" /> Who Can Really Say?: June 2004 Archives

« May 2004 | Main | July 2004 »

June 29, 2004

Threesome


Today, three different views of the US military experience in Iraq.

First, via Instapundit, a returned Marine shines some light on the experience and journalistic stylings of the WaPo's Baghdad Bureau Chief.
Before major combat operations were over, Chandrasekaran was already quoting Iraqis proclaiming the American operation a failure. Reading his dispatches from April 2003, you can already see his meta-narrative take shape: basically, that the Americans are clumsy fools who don?t know what they?re doing, and Iraqis hate them. This meta-narrative informs his coverage and the coverage of the reporters he supervises, who rotate in and out of Iraq.

How do I know this? Because my fellow Marines and I witnessed it with our own eyes. Chandrasekaran showed up in the city of Al Kut last April, talked to a few of our officers, and toured the city for a few hours. He then got back into his air-conditioned car and drove back to Baghdad to write about the local unrest.

"The Untouchable 'Mayor' of Kut," his article's headline blared the next day. It described a local, Iranian-backed troublemaker named Abbas Fadhil, who was squatting in the provincial government headquarters. He had gathered a mob of people with nothing better to do, told them to camp out in the headquarters compound, and there they sat, defying the Marines of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade.

What utter rubbish.
Next up, (via VodkaPundit) a returning Marine who'd been there from the start in the Winter of 2003, has something to say about WMD's, Bush Lied, and all that other good stuff:
I can speak with authority on the opinions of both British and American infantry in that place and at that time. Let me make this clear: at no time did anyone say or imply to any of us that we were invading Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction, nor were we there to avenge 9/11. We knew we were there for one reason: to rid the world of a tyrant, and to give Iraq back to Iraqis.

None of us had even heard those arguments for going to war until we returned, and we still don't understand the confusion. To us, it was simple. The world needed to be rid of a man who committed mass murder of an entire people, and our country was the only one that could project that much power that far and with that kind of precision. We don't make policy decisions: we carry them out. And none of us had the slightest doubt about how right and good our actions were.

The war was the right thing to do then, and in hindsight it was still the right thing to do. We can't overthrow every murderous tyrant in the world, but when we can, we should. Take it from someone who was there, and who stood to lose everything. We must, and will, stay the course. We owe it to the Iraqis, and to the world.
Both of these are worth a full read. The last bit (from Belmont Club) has a twist to it I suppose, in that it's written not by a soldier but by Michael Tucker, a documentary filmmaker who was embedded with the troops early last year and who returned for a second month with them over the winter. His tale is also enlightening and in some ways the most personal. The name of the movie is Gunner Palace. And definately check out this fine rendition, nay Hendrixesqe rendition, of the Star Spangled Banner played in Iraq by a US soldier, in a clip from Tucker's film.

A film site has this about the film clips:
The clips are also indicative of what sets Gunner Palace apart. The US now has around 140,000 troops in Iraq. Since President Bush declared their mission accomplished, nearly 800 have been killed and thousands more wounded. Regardless of where you stand on the war, you've got to wonder what life for these men and women is like day by day - and that's precisely what goes missing on the news and very much what this film goes a long way towards showing us. All politics aside. "I don't even know what my bias is anymore," says Tucker. "My bias has completely changed. I think that sometimes I sound like a raving right-wing lunatic and other times I sound like a raving socialist or something. But I'm trying to make something that's honest. And soldiers have a huge hang-up about it. All they want is for someone to tell the truth. Not embellish it."

June 28, 2004

Good News (a/k/a Saddam Who?)

The news is good today, per some Iraqi bloggers.

From A Small Victory.

June 26, 2004

Ahead of the Curve


Like a broken record, for months we were told how terribly things were going in Iraq, the Sadr revolt being Exhibit A or B, take your pick. But today the NY Times explains that we won a big victory against Sadr and his Mahdi Army.

It's nice to see the Times reject what I call Vietnamization journalism (all US military engagements are a repeat of Vietnam), even if they are a day late and a dollar short in doing so. The question remains, why are so many journalists so blind to our successes until after the fact? Why, in the heat of battle, are we the clumsy fool, bound to lose, even as decisive victory is at hand? Among the many many reasons is that they have so little understanding and regard for things military. And yes, I know, I'm being kind.

