Fighting Words

I'm not throwing in with any of the Democratic Presidential candidates just yet, but this made me give a snarl of joy:

"I'm not going to let the likes of Tom DeLay question my patriotism, which I fought for and bled for in order to have the right to speak out."

Keep talking like that, Mr. Kerry, and I just might have to give you a closer look.

Anyone who puts the screws to DeLay gets serious points in my book.

Oceana

After getting home late this evening, I sat down on the couch and started flipping through the channels.

For some reason, I stopped on Fox News for a few minutes, watching an interview with some Colonel that seemed vaguely interesting.

I watched for a few minutes, only giving it half my attention.

After ten minutes, something suddenly hit me.

In between each segment, Fox has taken to playing military-sounding music, a lone trumpet moan accompanying a low drum roll. While this somber music plays, they switch to two different screens. The first is dominated by the words "Operation: Iraqi Freedom." The second consists solely of the words "Never Forget" in huge letters.

Thinking about it, I remembered that I had seen that screen numerous times before, and had never paid it one second's worth of attention. It had slipped under my perceptual radar.

Now that I actually thought about it though, a question and its answer suddenly came into my head.

What is it we're supposed to never forget?

The answer, of course, is September 11th. That's why I hadn't given it any thought; over the last year and a half, I've seen so many variations of "never forget" so many times that I now completely filter them out. At this point, such sentiments are background noise.

The interesting thing about this instance, however, is that it is being overtly linked to the war in Iraq. I watched for a few more minutes to make sure that they weren't just doing an extended piece about 9/11. They weren't. It was all about Iraq. September 11th wasn't mentioned once. But, two more times, the screen admonished me to Never Forget.

I have never before had as intense an experience of Orwellian vertigo as I had as I watched this.

"Holy Christ, it's brilliant," I thought, "It's overt subliminal advertising."

In big white letters, Fox News is telling me how to feel about the war. I am supposed to directly link what I am watching on the screen with the events of September 11th.

It strange how subtle six-inch letters can be.

Am I overreacting? Well, no. I'm not freaking out, I'm not suddenly re-evaluating everything I know or think I know.

But I do think that the way in which such a blatant manipulation, even though it didn't officially "work" on me, completely slid under my radar is creepy as hell.

The French Are Evil

~In Which We Meet Jack, The All-Purpose Straw Man~

Hi Jack.

"Hi."

How are you?

"Fine. Boy, do French people suck."

Yeah they do.

"Wait, you agree?"

Sure I agree.

"No, I mean the French are evil."

They sure are.

"You don't really believe that."

Sure I do, if you mean evil in the vaguely cartoonish way that I believe my mailman to be evil.

"No, you don't seem to get it. I mean evil like Hitler."

Weren't the French conquered by Hitler?

"Yes! I mean, no. They surrendered to Hitler."

All of them?

"Well, no...only the ones who were adults at the time."

Most of those people are dead.

"Yes, but they still surrendered!"

All of them?

"Well, their government did!"

You mean their elected government?

"Yes!"

Like their Prime Minister?

"Yes!"

That would be Paul Reynaud?

"Yes! Yes!"

Reynaud wanted to move the government to Africa.

"See? He was a coward. What did he want to go to Africa for?"

Because the German offensive could not be stopped, and the only way the government could continue to fight the Nazis was to keep out of their reach.

"Well, if he didn't surrender, who did?"

Petain. He was a war hero who was made vice premier to boost French morale and help fight the Nazis. He took over the government when he forced Reynaud to resign."

"So, the French thought he would fight the Nazis, but he surrendered to them instead?"

Yes.

"Then the French are stupid!"

All of them?

"Stop saying that."

Okay.

"Besides, don't you know the French are ungrateful that we saved them from evil?"

I thought the French were evil.

"They are!"

So we saved evil?

"Of course not! We are good! We fight evil."

Have we ever fought the French?

"Not yet."

Okay.

"Because...um...the French weren't evil then!"

They weren't?

"No! Just cowards."

