Harriet Miers: A Political Smokescreen?

There was a statement in a NY TIMES article today that caught my eye. The article was titled “A Long, Rocky Road with 39 Months to Go,” and it suggested that this is the worst political week that George Bush has had since he took office. The particular statement that caught my eye suggested that:

(T)he abandonment of Ms. Miers seemed deliberate, an effort to shift the spotlight, however briefly, from the expected actions of the special prosecutor investigating the leak of a C.I.A. agent's identity, and reposition the president for a new confirmation battle with conservatives by his side.

I was mentioning to Jon yesterday how the whole Miers scenario felt too much like a heavy-handed spectacle from beginning to end. I mean, is it really that plausible that Bush and his cronies would offer up a person with no credentials whatsoever and expect her to slide through? Or is it more plausible that they would offer up a scapegoat – someone to take attention off of them during this whole leak investigation?

In that regard, it makes sense that Bush did not nominate someone that the Republican base would want. Perhaps he was expecting a backlash from his base so that if and when the shit hits the fan during this leak investigation, he could effectively say: “You didn’t support me/the team with Miers and looked what happened, are you going to support the team during its gravest moment (i.e., the prosecution of Libby et al).

For instance, take Republican Senator Danforth’s statement (from the same article):

"There's all this talk about the Republican base and the conservative base of the Republican Party, and the conservative base of the president and how it's important to play to the base and please the base and fawn over the base," said former Senator John C. Danforth, the Missouri Republican who was Mr. Bush's ambassador to the United Nations.

"And look what it gets President Bush," Mr. Danforth continued. "It just gets him a kick in the rear. That's what they've done to him, and they've done it to him at a time when he's vulnerable, and they've done it at the expense of a perfectly fine human being."

Also, if my "smokescreen" theory seems too farfetched, remember that: “The C.I.A. leak investigation that threatens to indict a top White House aide or two on Friday grew out of the fierce debates over the flawed intelligence that led to that war.” If people start going down, as Jon suggested, they could start naming names all the way up the ladder. . .and in that regard, it might be an early Christmas.

The Colbert Report

Just wondering if you guys have been watching the Colbert Report? It’s pretty good. I like it better than the Daily show.

“Isn’t a centrist someone who doesn’t have the balls to be a fanatic?”
- Stephen Colbert

A Call to Consciousness

I, for one, am sick and tired of the American form of representative democracy that equates to nothing more than rule by a few and wage slavery for the rest. I intend this blog to be a space meant for discussing alternative forms of government, and, in general, alternative ways of living. I welcome participation by all, but especially by fellow sociologists. As Peter Berger has taught us, “the fascination of sociology lies in the fact that its perspective makes us see in a new light the very world in which we have lived all our lives.” Therefore, it is this transformation in consciousness that I seek, as opposed to a transformation in my immediate material reality.

Many radical thinkers believe that revolution can only be achieved through violent means, particularly through class warfare. However, I find these individuals to be crazed and impatient. I, for one, do not believe in violence. I believe that revolutions, like most things in life, are achieved through a painfully slow process. Moreover, I believe it is this process, the revolutionary act of expanding one’s consciousness, which fills one’s life with meaning. The cliché of life being a journey rather than a destination holds true. Therefore, I do not seek a utopian paradise, especially one achieved through violence, death and destruction. My aims are more modest: I seek to transform my consciousness through exercising my sociological imagination.

I would like to start this process through a discussion of anarcho-syndicalism. Admittedly, I only have a minimal knowledge of anarcho-syndicalism, and other forms of anarchy, primarily through my readings of Chomsky. What I have read, I have found particularly “attractive,” and would like to learn more.

Would anyone care to join me? If so, any suggestions on where to start?