Similarly, The Belmont Club takes a look at the WaPo's somewhat less sanguine analysis of the Sadr revolt. And for an even better understanding of why we're succeeding where others have failed, try Belmont Club's next entry, The Grand Bumblers.

Really -- read it. You won't see stuff like this in the Times or the WaPo for a few months yet.

Life Meets Art


While reading this article from today's NY Times I couldn't help but wonder how Jerry, George, Elaine, and Kramer were doing.
Cellphones are chock-full of features like built-in cameras, personalized ring tones and text messaging. They also gave a real boost to Kenny Hall's effort to cheat on his girlfriend.

Mr. Hall, a 20-year-old college student in Denver, decided in March to spend a weekend in nearby Boulder with another woman. He turned to his cellphone for help, sending out a text message to hundreds of other cellphone users in an "alibi and excuse club," a network of 3,400 strangers who help each other skip work, get out of dates or give a loved one the slip.

Assistance came instantly. A club member, on receiving Mr. Hall's message, agreed to call the girlfriend. He pretended to be the soccer coach from the University of Colorado at Boulder and said that Mr. Hall was needed in town for a tryout.

"It worked out pretty good," said Mr. Hall, who signed up for the network on www.sms.ac, a Web site that offers access to hundreds of mobile chat rooms.
How does that go again? Life imitates art? Art imitates life? Art Vandelay imitates . . . .

June 24, 2004

Some Views

I haven't seen the movie, but this makes a lot of sense to me.

For another view, there's this.

I'm out of views.

June 23, 2004

The Wonders of Medical Science

Things we never heard Ward say to June:

Say June, I'm sure glad you're still nursing the Beaver because I think I have a wart on my tongue.

Leaps Tall Buildings With a Single Bound

Just don't expose this kid to any kryptonite.

June 22, 2004

True?

From Volokh:
Moore and the New York Times: Dan Gifford passes this along; it was apparently transcribed by a listener, purportedly from the June 18, 2004 Late Show with David Letterman. Don't know if it's true, and I won't assume that it is. But it's at least a good joke:

David Letterman: How do we know what's in your film [Fahrenheit 9/11] is true?

Michael Moore: Because I got most of my information from The New York Times.

Audience: Wild laughter.

Letterman: Strains to repress laughing

Moore: What's so funny?

(I should mention that Moore was indeed on the June 18 show, but the excerpt available on the highlights site is only of Moore's memories of his Oscar night).
Is it true? Who can really say?

UPDATE: Alas, not true. Chalk it up to one of those stories that would have been funny if . . . .

A Mere Technicality


This story keeps popping up over the last week, and for good reason. An interim staff report from the 9/11 Commission says there's no evidence that Saddam collaborated with Al Qaeda on attacks against the US, obviously including the 9/11 attacks. In the ensuing days we got headlines from the big players, for example the Times (LA and NY) and others, and columnists weigh in, to the effect that the 9/11 Commission has undermined Bush's stated reasons for war with Iraq -- but of course that was never actually one of the reasons! A mere technicality, I know, but still.

I don't know, but if I'm a journalist, wouldn't it be at least a bit embarrassing to have the subject of your story have to come out to issue a correction about it?
"There were connections between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's government," said commission Vice Chair Lee Hamilton. "We don't disagree with that. What we have said is that we don't have any evidence of a cooperative, or a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these al-Qaida operatives with regard to attacks on the United States [italics added]. So it seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, that the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me."
There's tons of stuff already out there here and here and here and here.

The report wasn't even close to saying what the papers said it said -- it's almost appears as if the media is being intentionally dense on the matter.

June 19, 2004

Lies and more lies

I was going to blog about this, but it's done better than I'm up to at Just One Minute.

End of the Line

Can I interest you in a buggy whip?

June 18, 2004

C'mere -- lemme show you a picture . . .

I've read a lot of stuff along the lines of "the media overplayed Abu Ghraib by showing the same pictures over and over and over again for weeks". And the media is anti-war, and liberal, and all that, and there you go.

