I figured that reasonable, moderate, meritorious people here in the US would be quick to dissociate themselves from this shocking display of prole razzola. I was not wrong. A quick Google search brought me to Mr. Nathan Gardels'
blog on Huffington Post. (Gardels is shown at left, and I can only wonder what the photographer said before clicking the shutter, to evoke those raised eyebrows, those pursed lips, that general resemblance to an overinflated tree-frog.) Thus Gardels:
On one of the talk shows this week, former UN Ambassador Richard Holbooke called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an anti-semite and a pipsqueak. Anti-semite, certainly. A pipesqueak, I'm not so sure.
When Ahmadinejad railed against US and UK attempts to dominate the world through the Security Council as if this were the early post-WWII era instead of the 21st century it was a message that resonated globally.
Venezuela's Hugo Chavez laid it on futher in his harangue, confident in having recently obtained China's backing, in return for oil, for his country's quest for a seat on the Security Council.
It would be a big mistake to dismiss their comments as the ravings of mad men when they are only saying what the rest of the world -- China, Russia and France on the Security Council as well as countries from Brazil to South Korea -- actually thinks.
Gardels is a liberal, though, so he knows who to blame for this sorry state of affairs:
Certainly, George Bush's unilateralism has ended up pushing the multipolar order out of its post-Cold War womb through inciting a worldwide reaction against Anglo--Saxon dominance. But, in truth, the baby was already on the way. W's policies have only accelerated the delivery.
I don't quite follow the obstetrical metaphor, and probably don't want to, but Gardels' thrust is clear: the Empire would still be humming along quite nicely if Bush weren't so... stupid. We have Bush to thank that people like Chavez and Ahmadinejad are saying what millions of people seem to want to hear.
This cat Gardels, until today a figure unknown to me, is actually a man of some stature. He heads up something called New Perspectives Quarterly -- the "new" part is, perhaps, a slight and pardonable exaggeration -- which modestly describes itself as follows:
NPQ has a well-earned reputation around the world as the one publication that consistently engages the best minds and most authoritative voices in cutting-edge debate on current affairs -- and does so in a way that is always interesting, accessible, and concise.I must have read too many New Critics when I was a young man, because passages like this always engage my close-reading eye, with unsettling results. Do the "most authoritative voices" also belong to "the best minds" -- or are these two different groups of people? And I certainly hope, for the sake of Nathan's reputation as a truth-teller, that his contributors are more "interesting" than he is.
Here's his masthead:
BOARD OF ADVISORS:Descending from the stuffed shirt to the T-shirt, I also dipped into Daily Kos for reaction to Chavez' speech, and quickly dipped right out again. Threads tended to start with expressions of approval, then rapidly be swamped by people who consider Chavez a really bad guy because he's a pal of Ahmadinejad, and Ahmadinejad is a "Holocaust denier." Predictably, this topic, like Gresham's bad money, rapidly drove all others out of the forum.
Bruce Babbitt
Walter Dean Burnham
Joan Didion
Sidney Drell
Carlos Fuentes
Marvin L. Goldberger
Ryszard Kapuscinski
Abraham Lowenthal
Walter Russell Mead
Ronald Steel
Lester ThurowBOARD OF DIRECTORS:
Stanley K. Sheinbaum
Chair and Founding Publisher
Richard Dennis
President
Michael Douglas
Nathan Gardels
Alan L. Gleitsman
Mickey Kantor
Win McCormack
Sol Price
Stanley K. Sheinbaum
Oliver Stone
Comments (9)
While Chavez's beautiful spleen is all aimed at Bush, it has the effect of showing up passive Donks, too. This must be upsetting to the faithful; I've seen the same "oh, he's an anti-Semite!" charge on the oh-so-above-ground DemocraticUnderground.com.
For a few reasons, from oil to extra-hemispheric ties with the Chinese to his galvanic world profile to fears about leftism in Latin America, a Glorious Leader Hillary will wish to neutralize the Chavez "problem" early in her administration.
Posted by Reechard | September 21, 2006 7:17 AM
Posted on September 21, 2006 07:17
Is Oliver Stone one of the "best minds" or an "authoritative voice." I can't quite decide.
Posted by AlanSmithee | September 21, 2006 7:30 AM
Posted on September 21, 2006 07:30
This morning, as we watched bits of the UN Circus on CNN, the Dear Wife was giving Chavez a hard time about his speech, calling it "immature" and mumbling some shit about how it's going to help the GOP's chances in the fall.
