Why that's our new hit-meter, found at the bottom of the page. I hope to watch it spin as membership in the cabal grows and grows. Want to be a member? Okay, you're a member! All you have to do is read the writings of the inner-circle (now, only two but sure to grow!) and help that hit-meter climb! As long as it's fun for you and fun for us, we'll keep coming back.
It's nice to see that the Secretary of State can be bothered to leave the country this week. Especially for something as important as a trip to North Africa.
Reuters says:
"Washington says all three nations have provided exemplary support to the U.S.-led "war on terrorism" launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. However, their human rights records are checkered at best in dealing with militant Islamists at home...
...The two countries reflect the dilemma Washington faces in the Middle East as a whole -- whether to judge governments on their human rights and democratic credentials or to give priority to cooperation against religious militancy."
The President, during his Nov. 6 speech at the National Endowment for Democracy, stated that "sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." However, I expect little change. While it's important that the Bush administration would love to see parallel moves on both the human rights front as well as in security, for an administration heading into an election year, I'd wager they'll settle for security, regarless of how much the Secretary of State "wags his finger."
Should the President make a greater case for increased personal freedoms in Muslim autocracies? I'd like to think I'd get a resounding "Sure!" from any crowd. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the administration is happy to go on tilling the rhetorical soil of increased liberalization until it feels it can truly hold up the model of Iraq. As Dan Drezner recently indicated, it's hard to tell when, or if, we'll have that example at our disposal. Though the administration seems to understand that the War on Terror can't be won without real change in the entire Islamic world, it apprears that it is more than prepared to continue to give most of the nations on our "watch list" a pass for the foreseeable future. Despite the President's rhetoric, the governments that were "better than Soviet-Satellites" will remain "better than Islamist bastions" at least until Iraq shows large, quantifiable steps forward.
As a wise man once said,
"California sunlight, sweet calcutta rain
Honolulu starbright--the song remains the same. ooh! ooh!
Here we go!"
Here we go, indeed.
I overheard the people at the next table over at a restaurant last night saying that "it's all the fault of the Jews." Unnerving, though I never did find out what "it" was. Monotheism, perhaps?
I think I may scrap the list idea, due to a lukewarm reception. Though, I do continue to stand by my rock song rankings. If you're curious, I was going to name Taft the greatest president of the 20th century, just to be provocative. By the way, since it IS the biggest shopping day of the year, I thought I might throw out a suggestion or two for anyone shopping for yours-truly. Enjoy!
In reference to nothing in particular...
The Times has a way of making you feel guilty for being too rich while making you feel ashamed of yourself for being too poor. How does the paper do this? By offering tales of homeless children (whose lives are soooo much worse than those of your obnoxious soccer-playing, Kaplan-course-taking brats) while writing homages to people like the late socialite C. Z. Guest (a "Boston Brahmin," as if anyone these days knows of cares what that means), who apparantly was classy and understatedly loaded in a way that socialites in today's world of improper breeding could never be. Since most NYT readers fall somewhere between "homeless" and "Boston Brahmin," the paper aims, it seems, at making its readership feel uncomfortable in its own skin.
Can anyone deny that the President's suprise trip to Baghdad was anything less than political genuis and personal daring? This president not only put himself in the line of fire in a hostile country, but managed to do so as a complete surprise to nearly all involved. This reminds me, albeit not on such a grand scale, of Teddy Roosevelt's dispatching of the Great White Fleet. To demonstrate American power Roosevelt ordered his fleet to begin a tour, traveling around the world from port to port, without making anyone aware of his orders. When Congress became aware of what Roosevelt had done, they threatened to deny him funding for his venture. Roosevelt balked, claiming that he already had the money and dared Congress to "try and get it back". Roosevelt understood the necessity of demonstrating American power abroad, as there was a growing fear of foreign powers eyeing America's foreign possessions picked up after the Spanish-American War. Roosevelt sent this fleet, painted all white except for "the guilded scrollwork on their bows," to begin a from port to port to demonstrate this American resolve in maintaining it's position abroad. Bush has pulled off a similar feat. By flying halfway around the world, with all but a handful of people "in the know" he has repeated the gutsiness of Roosevelts act. While Bush's trip lasted hours rather than a full world tour, certainly taking less in terms of men and material, it is nevertheless an appropriate expression of the lengths this nation is willing to go to. As Andrew Sullivan has said, "It's called leadership. And we just saw some."
Top 10 Greatest Rock Songs. I freely invite comment.