All of-

"Shut up! The point is, they're ungrateful. Don't you know that the French just vandalized a memorial cemetary dedicated to British soldiers who died in the war?"

Is America a violent atheist nation?

"What?"

Is America a violent atheist nation?

"No! Of course not! We are One Nation Under God."

But two weeks ago, two churches in my town were broken into and vandalized.

"Well, that was probably just some kids being stupid."

Probably.

"You agree with me?"

I do.

"Oh. Well good. So you also agree that the French are evil?"

I already said that I did.

"Yes, but I mean really evil. Like Hitler."

The French tried to conquer Europe?

"Well, duh. Haven't you ever heard of Napoleon?"

That was two hundred years ago.

"It's still evil! Conquering Europe is always evil!"

Well that seems reasonable.

"See? So Napoleon was evil. And the United States fights evil."

We didn't fight Napoleon.

"That's only because we weren't very big back then. We hadn't even expanded past the Mississippi River yet!"

No. Not until Napoleon sold us the western half of North America.

"Well...I...that doesn't matter. That was two hundred years ago."

Okay.

"The point is, the French are evil."

Like Hitler?

"Like Hitler."

I didn't realize the French were killing large numbers of Jews.

"Uh...they're not. But don't you read the news? They don't like Jews in certain parts of France."

They don't like Jews in certain parts of Florida either.

"But at least we don't beat up Jews here in America!"

No, but we do tend to make life unpleasant for black people from time to time.

"Yeah, but the French have a long history of anti-Semitism."

I seem to recall reading somewhere that we have something of a history with racism.

"Are you saying racism is worse than anti-Semitism?"

Are you saying it's better?

"Well, no...but at least we never committed genocide."

Have you ever met a Native American?

"No, but that's not my fault. There aren't that many of them."

No, I guess there's not.

"Quit trying to change the subject. You just don't want to admit that the French committed genocide."

They did?

"Ha! Now I have you! The French helped the Nazis commit genocide. They sent thousands of Jews to Germany. And helping someone commit genocide is just as bad as doing it yourself."

That's true.

"So the French indirectly committed genocide."

All-

"Stop right there! No, I don't mean every single one of them. But their government leaders did."

You mean the ones that surrendered?

"Yes! And it doesn't matter if they gained power by tricking the French people! They were never brought to justice by the French people."

Sure, if by "never brought to justice" you mean "executed for treason."

"Don't you get it?! The French are evil!"

So you've mentioned.

"Well, it's true! They like Saddam Hussein!"

They do?

"Sure they do! They sold him weapons!"

So did we.

"That doesn't matter. He was fighting Iran at the time, and Iran was our enemy!"

Well that's true.

"See? I knew you would understand."

So we stopped selling him weapons when he started being evil?

"Yes."

When did that happen?

"When he used chemical weapons against Iran."

That's evil?

"Yes! You are never, ever allowed to use chemical weapons. If you do, you are evil."

Then why did we sell them to Iraq?

"Because we wanted them to use them against Iran."

We wanted Iraq to be evil?

"No! We want them to be good! That is why we are going to liberate them!"

I see.

"You're just being difficult. The point is that France is evil."

You keep saying that.

"Because it's true! They want us to lose the war in Iraq!"

They do?

"Yes! Haven't you been reading the news?"

Why, yes I have.

"They wanted us to go to the United Nations before we invaded Iraq!"

So did a few other people, I think.

"But we all know the United Nations is a corrupt and meaningless bureaucracy that no longer has any relevance."

So why are we invading Iraq?

"Because they are in material breach of United Nations Resolution 1441."

Okay.

"And the French want us to lose!"

Why would they want that?

"So they can control the European Union."

If we lose the war, they get to control the EU?

"Well...they'll be able to say 'I told you so' to us because they didn't want us to go to war."

By that logic, Mexico would get to control the EU. Quite a few actors too.

"Actors are stupid. They should just shut up and entertain us. No one cares what they think."

That's a common enough sentiment.