I don't disagree with some of that argument but it misses something else. For almost 15 minutes now I've been watching Joe Scarborough on MSNBC interview various talkings heads about the decapitation murder today of Paul Johnson and the righteous (if I might use that word) justice achieved by the Saudi's when they killed four Al Quaeda trying to dispose of his body, including Al Quaeda's Murderer-in-Charge in that country. So far so good. But through out the program the discussion has constantly been heard over repeated viewings of the same video, over and over and over and over again. Johnson blindfolded with duct tape wrapped around his eyes -- Johnson still blindfolded, always blindfolded, from a different angle, this time saying something. Over and over and over and over again.

They can't resist. They have video. It is their lifeblood. If they have it and if they can show it, they will. Not once, but many times. I started writing this over 10 minutes ago and they just started the loop again. At this point in the show it has no purpose, other than to be shown. That in itself is a purpose.

Is it shameless? Yes. But, you might say, Scarborough isn't liberal, and he's doing the same thing only with a video that supports his side. Even if that's so it just makes the point. And if the media could have gotten away with it, they'd have done the same thing for the Nick Berg video.

So are they liberal? Yeah, sure. Did they overplay Abu Ghraib? Yup. But I don't think that's very worthy evidence in itself of bias. Twenty years from now when we're even more desensitized to this stuff than we are now, they'll be showing Nick Berg's beheading on the History Channel, and then on American Experience.

June 17, 2004

Silly Bunt


I like baseball, but the reference to "bunt" has to do with something else entirely. Check out the link for everything you ever wanted to know about bunts, silly and otherwise, but were afraid to ask. Be sure to scroll.
Bounder: Can you say the letter 'K'
Tourist: Oh yes, Khaki, king, kettle, Kuwait, Keble Bollege Oxford
Bounder: Why don't you say the letter 'K' instead of the letter 'C'
Tourist: What you mean.....spell bolour with a K
Bounder: Yes
Tourist: Kolour. Oh that's very good, I never thought of that what a silly bunt.
Transcript via docweasel. Link to "silly bunt" via Daniel Drezner.

Will They Be Playing "Born To Be Wild"?


For someone who can remember his kindergarten and first grade classrooms decorated with pictures of Redstone and Atlas rockets named Freedom 7 and Friendship 7, this is pretty cool indeed.

June 16, 2004

Champagne for Everyone!

This is a day I celebrate every year.

This is the first day in more than six, no eight or more months, when there is no NBA Basketball and no NHL Hockey. No practice, no pre-season, no camps or drafts or games. No interminable playoffs. No news to crowd out baseball from the sports pages. No news to be bored to tears with.

I'm not much of an NBA or NHL fan, as you can tell. Not that I don't like basketball or hockey -- just that I don't think much of team sports played for personal aggrandizement or featuring gratuitous violence.

What Liberal Medi . . . Oh Never Mind


When folks talk about the "liberal media", this is what they mean.

Link via you know who. And he doesn't stop there.

June 15, 2004

Krugman is the Worst Columnist Ever


Paul Krugman says John Ashcroft is the worst Attorney General ever. Worst. Attorney General. Ever.

It'd be a little easier to swallow that one if Krugman at least made a slight effort to review the dozens and dozens of attorney generals we've had in 200+ years of, well, having them. But no, it's easier to simply say it, after all it's his uninformed opinion, right?

VodkaPundit has more -- read the comments for some suggested alternatives.

Hope Springs Eternal

Science is my friend:

. . . cloning would provide an unlimited supply of donor hair, allowing far greater hair density than is currently possible.

June 8, 2004

Server Voodoo II

The server voodoo seems to have worked. Trackbacks are humming along for the first time ever, and the admin. pages refresh much more quickly for me.

But the laptop fell back in the crapper today, and its short term prognosis as a useful implement is dim. We'll see.

Extra Innings


Last night I posted that Jane Galt got the better of Will Saletan and Twins Fan Dan on the point of what the word liberty means, at least in the context of Ronald Reagan's frequent use of the term. I left this comment to Twins Fan Dan's post on Will Carroll's Weblog:
What Saletan's talking about isn't liberty, and trickle down economics has nothing to do with the topic. Follow the link.
I was referring to both Saletan's comment on the meaning of the term and Twin Fan Dan's closing comments in his post:
Like it or not it was brilliant - - that government/as/the/only/tyranny issue. But let?s stop pretending that this was some historical sea-change philosophy.

