Mr. Lieberman, a centrist Democrat who lost in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary to Ned Lamont, a wealthy businessman, is now running on his own line. With polls showing that many Democrats are eager for a change, Democratic officials say they expect Mr. Lieberman to campaign aggressively to win over Republican and unaffiliated voters.
If he does, Democratic strategists say, he may well attract voters to the polls who are likely to support the state’s three Republicans in Congress: Nancy Johnson, Rob Simmons and Christopher Shays.
“He has a Republican vote, that’s the fact,” said Tom Matzzie, the political director of Moveon.org, a liberal group that is backing Mr. Lamont and the Democratic challengers in the three House races. And those voters, he said, are “likely to vote as Republicans in every race.”
Oh, the irony: the zealous within the party have fought hard to trade models in a seat that was safe for them, and in so doing may have jeopardized their chances at the real prize: control of the House. The Connecticut Senate seat was going to stay in the Democratic hands regardless, and I still think that even an alientated Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats. However, if the gung-ho strategy to put Lamont in that seat leads to increased chances that Reps retain those three seats, then this was quite a strategic blunder on behalf of some in the Democratic party.
Obviously, the author of this ‘toon isn’t a blogger, or else he would know that bloggers, by definition, can blog about anything. Interesting? We don’t need no stinkin’ interesting!
Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has said he would not have ordered the capture of two Israeli soldiers if he had known it would lead to such a war.”Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it,” he said in an interview on Lebanese TV.
“We did not think that there was a 1% chance that the kidnapping would lead to a war of this scale and magnitude,” Sheikh Nasrallah said.
“Now you ask me if this was 11 July and there was a 1% chance that the kidnapping would lead to a war like the one that has taken place, would you go ahead with the kidnapping?
“I would say no, definitely not, for humanitarian, moral, social, security, military and political reasons.
“Neither I, Hezbollah, prisoners in Israeli jails and nor the families of the prisoners would accept it.”
If true, then Israel did achieve a substantially important outcome from this conflict: Hezbollah will think twice about what type of provocation it is willing to risk. However, I have to wonder about the statement, as on the other hand, this could very easily be Nasrallah attempting to save face/cast all the blame for the destruction on Israel (“Hey, we just wanted a prisoner exchange, not all this death and destruction”).
Certainly such a statement allows Nasrallah the opportunity to continue to build on Hezbollah’s post-conflict PR offensive.
While I have been back for several weeks, and have posted a few tidbits (such as thesephotos), I have yet to get around to really posting much. So here’s an overview of the trip.
On the one hand, I was there to evaluate some possibilities in terms of sending students down, as well as investigating other options (such as meeting with individuals at the National University of the Peruvian Amazon) and other such stuff. In addition the trip meant getting to see a fascinating part of the world–Latin America in general and the Amazon region in specific. This was my first real trip to Peru, although not to the Amazon. When my wife and I lived in Colombia we took a trip to the Amazon during the spring of 1995 and did actually step onto Peruvian soil during the visit, but this was my first real visit to Peru proper.
I really enjoyed the trip and would recommend the trip to anyone even mildly interested in the area.
Some observations about the more tourist-oriented elements of the trip along with some notes on accommodations for anyone who might make the trip themselves.
I only saw a glimpse of Lima, and wish I could have seen more. We arrived late at night and flew out to Iquitos the next afternoon, so only had about five or so hours to see some of the sights. We drove around the city a bit and I was able to see the official residence of the President, the catacombs under the San Francisco cathedral, and few other sites in and around the Plaza Mayor.
The Presidential Palace
The Plaza Mayor in Lima
The catacombs were quite interesting, but photography was not allowed, so no photos.
San Fransisco Cathedral
We spent one night in the Hotel Melodia, which is in a commercial district and not far from the Catholic University and is a few blocks from the coast. The hotel itself was fairly plain, but more than adequate. The rooms were small, but clean and functional and had cable TV with some English language channels. The food in the restaurant was fine (only a snack that night and breakfast to judge by, however). The restaurant was open 24 hours a day and also had an internet-connected computer for use by patrons. For $38.00 a night there was little to complain about.
