the ISG members opposed the Iraq invasion before the Bush administration went into that country.

Senator Feingold, on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, underscored the same two points I list above. Additionally, unlike the bloviating Dean, whom focuses on what an "exhilarating experience" this was for the ten old-establishment-hands, Senator Feingold is not afraid to look at the real world "final impact" of the ISG report:

“Unfortunately, the Iraq Study Group report does too little to change the flawed mind-set that led to the misguided war in Iraq. Maybe there are still people in Washington who need a study group to tell them that the policy in Iraq isn’t working, but the American people are way ahead of this report.

While the report has regenerated a few good ideas, it doesn’t adequately put Iraq in the context of a broader national security strategy. We need an Iraq policy that is guided by our top national security priority – defeating the terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11 and its allies. We can’t continue to just look at Iraq in isolation. Unless we set a serious timetable for redeploying our troops from Iraq, we will be unable to effectively address these global threats. In the end, this report is a regrettable example of ‘official Washington’ missing the point.”

And here you have it, the Dean says, never mind the "final impact," isn’t wonderful what an "exhilarating experience" was had by these ten DC insiders? On the other hand, Senator Feingold reminds the Dean, David Broader, and the ‘offical Washington’ of whom the Dean is so enamored of, stop "missing the point."

Here’s another reaction to the bloviating Dean. David Sirota writes:

What is important in Washington is not that a war is threatening to destabilize the entire Middle East or that American troops are dying every day – no, no. The most important thing is that old Serious People who are not Dirty Hippies or “partisan polarizing finger-pointers” and who are personally approved of by David Broder get put on commissions, fly all over the world together and are nice to each other – regardless of what they actually do or don’t do. Because as the world burns, that, and only that, is what the American people are most concerned about and thus worthy of an extra long column by the Dean of the Serious People: old Washington hacks being polite and cordial to each other.

And one more reaction to Broader’s column:

For this truly is one of the most amazing columns ever. I literally laughed and nearly literally cried. It’s tragic, and comic, and disgusting, and sad. I’ve just … well, I’ve never seen anything quite like it. It’s like an era passing, a world ending with a whimper in the form of a mailed-in column by a man who doesn’t realize his time is up, the pundit version of a crank on the street talking about how he used to walk to school barefoot in the snow, uphill both ways. And it just says volumes about the charade known as the Iraq Study Group. I’m speaking, of course, of David Broder.

Jumping Off the Ship

From The Independent, of the UK:

Colin Powell
After telling the UN assembly in 2003 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, the former Secretary of State admitted in May 2004 the claims were "inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading".

Colonel Tim Collins
The Army colonel made a famous rousing speech to troops on the eve of battle. But in September 2005, he declared:

"History might notice the invasion has arguably acted as the best recruiting sergeant for al-Qa’ida ever."

Paul Bremer
The former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq admitted in January 2006:

"It [the invasion] was a much tougher job than I think I expected it to be… we really didn’t see the insurgency coming."

Zalmay Khalilzad
Contradicting the usually upbeat rhetoric, the US ambassador in Iraq said in March: "We have opened a Pandora’s box". And unless the violence abated, Iraq would "make Taliban Afghanistan look like child’s play".

Jack Straw
The former foreign secretary, one of the cheerleaders for the war, said in September: "The current situation is dire. I think many mistakes were made after the military action – there is no question about it – by the United States administration."

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt
The British General admitted in an interview in October: "I don’t say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates [them]."

Richard Perle
Regarded as one of the intellectual godfathers of the war, Perle changed his tack in November, admitting that "huge mistakes were made" in the invasion of Iraq. "The levels of brutality we’ve seen are truly horrifying," he added.

Ken Adelman
Last month, the noted neoconservative said: "The national security team… turned out to be among the most incompetent in the post-war era. Not only did each of them have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly."

Donald Rumsfeld
A memo from the hardline former defence secretary revealed this week that he had been looking for a change of tactics. "In my view, it is time for a major adjustment… what US forces are doing in Iraq is not working well enough…"

Robert Gates
Yesterday, Mr Rumsfeld’s proposed successor was asked at a Senate hearing whether the US was winning the war in Iraq. "No, sir," he replied. And he warned that the situation could lead to a "regional conflagration".