What it was: Brilliant political strategy for Reagan?s political career, failed policy for the average American. (See ?Trickle Down Economics? for primer.)
Twins Fan Dan responded in the comments to his post:
Peter: I hate to bitch-slap people in comments but saying I don't read my linked articles qualifies as bordering on the lunatic.

The libertarian argument is so damn wrong. Go read "Scott" from the comments section of that blog.

And I never said "trickle down" economics had anything to do with liberty or Saletan's post. My point with that was that his political stratgey was terrible for the average American. He was the one who ushered in the mainstream meme (at least in contemporary politics) "cut taxes on the rich, and it'll trickle down to the average folk". well what a canard. it works to get you elected because people at +300k like to hear that. Hell I like to hear it for me; I make a lot of money. But unfortunately it's bad for the rest of the America. And I can think of what is good for me and what is good for America and sometimes know that my personal needs are subservient. Something a Libertarian wouldn't understand. Its all well and good in an Ayn Rand world, but unfortunately we live in the real world. Look at (your) Scorboard: Liberal Democracy/Republic = the best in the history of the world, Government built on Randian libertariansim = 0.
Well first, I didn't say he didn't read his linked articles -- all I said is that what Saletan was talking about isn't liberty, and I posted a link that I think explained quite well why that's so.

Liberty has a meaning in American political history. We fought and won a revolution against the British crown over the point, and the point was all about repressive governments telling us we can't do this, and taking our property, and putting us in jail for saying things, etc. etc. Liberty, in American political history, means the government doesn't get to run people's lives, and that's the sense in which Reagan used it.

Galt called Saletan on this point. Saletan said:
Do you buy Reagan's Law? That depends on two related questions. First, do you define liberty as the right to do things, or the ability to take advantage of that right?
Galt's response:
But it is Saletan who appears confused, not Reagan. What he is describing is not liberty; it is security. Security is also valuable and good, but it is not the same thing as liberty.
We fought and won a revolution to be free of overreaching government intereference, not to be "free" from, as Saletan says, the inability to pay bills, save money, or go to college. The latter is security, not liberty, which was Galt's point.

The argument is really over what are called positive and negative rights. Steven Bainbridge and Eugene Volokh have characteristically taken it to greater heights. Negative rights, generally those found in the Constitution, are couched in terms that say the government can't do this or that to you -- convict you of a crime without a jury, force you to testify against yourself, make it a crime to say things. The right is to not have the government do these things to you. Positve rights are those rights where the government must do something for you, as Saletan meant when he said:
But if liberty is the ability to make a decent living or attend a good school, then getting government out of the way isn't enough. In fact, government expansion, in the form of student loans or job training, may be necessary.
Saletan get's liberty all wrong here. Liberty isn't about the ability to make a living or the ability to attend a good school, it's about not having the government interfere with your ability to make that living or attend that school. By couching it that way, however, Saletan easily morphs into how meaningless liberty must then be because one might not be able to get that high wage or go to that school, and if they can't, they don't really have liberty, and if they don't have liberty, then the government should provide it, and since Reagan didn't he was wrong.

Galt, better than I can, skewered this rhetoric. She objects to defining security as liberty. While acknowledging that security is good, she also relates the historic meaning of those words in political dialogue, saying:
This promiscuous appropriating of words and redefining them is rather Orwellian. Saletan seems unwilling to admit he prefers one to the other; nor has he taken the many risk of fighting, as the libertarians and socialists are, to declare that one or the other has the sacred status of a right. Instead, he redefines them so as to obviate the need for argument: security and liberty are not two competing goods that we have to trade off against each other; security is liberty, doncha see. Indeed, this makes argument about the relative merits of security and liberty impossible; we are reduced to quibbling about dictionary definitions.
Galt has a another post on the topic today, in light of the Bainbridge/Volokh exchange, and she concludes:
I think, though, that it is possible to recognize that positive and negative rights are in some cases complementary, without claiming that they are therefore the same thing. I can't have night without day, but that doesn't mean the sun is shining at midnight.
I don't think you can say she meant otherwise from her first post, and I haven't argued otherwise here. All government policies that enhance the economic security of citizens do not necessarily detract from the liberty rights of those citizens. The point all along has been that the two are not the same. Saletan, by suggesting Reagan was short on delivering liberty because he didn't deliver something that was not liberty, was wrong.