This is, of course, assuming that Chavez actually has any responsibity or obligation not to offend old Liberals like the DW, nor to endanger the Democrats' (apparently actually quite iffy) chances on regaining "control" of the legislature in the upcoming "election". I had to remind the DW that we should consider ourselves Humans first, Americans second, and that America is not the friggin' World, already.
As far as "immaturity", I've copped a peek at the transcript, and I honestly can't see anything at all that wasn't true nor anything that wasn't what the rest of the world was thinking, anyway, nor certainly immature. I especially dug that crack about the "smell of sulfur" lingering in the building.
Now, President Chimp, on the other hand...jeezus, from the looks of the transcript and the quotes, it sounds like he did about everything but bang his goddamn' shoe on the table.
I think what bugged the DW was the fact that there, in the UN, where you're supposed to give really bland touchy-feely speeches and everybody applauds, a leader whose voice is gaining respect in the world is telling the US and the world what it needs to hear the way it needs to hear it. I guess that pisses off a lot of old Liberals because it doesn't aid in "civil discourse", or some crap.
I like to keep these things in perspective by reminding myself that the media wouldn't be so loudly talking up the Chimp's approval-rating "surge", nor letting their hearts go pit-a-pat so loudly over the Democraps' being "poised to take back the House/Senate", if they weren't _all_ in seriously deep-assed trouble.
Posted by Mike Flugennock | September 21, 2006 8:38 AM
Posted on September 21, 2006 08:38
ah hugo....
we are all proud of you !!!!!!
lovely lovely lovely
the lingering whiff
of the devil's sulfur
the self crossing
the looking on high
as if to appeal to an almighty
waving noam's latest book
calling for the removal
of the great power veto
in the security council
you tagged all the bases compadre
sancho stands taller
even as his Don subsides
Posted by js paine | September 21, 2006 10:37 AM
Posted on September 21, 2006 10:37
Michael, I think you missed Gardel's point in the womb metaphor where he says the baby (i.e. third world resistance to US domination) was already on the way. That is to say, the neo-liberal policies begun under Bush Sr, and resoundingly endorsed by Clinton, are the reason the rest of the world hates us now.
Yes, the masthead is a bit stuffy, and it's surprising the writer can voice the above sentiment with Mickey Kantor as one of his boardmembers, but give him credit for getting it right, this once.
Posted by bobw | September 21, 2006 12:18 PM
Posted on September 21, 2006 12:18
If anybody here can very quickly check out the front page of the Drudge Report,
http://www.drudgereport.com/ ...you'll see the "cream" of the Democratic Party "leadership" falling all over each other to see who can pollute their britches with indignation more deeply than the next over Hugo Chavez's speech at the UN.
It takes a lot to surprise/amaze/astound/flabbergast me these days, but the Democrat "leadership" today is falling to a low not seen since last summer's "Let Me Rebuild With You, Mr. President" op-ed by Donna Brazile in the Washington Post in response to President Chimp's glorified photo-op in Jackson Square, New Orleans, the night before.
Posted by Mike Flugennock | September 21, 2006 5:02 PM
Posted on September 21, 2006 17:02
Mike wrote:
"I think what bugged the DW was the fact that there, in the UN, where you're supposed to give really bland touchy-feely speeches and everybody applauds, a leader whose voice is gaining respect in the world is telling the US and the world what it needs to hear the way it needs to hear it."
Yes, indeedy.
In Donkology, the UN is meant to issue bland brotherly sighs apart from when it is solemnly consecrating our wars. The technocratic basis of Donk opposition to the Iraq war being none other than that UN blessing (and hence foreign funding) was missing.
Pelosi's outburst is confirmation, as if any were needed, that those opposing Bushism in more than token manner are also opposing Donks. "Two cosily-fused buttocks," as C. Hitchens wrote in saner days, "of the same giant derriere."
Posted by Reechard | September 21, 2006 7:18 PM
Posted on September 21, 2006 19:18
Could Hugo have been working in a "Bush likes to fart" joke with that Sulphur crack?
Should we now refer to Bush as "Ol' sulphur crack"?
just askin'
Posted by Paul Curtin | September 22, 2006 10:00 AM
Posted on September 22, 2006 10:00
Hasn't anyone heard that barking loon on Air America who nightly, or during the wee small hours of the morning, practically acuses Bush of personally barbecueing live kittens and then eating them off skewers ? If hyperbole is okay for the Air America faithful, why isn't it okay for Chavez ? At least, unlike the barking loon, he's made a direct contribution to the quest for affordable gas.
Posted by ms_xeno | September 22, 2006 9:26 PM
Posted on September 22, 2006 21:26