"Yeah. Lots of people think actors are stupid. Hey, you know what? A lot of people think the French are stupid too. You know what would be funny?"

What?

"If the French elected an actor to be their leader! Ha ha! Stupid French people!"

Yes, electing an actor to be your leader would be pretty stupid.

"See? I knew you'd agree with me. What's so funny?"

Nothing.

"This isn't funny. The French could attack us at any moment."

What?

"The French could be planning on attacking us."

Why would they do that?

"Because they hate the United States. And because they are afraid we will find evidence that they gave nuclear weapons to Iraq."

They gave nuclear weapons to Iraq?

"Nuclear materials, yes. Probably. I think. Maybe."

Why would they do that?

"Because they hate the United States."

Okay.

"In fact, we might have to pre-emptively attack them. They are no longer our allies, after all."

They aren't?

"No. They did not agree to join the Coalition of the Willing, and so they are our enemy. They will be held responsible."

Wouldn't attacking France cause the rest of Europe to come to their defense?

"We might have to conquer the rest of Europe as well. Especially Germany. They're almost as bad as the French."

Oh. But I thought it was evil to conquer Europe.

"Not when we do it."

Okay.

"You know what I'm afraid of?"

What are you afraid of?

"France has nuclear weapons. Do you know how dangerous that is? You cannot trust the French."

Because they are evil?

"Because they are evil."

Right.

"We need to use every bit of influence we have to counter the growing power of France. We need to contain them and limit their ability to attack us, because they present a clear and present danger to us and our way of life."

That sounds rational. So what should we do about North Korea? They have nuclear weapons, and missiles that can hit us.

"That's a regional problem that needs to be dealt with by the nations in the region including Japan, China, and South Korea."

Okay.

"Also, we need to- Hey! You were making fun of Ronald Reagan earlier, weren't you?"

Yes.

"What's wrong with you? Don't you know he single-handedly defeated the Soviet Union?"

Consider me rebuked.

"I bet Reagan knows the French are evil."

I'm sure he does.

[Contemplative Pause]

"You know, the French really suck."

They certainly do, Jack. They certainly do.

Moderate Geometry

I've been thinking about the "moderates vs. extremists" issue some more, and trying to punch as many holes as possible into my provisional definition of extremism: Within any group, the extremists are those who sacrifice principles held by the majority of the group in order to advance a single set of favored beliefs that the larger group considers of equal or lesser importance.

The two biggest problems that I've come up with so far are:

1) The difference between perception and reality. This is where you get into issues of people being seen as extreme who are actually fairly moderate and vice versa. This is actually a much larger issue than it appears to be on the surface. In order to really be able to distinguish the extremists from the moderates, you need to decide what question you're asking: are you talking about the people who really are extremists, or just those who the group in question views as extremists? Again, I'll bring in the issue of industrial regulation as an example. If massive deregulation is stated solely in terms of economic growth and the free market, then, by the above definition, it is a moderate position (as the majority of the group likes economic growth and the free market). However, if it is stated in terms of health, safety, and environmental impact as well as growth and the free market, then it can be seen as an extremist position (because the majority of the group may not like economic growth if it means dumping carcinogens into the water supply).

Then, of course, you have to address the question of objectivity and to what degree it is possible to achieve it. After all, depending on the level of objectivity it is possible to achieve, there is no real definition of an extremist; it's all a matter of point of view.

2) The essential uselessness of the conventional representation of the entire political spectrum as a continuum between anarchy/communism and totalitarianism/free market fundamentalism (or more commonly, communism vs. fascism) in determining moderation vs. extremism.

As number one is a rather complex issue (again, depending on what question you're asking), and raises a thesis-level philosophical question ("to what degree is objectivity possible?"), I choose to ignore it for now.

Number two, on the other hand, is something that's bothered me for awhile.

Setting aside the ridiculous nature of defining every conceivable political position based on where people sat in the French National Assembly two hundred years ago, dividing the political spectrum into "Left wing" and "Right wing" provides a seriously flawed view of any given person's political beliefs. It also presents a serious obstacle to identifying extremists.