Twins Fan Dan cited Scott's comment to Galt's first post in rebuttal. Scott's reference to the Brown decision is irrelevant. Nothing about Reagan's conception of liberty is contrary to Brown. And since the meaning of words is what this is all about, it's not surprising perhaps to see Scott do a nice job on the word security, twisting it from the sense in which it is used here (economic security) into security from terroism, which he thinks is John Ashcroft's excuse for infringing liberties. That's another discussion, but the point is, it doesn't relate to what we're talking about here.

As for Twins Fan Dan, if he hates to bitch slap people in his comments, maybe he shouldn't.

June 7, 2004

Server Voodoo

I'm told there's some work to be done on the server hosting this site which will take place sometime tomorrow evening. Backing up, moving to new server, implementing cold fusion technology . . . something like that.

But on a brighter note, the laptop is back in working order (it's been down for a week) so I can continue my quixotic attempt to find some easy to use HTML editing software for the Mac. I'm more than satisfied with this freebie for use on the PC. Recommendations are welcome but unanticipated.

The Score


Over at Will Carrol's Weblog, Twins Fan Dan posts this heavily quoting from William Saletan's latest in Slate.

Meanwhile, Jane Galt dissects Saletan's premise.

Galt 1, Saletan and Twins Fan Dan 0.

Deceased Presidential Coverage


There's a long list of blog entries about Ronald Reagan over at Tim Blair's. That's where I found this entry from Farm Accident Digest.
As for Reagan, I spent his presidency loathing his policies and considering him a well meaning, but dangerous fool. I have, of course, grown up since then. Instead of considering any policy or actual action, at this point I prefer to consider his philosophy of optimism and love of the idea of liberty.

I do know that I will be avoiding most media coverage this week. It will be hard to watch many of those who so openly disdained the man and what he believed in be charged with setting his place in history. Add in that in reaction to that many will be attempting hagiography will make it extra annoying. It will be impossible, after yesterday's initial coverage, to avoid politicizing of this. Hell, Bill Bennett couldn't even get through 10 minutes yesterday without making what I'm sure he thought was a sly Clinton crack. Not that I really expect much more from Bennett.
I appreciate the point he makes, and it's a fair one, about those who openly disdained Reagan getting the first shot at setting his place in history. But I also remember the coverage of Richard Nixon's funeral, which as I recall (now anyway) was nearly uniformly positive, or at least didn't seriously dwell on Nixon's downside. I have to say there's something about the way the media covers funerals of ex-Presidents that includes a heavy dose of avoiding speaking poorly of the dead. In Reagan's case, they'll have a much easier job of it than they did with Nixon.

Or maybe I just don't remember it well.

June 6, 2004

Pop Quiz


Compare and contrast this:
I try to imagine a day 60 years from now, when the veterans of our present conflict ? old men themselves by then ? gather at their brand-new war memorial, somewhere down on the Mall, to commemorate their own D-Day (that would be March 20, 2063). What will that new generation of old soldiers have in their minds that day? Not the certainty and confidence that today's old men have. Nor the sense of having served in a democratic war that every young man fought in and all the folks at home supported. They'll remember their buddies, and the good times and the bad ones, and wish, perhaps, that their sad war had been worthy of them.
With this:
Something has gone badly wrong when (with the exception of a few country songs) our popular culture visibly recoils from the biggest event of our time. Hollywood has plenty of ''courage'' when it comes to Michael Moore conspiracies or Madonna's bottom. But ask them to make a post-9/11 thriller in which Americans are the good guys and the enemy is, well, the enemy, and they'd tell you there's no audience for it. Just like they told Mel he'd lose his shirt on ''The Passion of the Christ.'' It's not about economics, it's about the loss of that ''cultural confidence'' James Lileks wrote about.

June 5, 2004

Doom


George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it."

Jacques Chiraq: "It is very difficult to compare historical situations that differ because history is not repetitive."

June 4, 2004

Assault Bulldozers


After Columbine a lot of people thought we should ban a lot of guns. But if we do that, do we have to ban heavy machinery too?

