Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim will be formally charged with sodomy tomorrow, police said, almost a decade after a similar accusation sent him to prison for six years. Anwar, 60, whose earlier conviction was quashed in 2004, today denied the latest charge and said he'll fight the accusation as he bids to return as a lawmaker and replace the ruling coalition.
In my previous post, which explored the criteria by which an "ideal" vice-president should be determined, I sifted through a field of fifty candidates and concluded that Bill Bradley and Jack Reed deserved the strongest consideration.
Many responders objected that their favorite candidates had fallen foul of my criteria, protesting that my measures were "too strict". This meant in most cases that a particular candidate had failed to persuade me of their progressive values, either by virtue of their voting record or through alignment with conservative coalitions such as the DLC. I stand by my criteria and am not remotely interested in elevating such Democrats to positions of power. The heavy influence of corporate Democrats has done immeasurable damage to the party - and by extension the country - over the last three decades, and we now have an opportunity to reclaim the Democratic party as the party of progressive values.
In a diary Friday, Matt asked for help in understanding something significant:
I've become fascinated by the effects of honesty/dishonesty in a culture. I live in DC, and I'm beginning to think that there are characteristics of those in power that are more reflective of a mass psychological disorder or strange cultural affinity for self-deception than 'money in politics', bribery, or corruption can explain.
This got me thinking, and revisiting some ideas I've been kicking around for a while. Here are three of them that I think are closely connected:
Truth and lies have switched places: Lies continually repeated function like the truth, while truths that go unuttered function as if they were lies. A prime example of this in the 2000 election was the conventional wisdom that Gore was a serial liar, while Bush was a man of great integrity-a straight-talker.
Taken to the extreme, things that cannot possibly be so have taken the place of fundamental truths. A prime example of this is the so-called "war on terror"-something that makes absolutely no sense, if you stop and think about it.
Verbal formulations are used that are inherently nonsensical and cannot be used rationally-at least in the existing total environment. "Supporting the troops" is a prime example of this.
I'm going to discuss all three in diaries today, beginning with the first point on the flip.
Regardless of what you think of the committee's decision to award Al Gore and the IPCC the Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore is an American citizen and usually when an American citizen wins an award of this nature, the sitting president (whomever that is) is expected to offer congratulatory remarks to the winner. It's a basic and fundamental courtesy (like a political concession call once the results come in on election night), even if the congratulatory remarks are not sincerely felt.
You just make the call. Period.
And what's more, those who want a return to civility and bipartisanship in Washington should expect nothing less than a courtesy call from the president.
Here's what actually happened. From the AP:
Asked if Bush planned to telephone congratulations to Gore, as he does to Americans who achieve signal honors in many fields, Fratto said he knew of no plans "to make calls to any of the winners."
What a small, petty man Bush is. Nothing we didn't already know.
STATE BLOGS