A Quick Note: Some lists of this sort feel the need to pick as obscure a song as possible. As much as I understand a desire to be a buff of things that are outside the mainstream, thereby proving how much smarter you are than everyone else, this list makes no such pretense. Also, in the spirit of Neoconserative belief in the universal applicability of ideas like "liberty" and "democrazy", this is not a list of favorites but rather things that, are with little doubt The Greatest.
10. Take It Easy - The Eagles
9. Subterranean Homesick Blues - Bob Dylan
8. Baba O'Reilly - The Who
7. London Calling - The Clash
6. Sufragette City - David Bowie
5. Stairway to Heaven - Led Zeppelin
4. A Day in the Life - The Beatles
3. Jumpin' Jack Flash - The Rolling Stones
2. Under Pressure - Queen & David Bowie
1. I'm Waiting for the Man - The Velvet Underground
So there you go. I tried to mix it up, but in each case I picked a song that I felt represents each band doing what it did best very very well. Is Jumpin' Jack Flash the best song by the Rolling Stones? Maybe not. But it's the Stones, with one of Keith's greatest guitar licks and bluesy as you could want. Is "A Day in the Life" the best song by the Beatles? Again, maybe not. But it is an excellent combination of experimentation combined with transcendent, catchy and often haunting melodies. Last, "I'm Waiting for the Man". It's not just built from the ground up on a simple, catchy guitar riff (what lou reed has always done best), it's also dangerous. Where other songs of the same period were mostly silly love songs or psychedalia, the VU handed down the blackest, most sinister song in the repetoir. The album which contained it "The Velvet Underground and Nico" is full of this kind of bile, some more experiemental than others. "I'm Waiting for the Man" is simply the greatest representation of this. There you have it. Any thoughs, Phoebe? Want to participate? Think I'm way lame? Think I'm way lame for saying "way lame"? Let me know.
Once we've decided, or next subject shall be, "Greatest President of the 20th Century".
Here's an idea for a little mental exercise to kick off our stylish new blog. The Cabal of Style humbly submits it's lists of favorite things. We'll have a contained, limited debate on picking the best of something. Maybe we'll throw out a top-ten list, then cap it off with a winner and short essay about why he/she/it is the best. After we've done a few, we'll compare our winners. The Cabal of Style may for instance, after answering questions like "Best pizza topping" and "Best American Novel" then tell you, discerning reader, which is better, Snickers or Ulysses. Any member of the cabal (2 as of now, but growing everyday) may suggest a topic and we'll each offer our list. Sound good? Let the games begin!
We, the Cabal of Style, being of sound mind and sound body, do hereby make a proclamation of intent. I cannot, however, declare it on my own. I do believe, as hokey as this sounds, that a good group blog needs a mission statement: something that sets it apart from the crowd. True, our award-winning sense of both fashion and humor gives us a leg-up over the competition (I'm looking at you, Sullivan!), but you don't get anywhere just emulating what has come before. You might be good at it, but you'll never out-Volokh the Volokh conspiracy! This mission statement will be an everchanging draft, a living document (blah blah blah). We want to write about politics? Granted. You want to be unrepentant Neocons? Of course! My challenge, one day after the inception of this blog, is that we do it with style. My fellow members of the Cabal, let us deliberate. (If you happen to BE Andrew Sullivan, know that getting a "leg-up on the competition" means you one day linking to us. If we're really, really lucky!)
David Brooks' NYT op-ed, which began as a rant against the evils of promiscuity and ended as a plea for gay marriage, was more clever than just about anything (other than some especially good episodes of Seinfeld, which are clever in a totally different way). Many bloggers, Sullivan included, were taken aback by Brooks' intro--why on earth sould a conservative argument for gay marriage have to be so damn conservative?
Think about it, he began by writing something that would absolutely disgust any good Times reader (but would cause any social conservatives reading the article to nod vigorously) and ended with something most of the readership (but not social conservatives) would agree with: that all Americans should be allowed to legally marry their spouses. Brooks' point was essentially that even the most socially conservative person (i.e. someone who believes promiscuity is "spiritual suicide") ought to support gay marriage. This is an incredibly strong point, much more so than suggesting that, say, moderate Republicans ought to support gay marriage. No, Brooks, by laying out his argument as he does, insists that every last American must favor gay marriage, since almost everyone other than the socially-conservative audience he speaks for at the beginning of the article already supports it.
While Brooks himself may be morally against promiscuity, but it doesn't really matter; by welcoming social conservatives with open arms, he is able to make the most pro-marriage-rights argument possible, and does so beautifully.
Hello from Paris...the cabal may pick up when I'm back in Chicago. And yes, Aaron, I do like this!
In case anyone wonders, here's the place I've been staying these three months.