Achievement


Available in tomorrow's NY Times today's Instapundit.
If this were happening to U.S. forces, it would be frontpage news worldwide, amid invocations of Vietnam and claims that it symbolized America's impotent brutality on the world scene. When it happens to the U.N., though, it hardly even counts as news.
But, you see, we must internationalize the War on Terror. We must have the U.N. with us. The more countries the better! If Kerry's elected President he'll make the world love us, so we can have these highly effective forces on our side. Vote Kerry. (Slap!)

But since when did agreeing on an objective become more important than actually achieving it?

What He Said


Clicking around, I was reading this (which I agree with, and read the comments too), and found this aged post also. He pretty much describes the way I think/feel, so I thought it's worth the link.

Naw, it couldn't be!


Mickey Kaus reports that ABC's Mark Halperin, who last year rejected claims that Bush haters were as vehement as Clinton haters, has now changed his tune.

Kaus's format doesn't support permalinks, so scroll down to the paragraph with the heading Balance of Anger. And be sure to click on the link to this.

It seems to me that Clinton's defenders often viewed his detractors as mouth foaming crazy people because as everyone could see, Clinton wasn't nearly that bad in a palpably objective sense. So it's funny to watch the same folks now try to defend the same behavior from their own side.

Yesterday


Sir Paul:
But he knows that the songs he and John Lennon wrote together will get the biggest cheers of all.

"There are days when I wake up and have to remind myself that I wrote songs with John Lennon," he says.

"It's fantastic that he was a part of my life in that way.

IMAGINE the luxury of being stuck on a song and being able to hand it over to John Lennon to finish off. Do I miss that? Of course I do. Hugely.

"In all the years I wrote with John, I can't remember a single occasion when we didn't come up with a song.

"At worst, we'd write at least once every day. It all happened at an amazing pace.

June 2, 2004

Speech! Speech!


I was done blogging tonight (I'm taking tomorrow off to see the Yankees/O's game at the Stadium and I need my beauty ugly sleep) but then I clicked one more time and well, you know. Steven den Beste writes a speech for President Bush to deliver in Normandy on June 6, 2004, channeling Abraham Lincoln:
They should rest among friends, among those who understand and are grateful for the sacrifice they made. They cannot know what we do, or what we say, but we still owe it to them to live up to the example they set for us. We owe it to them to not waste their sacrifice; we owe it to them to refuse to lightly discard the precious gift of liberty they gave everything to preserve. They should rest among friends who understand that no price is too steep for us to pay to preserve our liberty.
Then, den Beste wants Bush to rip the French heart out:
I am saddened that they have no such friends here. The grandsons of these men are once again fighting overseas in a strange land, which is full of people speaking a strange and incomprehensible language, in order to free those people from brutal tyranny and to prevent that tyranny from threatening their loved ones at home. I am saddened that these brave soldiers, who fought and died to free the people of a nation not their own, must now rest among people who condemn their grandsons as they, too, fight and die to free the people of a nation not their own. I am saddened that they must rest among people who feel only contempt for the values they died to preserve. I am saddened that the people these men died for do not believe anyone else should be given the precious gift of liberty they themselves were given by these dead soldiers. These men deserve better than that.
Read the whole thing. Ah, hell, read as much as you want.

Me Too


I was going to say this.
The truth is that, under the guise of reform, we often make matters worse. The reason that we're so seduced by reform is that it appeals to our national optimism. If something's wrong, we Americans think we can fix it. We're a nation of compulsive problem-solvers. But we don't often enough ask whether the problem is worth solving or whether the solution creates even larger problems. In these cases, we've (1) made the long-term budget outlook darker and (2) quietly eroded basic rights of free speech and political association for no real benefit. (The assault on the "appearance of corruption" is futile because reformers believe that large sums of political money are inevitably corrupting.) I am not arguing that all reforms -- all changes to the status quo -- fail. Many succeed dramatically. To take one example: On the whole, environmental regulation has worked. But most reforms, even successful ones, don't live up to exaggerated expectations. The reformist impulse, the late historian Richard Hofstadter once wrote, "often wanders over the border between reality and impossibility." Because reformers habitually embrace utopian goals, results routinely fall short and breed disappointment. . . .