The trip was primarily to Iquitos and, indeed, the Amazon itself. The flight to Iquitos was uneventful (just the way flights should be).
My previous experience in the Amazon was Leticia, Colombia—a much smaller city than Iquitos, which has around 500,000. The city itself was pleasant enough, and filled with motorcycles and motocars. We stayed at the Hotel Victoria Regia, which was quite nice (and reasonably priced) and with good food in the restaurant. The hotel is a few blocks from the Plaza de Armas, the main square in Iquitos and only a few blocks from where the Amazon used to brush up against the city (the river shifted in the early 1960s, but one can see where it used to be).
The taxis of Iquitos: motocars.
The streets of Iquitos
We spent several days roughly 50 miles up river at the Heliconia Lodge, which is owned by the same person as the hotel we stayed at—indeed, the accommodations were billed as a package. The lodge is rustic, but quite nice. There is only electricity from 6-11pm (although the generator died our second night, so it was kerosene lanterns and flashlights). The entire structure is wood and built on stilts. Rooms have their own bathrooms and there is hot water. All meals were provided at the lodge and were quite good.
The Heliconia Lodge sitting on the bank of the Amazon
An interior shot of the lodge.
During our time at the lodge were able to take a multi-mile hike back into the rainforest behind the lodge, visit the local distiller/pub-owner (for lack of a better description), the local medicine man, the village of Yanamono, and the Island or Yanamono (among other places).
My colleague gets a general treatment from Maximo the medicine man
On Yanamono Island
Setting aside any issues of education opportunities, I would highly recommend the Heliconia trip as a vacation destination to anyone who has at least a moderately adventurous spirit.
We also saw various locales near Iquitos and took a brief trip down the Nanay to visit the Bora indians.
The Boras do the Welcome Dance
Dancin’ with the Boras
(BTW: if anyone might be interested in a trip to the Amazon, contact Viviene Tagg at vivej7 -at- charter -dot- net)
The Alabama Democratic Party Executive Committee voted 95-87 to reject the ruling of a subcommittee that had voted to disqualify Todd, who is white, and her black opponent, Gaynell Hendricks, in the race for the House seat from Birmingham’s District 54.
Todd defeated Hendricks by 59 votes in the July 18 party runoff election.
This is the just outcome.
Further, the state Democratic leadership had to know what a PR nightmare they had on their hands (not to mention a possible drawn-out legal set of problems had they let the sub-committee’s ruling stand).
Of course, the racial and power-broker politics of the event will likely resonate into the future:
The committee vote pitted vice chairman Joe Reed, a powerful black political leader, against other party officials. Reed had written a letter to black leaders in Jefferson County before the July 18 runoff asking them to support Hendricks so that a black would be elected from the majority black district.
Last Saturday I started my blogging day commenting on what I thought was partisan extremism from the Rightish side of American politics, this Saturday let start from the Leftish side and the bizarre musings of Russell Shaw at HuffPo who entitles his piece I Hope And Pray We Don’t Get Hit Again-BUT. In the piece he makes argues that it might not be so bad if the US experiences another 911esque attack just before the elections this year, because it would help the Democrats win:
I hope and pray we don’t get hit again, like we did on September 11. Even one life lost to the violence of terrorism is too much.
[...]
But on the other hand, I remind myself that without the ultimate sacrifice paid by 400,000 U.S. soldiers in World War II, tyranny could well have an iron grip on the world, and even on this nation.
If the Nazis had prevailed, tens, if not hundreds of millions more would have been killed.
That realization has led my brain to launch a political calculus 180 degrees removed from my pacifist-inclined leanings.
Ok, whatever one thinks about the Bush administration or Republican control of the Congress, the idea that we are living in a tyranny that is so bad that another round of massive slaughter of innocents might be a worthwhile outcome is outrageous. It also a remarkable argument based on extreme political hubris: that those who vote for Shaw’s side are voting for freedom and goodness and those who vote for the other side are duped into voting for a tyranny so bad that a little murder to oust them wouldn’t be such a bad thing.
