Political Theatre category archive

Surveillance did not prevent the Charlie Hedbo attack, so, natch, the governments want more surveillance. China Hand comments:

. . . it’s not surprising that the kneejerk reaction to the Charlie Hebdo murders is not, “Hmmm, it is very difficult to stop small, ad hoc one-off terrorist attacks (now consecrated as the “lone wolf” menace) before they happen, so maybe we should concentrate on reducing the threat by improving relations with the Muslim world”; it’s “More intensive surveillance is needed.”

Trouble is, attacks keep happening, and the only solution they can propose is “We’ll find that needle by piling more hay on the stack.”

Much more at the link.

The Las Vegas Sun website currently has two articles expressing some reservations about the outpouring of support for Charlie Hebdo.

One expresses some reasoned and rational concerns. The other is by David Brooks fancy words in randomly arranged.

Dick Polman considers the rivalry of Mitt the Flip and Jeb “the Oh Please God Not Another” Bush:

Have you ever heard two alley cats fighting, because one strayed onto the other’s turf? Welcome to the Mitt and Jeb contest.

Just read it.

(Link fixed.)

Trevor Timm finds a contradiction. A nugget (emphasis added):

As politicians drape themselves in the flag of free speech and freedom of the press in response to the tragic murder of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, they’ve also quickly moved to stifle the same rights they claim to love. . . .

This is an entirely predictable response – as civil liberties advocates noted shortly after Wednesday’s tragic attack, the threat of terrorism has led to draconian laws all over the world over the last decade – but this time around, the speed and breadth by which politicians praised free speech out of one side of their mouths, while moving to curtail rights out of the other, has been quite breathtaking.

Trudy Rubin.

My local rag reports on the Navy’s effort to keep the fleet of unreliable, outdated “Sea Dragon” choppers in service because it’s all they got. It details the inertia of bureaucracy, one of the most powerful forces in organizational behavior, whether, mind you, the organization in question is public or private.

The most recent story tells of an officer who died in a crash at sea. Here’s a bit:

Not long after joining his Norfolk-based squadron in 2010, he began to question the decision. Something wasn’t right. Months later, after he took over as the division officer in charge of maintenance, he began to realize the depth of the problems. The aging helicopters weren’t getting the care they needed. Maintenance protocols were being skipped. Replacement parts were scarce, and when they were available, it was usually because they had been plucked from another Sea Dragon. At any given time, only a few of the squadron’s helicopters were ready to fly.

Whenever Wes tried to correct the problems, he felt as if he was bucking a chain of command that had grown accustomed to business as usual. He learned that a 20-something-year-old lieutenant has only so much power. Finally, a little more than a year ago, Wes told Nicole he was ready to get out. Maybe he could fly for the Coast Guard, he suggested.

Read the whole series, and, as you do, remember that the first response of any organization to criticism is to circle the wagons and protect their own. In this way, the Navy is no different from GM is no different from Sony is no different from Honda is no different from–well, you get the idea.

The impulse of any organization is always to protect its members, because, hey! they are our friends and coworkers and we know they didn’t mean anyone any harm, so any harm must have been an accident and stuff happens and we’re all good guys here because we know each other and play golf at the same clubs and are trying to do good jobs and don’t intentions count?

Aside:

My local rag may not be the best local rag and they are hurting like many other local rags (Damn you, Craig’s List), but they try. That’s one reason I pay for delivery; I could read it online, but I pay for print. If I could, I’d pay more papers for print, but I can’t. It’s up to you to support your own local rag.

I will not forget that they were the only newspaper in Virginia to oppose “Massive Resistance.”

Honest to Pete, you can’t make this stuff up.

And, natch, race has nothing to do with it.

Via Job’s Anger.

Werner Herzog’s Bear explains the hustle. A snippet:

Christie is a gregarious chap, the kind the media loves for being good for a quote. It’s in their interest to keep the Christie Show going, so their criticisms will always be muted by the hope that they don’t sink his political career. The thing is, Christie is not a straight shooter, as the press would have you believe, he’s a hustler.

Say what you want about the man, like most hustlers he’s not stupid.

. . . and no one talks about it, did it happen?

Addendum:

Farnsworth.

Via C&L.

Dick Polman explains the fascination:

But here’s the main thing: Huckabee’s inclusion would be great news for Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and other party establishment candidates.

With Huckabee in the mix, the likeliest scenario is that he and his rightward rivals would divvy up the evangelical electorate – essentially cancelling each other out, in terms of vote percentage. That would make it easier for a center-right guy like Bush to finish on top – not in Iowa, but in the subsequent big-state primaries, where the GOP’s center-right electorate is considerably more sizeable.

One quibble: There is no such thing as a “center right.” There are the racist right, the culture-warrior right, and the business right (often the three overlap), and there’s nothing center about a one of them.

The only thing “center” about the “center right” is that it knows not to be overtly racist and misogynistic in public. It uses code words instead.

More at the link.

Tommy Christopher covers the news coverage.

”

Via Job’s Anger.

________________

*Title shamelessly stolen from Rex Stout.

Shaun Mullen.

Just read it.

Via Bob Cesca’s Awesome Blog.

Cavett emptor.

Remember, a Libertarian is a Republican who is ashamed to admit it.

Take the quiz.