What I'm arguing now is that our debates would be more candid, rigorous and productive if we abandoned the very notion of reform and concentrated on the actual virtues and vices of whatever is being proposed. Reform is a dangerous simplifier and filter, designed to screen out honest skepticism and dissent. The reform we really need is to drop the word altogether. Almost certainly, we won't get it.
Free drink to Vodkapundit.

June 1, 2004

Calluses?


Just for the hell of it I checked my Sitemeter logs and discoverd that I've been visited twice over the weekend (by strangers), once via this Google search (lileks U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens) and another time via this second Google search ("Michael Moore" calluses).

So in my never ending effort to drive traffic to this site, I have only this to say: James Lileks and the UN are risking their lives and those of their citizens to find Michael Moore's calluses. Google that!

Spirit of America


Spirit of America, they say, is a cause everyone can endorse. They'll get two sawbucks from me.

But if a sawbuck is $10, and a fin is $5, and two bits is a quarter, what's $20?

Tilting At Windmills


I saw this over the weekend but didn't get around to blogging anything, so I'll come back to it before it slips into the archives. Tom Friedman started off his 5/30 column like this:
The American public has been treated to such a festival of mea, wea and hea culpas on Iraq lately it could be forgiven for feeling utterly lost. Americans are caught between a president who continues to wax utopian about Iraq and an analytical community that has become consumed by despair. This is no way to run a railroad. There are better ways to think about this problem. A good place to start is by thinking about Russia.
He goes on to explain his "Tilt Theory of History", using Russia as his example. He thinks several Western leaders, Bush I, Thatcher, Gorbachev, Mitterand, et al. helped to tilt the old Soviet Union in the right direction, after it had been tilted for so long in the wrong direction. And he thinks that's a good thing, even though no one would accuse Russia today of being a Jeffersonian Democracy.

Next, he examines Iraq against his Tilt Theory, and says:
"I think this is a good time for sober realism, which means focusing on what is possible in Iraq, and what is the minimum we want from Iraq, not on what we would ideally like in Iraq," notes Michael Mandelbaum, the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert, whose delightful new book, just out this week, entitled "The Meaning of Sports," contains many parallels between what makes for successful teams and successful countries. "The minimum we want is an Iraq that is reasonably stable, and doesn't harbor terrorists or threaten its neighbors."

As one who believed ? and still does ? in the possibility and the importance of tilting the Arab-Muslim world from the wrong directions detailed in the U.N.'s Arab Human Development Reports to the right ones, I detest the politically driven failures of the Bush team in Iraq. In a panic, the Bush team, having lost its exaggerated realist rationale for the war ? W.M.D. ? has now gone to the other extreme and offered us an exaggerated idealist rationale ? that all Iraqis crave freedom and democracy and we can deliver this transformation shortly, if we just stick to it.
And here is where we hold the phone. First off, politically driven failures because there have been no WMD caches found? How is it that everyone in the WORLD thought Saddam had WMD but when Bush thought it'd be a good idea to disarm him, all sorts of international hand-wringing enused (but no denials of the WMD mind you), and now that we haven't found them, it's a politically driven failure? Friedman says all he ever hoped for was a tilt in Iraq and that the best we could hope for is a country that was stable and didn't harbor terrorists, and threaten others. But will someone please point me to all of those speeches where Bush said something different, said that this wasn't the strategic goal all along? Friedman is choking perhaps, because that's exactly what appears at the moment to be coming to pass. And he's trying to figure out how it must be in spite of, and not because of, Bush.

So to recap. Friedman thinks all we could accomplish is what's being accomplished. But if Bush hadn't screwed things up so badly with his politically driven failures, we'd what -- still have the chance to accomplish what we wanted to accomplish?

Roger Simon has more.

Housekeeping


I haven't done much with the blogroll lately. It's needed some pruning here and sprucing up there, and this hardly counts for that. I deleted Gregg Easterbrook, who no longer blogs at National Review Online, and Amish Tech Support, which has transformed itself into This Blog is Full of Crap, which has replaced it. Word has it that this title was chosen only because Who Can Really Say? was taken. Of course, "word" is full of crap.

But on a lighter note, I deny all rumors that Who Can Really Say? will soon change it's name to This Blog is Full of Shit.