“Sistah Souljah” Still Haunts Dems

Digby has an important post on how some Democrats (read Barak Obama) erroneously continue to triangulate, and how Bill Clinton’s "Sistah Souljah" moment still casts a long shadow over the Democratic party:

Chris Bowers wrote a very poignant post about Barack Obama that expresses the bewildered dismay I think I lot of us feel when we read or hear our leaders still using us as a foil to distance themselves from their own base. It’s so disheartening to see someone we hope will be a brilliant leader make the mistake of running against the Party just when it is finding a new sense of unity — and the other side is having an identity crisis.

It’s worth recalling where these "Sistah Souljah" impulses came from and look at whether they make any sense in today’s politics. The term applies to Bill Clinton’s repudiation of some hot rhetoric after the LA riots, which happened smack in the middle of the presidential campaign. Souljah, a political activist and writer/rapper, had been widely quoted (out of context) in the mainstream media as saying, "if Black people kill Black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?" Clinton responded to that comment with "If you took the words ‘white’ and ‘black’ and you reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech."

[...]

Now, fifteen years later, it’s become a tic, a reflexive point that is no longer used for any specific purpose but rather serves as a political ritual designed to assure the conservative political establishment that the candidate does not associate himself or herself with undesirable liberals. The members of the base who have been used for a decade and a half as the human sacrifices to the pundit Gods of the beltway are starting, quite naturally, to rebel. It’s not, however, just because they are sick of being scapegoated; it’s because it’s become part of the predictable "braindead politics" of Washington that Clinton so rightly ran against in the first place.

I don’t blame Bill Clinton for doing what he did. Indeed, I give him credit for having the guts to point to a specific act instead of adopting the modern mealy mouthed rhetoric ("some on the left need to stop …") which at least allowed for an honest debate about something identifiable and real. And, in the wake of the riots, as part of a serious national debate about "law and order" and race in the middle of a presidential campaign, it made sense for a Democrat to try to thread that needle.

[...]

So my problem with Democrats these days is not what they did back in the 90′s. That’s water under the bridge. It’s that they are failing to seize the moment right now. The most recent (imperfect) analogy I can think of is 1980. The Republicans seized that moment of national "malaise" and discontent to go mainstream. After that election it became a matter of faith among millions of Americans that "they didn’t leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left them."

[...]

Today, it’s the Republicans who are seen as captives of their own worst impulses which is why it is so out of sync and dissonant for Obama and others to still be triangulating against their own base. It feels odd — discordant. The Democratic rank and file are no different than millions of average people in this country who are feeling uncomfortable with the radicalism, incompetence, hubris and corruption of the Republican party after six years of one party rule — and a quarter century of conservative consensus. And the activist base from which these politicians are trying to distance themselves is where the energy and future of this new majority party rsides. Why would you run from them just when the other side’s consensus is starting to fray? It’s far more politically useful to present them to the public as the average people they really are. We’re all just like you — regular everyday citizens who believe that the country needs a new direction.

As we have seen, triangulating can sometimes be the politically smart thing to do. But not right now. This is the political moment for the Democrats to seize the mantle of the mainstream — to argue that we are the big tent, where people of conscience from all over the political spectrum are coming together, concerned about our nation, ready to work in common cause. The Republican party has abandoned the concerns of the American people. The Democratic party is the party that will secure the future.

“Destroying Democracy”

According to some Republicans, making sure that every vote is counted amounts to "destroying democracy":

Republican Vern Buchanan made a rollicking, rambling appearance on Hannity and Colmes last night, during which he accused Democrat Christine Jennings of "destroying democracy" by contesting the election results.

The issue in the race, of course, is that electronic voting machines failed to register a vote in the congressional race from more than 13 percent of Sarasota County voters — a rate far higher than other counties and absentee ballots. That statistical aberration or "undervote" has led experts and other reasonable people to declare that something went wrong in the race.