To top all of that off, I would argue that Shaw’s thesis is flawed:
If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this “Bush has kept us safe” thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.
If 5% of the “he’s kept us safe” revise their thinking enough to vote Democrat, well, then, the Dems could recapture the House and the Senate
However, the likelihood is that an attack would cause a “rally around the flag effect” which would boost Bush’s numbers and probably help Republicans, who are perceived as tougher on terrorism. Let’s follow the basic logic: if one feels insecure because of possible attack by terrorists, which party is one likely to go with, the party perceived us as hawkish on the subject, or the party perceived of as dovish on the subject? Granted, Shaw is banking on the idea that President, and by extension the Republican Party, would be blamed for the attack, but that is hardly a certainty. Could a scenario emerge where the President would be blamed, yes? However, it is more likely that an attack would give the President the chance to appear presidential. And if we are talking pure politics here, which party would that likely help?
Or, if we look at individual congressional races, which type of candidate would an attack help, a Ned Lamont type, or a Joe Lieberman type? Clearly: the Lamont types would be out the window.
However, Shaw seems to think that a Democratic majority will result in much sunshine and roses, accomplishing the following:
Block the next Supreme Court appointment, one which would surely result in the overturning of Roe and the death of hundreds if not thousands of women from abortion-prohibiting states at the hands of back-alley abortionists;
Be in a position to elevate the party’s chances for a regime change in 2024. A regime change that would:
Save hundreds of thousands of American lives by enacting universal health care;
Save untold numbers of lives by pushing for cleaner air standards that would greatly reduce heart and lung diseases;
More enthusiastically address the need for mass transit, the greater availability of which would surely cut highway deaths;
Enact meaningful gun control legislation that would reduce crime and cut fatalities by thousands a year;
Fund stem cell research that could result in cures saving millions of lives;
Boost the minimum wage, helping to cut down on poverty which helps spawn violent crime and the deaths that spring from those acts;
Be less inclined to launch foolish wars, absence of which would save thousands of soldiers’ lives- and quite likely moderate the likelihood of further terror acts.
Oddly enough, this stuff didn’t happen the last time we had a unified Democratic government in Washington, but I suppose we will ignore that for the nonce. Of course, when one looks at Shaw’s logical skills (e.g., Democrats in Congress = Serious Gun Control = Thousands of lives saved, QED–because Goodness knows that these problems are precisely that simple), then I suppose we can understand how he reached his “new 9/11 = Glorious Policy Outcomes” line of “reasoning.”
And btw, if Shaw is certain that these outcomes will take place, and that they are worthwhile, how about arguing for them in public and persuading people to vote for the Democrats, rather than hoping for mass murder to change their minds? That’s how we do it in democracy.
The ultimate irony is that he thinks that his party is the party of goodness, and the Reps are the party of tyranny, yet to get his party into the majority he is half-daydreaming for 9/11 part two.
(Of course, I guess this is what one gets when one has a guy whose expertise is IP Telephony write about politics).
the 1974 rule was not pre-cleared by the Department of Justice. There is record of the DOJ receiving the motion for pre-clearance of the rule change and a record of the response from to the DOJ requesting more information; but there is no record of the approval of the change of the Alabama Democratic Bylaws. The letter sent by the DOJ to Robert E. Vance was requesting more information before the approval could be made. There was no record of receiving any of the requested information from the Alabama Democratic Party or of the bylaws change being approved.
Which should mean, if I understand the rules, that the rule used to oust the candidates never was in force, and therefore could not be used to disqualify them.
Kudos to Jeff for doing the research and reporting on this issue–although Wheeler at Alablawg isn’t sure if this matters or not.
Regardless, this whole affair is an embarrassment to the Alabama Democratic Party–indeed, to the state itself.
My previous post on this topic is here.