To understand just how skewed a picture the Left-Right continuum gives of any particular person's beliefs, it is helpful to look at basic geometry.

Suppose you have two three-dimensional objects, a sphere and a cylinder. As long as they are viewed in three dimensions, the difference between them is obvious.

However, if one of the dimensions is removed, and the shapes are translated into two dimensions (in mathematics, this is called projection), you lose information related to the lost dimension, and the two shapes appear identical.





When the sphere and the square are projected onto plane xy, they can both be represented by circle A. What this means is that, given only the information available in plane xy, it is impossible to tell if the object is really a sphere or a cylinder.

While the information loss in the translation from three dimensions to two is bad, the transition from two to one is even worse.



Without that extra dimension, both triangle t and square s are represented by a single line segment, which comes nowhere near describing each shape.

Again, you can see how two different objects -- t and s -- are indistinguishable when they lose a dimension.

The implications of this for the one-dimensional conception of the political spectrum are obvious. Indeed, when it comes to the conventional method of dividing the spectrum, we are forced to overlay several different value ranges one over the other, the end result being two categories -- Left and Right -- which can, at times, give a seriously flawed picture of an issue.

Take, for instance, a person who supports large tax cuts but also strongly believes in gay rights. Because that person believes in both Right and Left wing positions, they would generally be classified as a centrist, as if gay rights and deregulation somehow canceled each other out.

The Left-Right axis forces everyone to shoehorn themselves onto the line somewhere with only one or two major issues, ignoring complexities and making positions that are very different appear to be the same.

The solution, then, is to add a dimension to the traditional Left-Right axis.

While there are a number of different ways that the Left-Right divide can be split into two dimensions, it seems the most useful way is to separate economic stance from social stance.

Instead of superficially lumping Communism and anarchy together in their opposition to laissez faire Capitalism and totalitarianism, a more useful representation would have two axes, one representing the range between Communism and laissez faire Capitalism, the other representing the range between anarchy and totalitarianism.




This method of dividing up the political spectrum is more accurate than a single Left-Right axis, while not being so complex as to cause confusion. Rather than simply being "Left wing" or "Right wing," a particular issue can in this way be described as belonging to quadrant one, two, three, or four.

This has the benefit of dividing up groups that are often incorrectly lumped together. For instance, libertarians would tend to be classified as quadrant II, because of their dual beliefs in personal freedom and the free market. A lot of non-libertarian Republicans, on the other hand, would be quadrant I, because of their increased emphasis on issues like stricter drug laws and additional powers for law enforcement.

It also removes certain contradictions in the extremes of the Left-Right axis (Anarchic Communism? How exactly does that work?)

The dual axis also correctly separates Stalinism, which belongs in quadrant IV, close to corner d, from what we now call progressivism, which would fall into quadrant III.

***

All of this is relevant to the question of moderates vs. extremists because it allows us to more easily spot those who tend toward one or two of the four extremes than does the standard Left-Right axis. After all, there is no good reason why someone who supports budget-busting tax cuts should be labeled as a moderate just because they also happen to believe in gay rights. The two positions are not related, and should not be made to look as though they are by an artificial model.

This is actually another one of the key problems with today's Democratic party, one which can be at least partially attributed to the way we see the political spectrum: no matter how corporate-friendly a Democrat is, they will always be considered a moderate because of their stances on social issues. This flawed perception has allowed the Party to move more and more to the Right (or, more properly, to migrate from quadrant III to quadrant II) without much outcry until just the last couple of years.

Could this kind of alternative classification scheme catch on? Probably not. The old scheme is too firmly entrenched in people's minds for there to be a chance of it changing for at least a generation. However, it can be a useful tool, for people from all sides of the spectrum.

And, really, what other endeavor can simultaneously remove the rhetorical burden of Stalinism from liberalism's back and stop "gay Republican" from being a contradiction in terms?

