Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
Since I spent yesterday on the subject of Syria, I thought I'd follow up with today's movement and signals from the White House. Don't have any real analysis today, just passing along the recent developments, that's all.
First, President Obama gave a press conference this morning, where the first question he fielded dealt with Syria. Here is the full exchange from the official transcript:
In all the news about the opening of the new George W. Bush presidential library last week, what was apparently the whizziest feature of the library was highlighted by many -- a sort of "decider room" exhibit. You go into the room, are presented with a crisis that Bush faced, and then the clock ticks down and you have to make a decision about what to do. A video of Bush then appears explaining why he either agreed with your decision or disagreed with it.
Bush made the word "decider" famous, when he described his job as being "Decider In Chief." His point was that, at some point, decisions must be made and the hardest and toughest decisions in America are the ones that came across his desk. Fair enough. Decisions made in the Oval Office involve risks most Americans don't fully appreciate or think through -- including those involving life or death for Americans in uniform.
We seem to be at one of those "decider" moments on the world stage. President Obama stated that use of chemical or biological weapons by the Assad regime in Syria would be a "red line" or a "game changer" and that America would respond to such use in unspecified ways, with serious consequences. The evidence is now in, and several intelligence agencies (in several countries) now say it is likely that Syria has indeed used such weapons, most likely the poison Sarin. This is the decision point Obama now faces.
Every so often, I write an article (mostly) in tongue-in-cheek fashion, where (usually out of frustration) I offer up some sort of reductio ad absurdum solution to all the world's ills. This game is also known as "If I ran the world, things would be different, dammit!" by its proper name. This vents my frustration, and (if I've done the job right) provides a bit of amusement for the readers. Every so often, after I write one of these, it (largely, or in part) comes true. Leaving me to ponder what's wackier, the errant thoughts in my head, or life itself.
That was all a prelude to the breaking news today: "Congress moves at lightspeed, to fix a problem that would have hit them personally, as they take yet another weeklong vacation instead of doing the nation's business." Could've knocked me over with a feather. Ahem.
Back at the end of February, I wrote, rather cynically, of how I would implement the sequester, were it up to me. This consisted of one simple idea, really: "sequester the living heck out of Washington's National Airport." Let Congress see the results of austerity right in their faces, as they fly home every weekend. I ended this article with a prediction:
Just time for a few quick news items that seem to be begging for comment by yours truly... and as is our tradition for these disjointed columns, we will present these in true Herb Caen fashion, practicing a bit of three-dot journalism in homage...
...so, apparently, George W. Bush got a library. I missed all the speeches, on the theme of: "So Long And Thanks For All The Wars," as I had some very important sleeping to do, instead. OK, you'll have to forgive me, but I see this as the golden opportunity to make a few Dubya jokes, in a fit of nostalgia. As historians debate whether George W. Bush was our nation's worst -- or, perhaps, merely second- or third-worst -- president of all time, I've just got to wonder... what, exactly is going to be in a "George W. Bush library"? A whole bunch of copies of "The Very Hungry Caterpillar," maybe? Inquiring minds would also like to know, is this what Laura's going to be doing for the rest of her life? I mean, she was a librarian, after all, so it seems like she'd be perfect for the job...
To: R. Gil Kerlikowske
Director, White House Office of National Drug Control Policy
Two and a half weeks ago, I (as your faculty advisor in the College of the American People) assigned to you a medium-length writing project on the subject of what the official "White House Drug Policy" would be, looking forward. I have received your submission of a press release and accompanying official drug policy announcement on the White House website. First, I would like to thank you for your timely completion of this assignment.
However, I must warn you that your submissions, both the "Drug Policy Reform In Action: A 21st Century Approach" article posted on Huffington Post, and the "Drug Policy Reform" site on the official White House website are woefully incomplete. In fact, were I to grade these essays as they stand, they would fall somewhere in the "D to D-minus" range. I am writing you today in the hopes that you will consider resubmitting these to us here at the American People, in the hopes of increasing your grade. What you've got so far shows some promise, but you have skipped over a rather large portion of the assignment in your essays. Hopefully, if you go back and address the gaping hole in both of these papers, it will be a much better piece of writing, and will engender a much better policy in the end (and a better grade).
In a word, your assignment is woefully incomplete on a single subject: marijuana. This word appears not once in either document, which is kind of astounding since this is truly the only part of the White House drug policy which currently (and desperately) needs addressing, given the changing political situation. To put this another way, your paper might have garnered a higher grade last year, but we now live in 2013, and you have failed to address -- at a minimum -- the fact that the states of Colorado and Washington have now legalized recreational marijuana, and the number of states which have approved medicinal marijuana is approaching 40 percent. By failing to use the word "marijuana" once, you are ignoring the entire point of the assignment, which is why your grade range is currently just above abject failure.
OK, I know I said "by this weekend" last Thursday, but like everything else in this entire furshlugginer process, putting the finishing touches on the final text draft of my writing project has taken longer than I expected.
Translation: I was too busy to write a column today.
But the good news is that by the time I go to bed, hopefully I will also have put three chapters "to bed" as well. For those who have already reviewed earlier drafts, check your email tomorrow morning for a note on how to access the final product of your labors. For those who have never seen it who are curious, this is your last chance to let me know in the comments or via email, and I'll add you to the list.
In any case, I've got to get back to work, so I apologize for taking a vacation from blogging today. Regular columns will resume as normal tomorrow, I promise.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
What are the chances comprehensive immigration reform is actually going to happen this year? Your guess is really as good as mine, since we're only at the beginning of a very long path -- one that leads to Obama's desk, but one that also has a lot of dead-ends and side branchings off to legislative doom. Whether a bill can make it through the Senate and (especially) the Republican-controlled House is a very open question, even without the complications of the Boston Marathon bombers.
I'm not going to directly address the impact the Boston terrorism will have on the immigration debate today, because immigration reform foes will always have plenty of other issues they can bring up in an effort to halt the bill in its tracks. So I don't think the political calculus changes all that much due to Boston, to tell the truth. I could always be wrong about that, but then I could be wrong about any of this stuff.
The first battles over immigration reform will happen in Pat Leahy's Senate committee. The second round of battles will happen on the floor of the Senate. In both cases, there will be attempts to push the bill so far in one direction or another that it becomes impossible to pass with bipartisan support. Bipartisan support will indeed be necessary for any bill to pass, especially after it gets through the Senate.
Some weeks, I sit down to write this weekly wrapup, and find that there isn't that much to talk about, because nothing much happened that particular week.
This isn't one of those weeks.
In fact, too much happened in the past week to adequately pay enough attention to it all. We've had multiple stories this week which, in a normal week, would have dominated the headlines and been the subject of extended discussion. Most of these stories have either been pushed to the side, and will never get the attention they deserve, while a few stories have merely been postponed, and will eventually get the focus they have been denied this past week.
Before I begin, allow me to apologize for my dereliction of duty not only today (that's a gentle way of saying "no column today, folks!"), but over the past weeks and months. I have, as many of you know, been distracted by trying to put together sample chapters of a book. This has led to a certain amount of neglect here at the site, which I do feel bad about and do apologize for.
But today, I have a minor announcement: the final push is on. By the end of this weekend, I will have put together a "final draft" of my sample chapters. In other words, the end is in sight, people.
While we're on the subject, I'd like to personally and publicly thank everyone who has taken the time and effort to aid me in this project by reviewing earlier drafts. Your help has had profound impacts on my writing and editing, and hopefully editing future chapters won't be nearly as hard because I'll be using new-found good grammatical habits in the first place. This will save an enormous amount of time.
In creating anything, however, at some point you just have to say "Enough!" and call it over and done with. That's the point I'm approaching, and should reach within days. It won't be perfect -- but then no piece of writing ever is. It will, however, be more perfect than those aforementioned earlier drafts, because of your help. I say this as bait for a certain type of perfectionist who is itching to comment that "more perfect" is improper, since "perfect" is really a superlative. This is the same urge of those who tried to talk a notable bunch of authors out of using "unalienable" since it's not really a proper word ("inalienable," they would insist, should be used instead).
Assuming everyone recognizes those examples, they prove my point. No writing is perfect. What I will (hopefully) achieve, though, in my final draft is "good enough." Good enough to catch the eye of some literary agent, editor, or publisher who is interested enough to keep reading -- even through the inevitable minor grammatical errors.
To put this another way entirely, once done with this draft, these chapters won't be touched again until someone is paying me to re-edit them. I will cheerfully argue arcane punctuation and grammar with an editor who is working with me to get the manuscript ready for publication. But I'm done with reworking it for now.
Having said all of that, the real reason I'm writing this today (other than to apologize for the lack of a Thursday column during such a momentous week) is to invite everyone interested to read what I've come up with. Those who have previously edited a draft, there is no need for you to do anything -- I will be sending out an email to everyone on the list when the new draft is available. But for anyone who slipped through my dragnet of getting as many reviewers as possible -- for those of you who have never seen a previous draft -- if you'd like to see what I've been working on, let me know either through email or just by leaving an "I'd like to see it!" comment here. I will be in touch with you via email if you do so, and will give you instructions as to how to download a copy (fair warning: it's about 160 pages long).
Looking forward, I will spend the next couple of weeks finishing up the "sales job" part of my book proposal, and then I will start trolling the waters for agents and publishers. But the milestone I will hit this weekend should allow me more time to focus on the blog, one way or another.
So thanks for everyone's extended patience and thanks for sticking with the site through the admittedly thin period that should now hopefully be drawing to a close. It's been a much longer journey than I ever thought it would be, but the end is indeed now in sight.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I'd like to start off today's article with an excerpt from a New York Times story, to make a point. Here is what ran in the Times, with a few sentences left out.
Speaking of early reports, the cameras had been at the scene for scarcely an hour before former Representative Dave McCurdy was on CBS talking about "very clear evidence" of the involvement of "fundamentalist Islamic terrorist groups." ... But then came a CNN scoop of suspects of Middle Eastern appearance being pursued. Then came a CNN denial. But then came a report that two or three such men were being sought. The Treasury and Justice Departments were troubled enough by CNN's apparent choice of speed over checking that they warned Washington reporters against relying on the network for news about suspects or about other explosive devices, another changeable subject.