Sidenote: The quadrants are labeled counterclockwise from the upper right because that is how they are labeled in geometry (trig makes a lot more sense that way). Also, the corners are labeled a through d for reference purposes only (to avoid confusion). The letters have no significance and can be safely disregarded. Additionally, the three lines in the third image are labeled 3a, 3b, and 3c because when I made the image, I thought I was going to label the images themselves figure 1, figure 2, figure 3, and figure 4. (you know, "Please refer to fig. 3...") So the line labels refer to the fact that they are each a part of figure 3. However, when it came time to insert them into this post, I decided that labeling the images figure 1, figure 2, etc. was way too pretentious. So I didn't.

Sidenote the Second: For intellectual snobs who dismiss this as first year poli-sci stuff: get over yourselves. I'm just trying to get everyone on the same page here, and come up with a good answer to the moderate vs. extremist question. This seemed like a pretty good way to do it. For the record, I don't claim to have invented this particular scheme; I've never seen it before, but that probably says more about my experience in political science than it does about political science itself. Anyway, the Left in general doesn't seem to be winning hearts and minds with the way things are currently classified, so I figured what the hell.

The Crazies

Well now. Kevin Drum seems to have kicked up quite a stir in certain portions of the blogosphere.

There are a number of issues that this mini-debate has touched on, but I think the most significant among them is the question "what is a moderate and what is an extremist?" Specifically, as it relates to liberals and the Democratic Party.

Well, let's start by saying that moderates and extremists (and here I'm talking about the Left wing; we'll get to the Right later) believe in a lot of the same general principles. The difference between them is that the extremists, in promoting one set of principles, compromise other principles that are equally or more important.

Stated as a definition: Within any group, the extremists are those who sacrifice principles held by the majority of the group in order to advance a single set of favored beliefs that the larger group considers of equal or lesser importance.

Examples of this include:

• PETA and similar organizations that take an admirable abhorrence of cruelty visited upon creatures that cannot defend themselves, and go so far in fighting for this principle that they dismiss the basic distinction between human suffering and animal suffering. A lot of people would be disturbed by the treatment of animals in industrialized farming operations if they knew about them; however, anyone with even a basic acquaintance with reality is horrified to see such treatment compared to the Holocaust.
  
  
• Organizations such as EarthFirst! and ELF that take legitimate concern for the environment and place it ahead of concern for the safety of other people (lumber workers) through practices such as tree spiking. Many people are concerned about the environment and the impact of various industrial practices upon it, but reasonable people understand that putting innocent people at risk is not an acceptable method of dealing with the problem.
  
  
• War opponents who break into military bases and sabotage equipment. No matter how well-intentioned such people may be, sabotaging military equipment, especially now that the war has started, directly affects the safety of troops in the field. Such people place their desire to stop the war at all costs above concern for the individual soldiers whose lives depend on their equipment.
  
  
• War opponents who channel their aversion to the horrors of war into a disdain for, or active hostility towards, military personnel. These are the people that shrug their shoulders and say "What did they expect?" in reference to the families of soldiers killed in action. Again, this is a placing of one set of principles (in this case, opposition to war) above another, equally important set (concern for soldiers -- who are, after all, individuals with just as much right to life as anyone else -- and their families). As the demonstrations of the past month have proved, many people oppose this war; excepting only the extremists, the vast majority of them also (correctly) support the troops.

Additionally, it is important to distinguish between "extreme" and "radical." In this context, a radical is someone who advocates ideas and policies that are different, new, or unusual. Therefore, while it is certainly possible to be a radical extremist (such as someone who advocates a violent Communist revolution), just because someone is a radical does not necessarily mean they are an extremist (the Civil Rights movement, for example).

This definition also takes into account the migration of a position from extreme to moderate. Fifty years ago, a Democrat advocating equal rights for gays would be considered extreme because, for a majority of Democrats, the belief that homosexuality was immoral outweighed the principle of equality for all. Now that that has been reversed, gay rights advocacy is a moderate position.

***

What are some of the implications of this?

The first, and easiest to address, is one of the side arguments between CalPundit and various heavy hitters on the Left side of the blogosphere. Kevin asserted that "part of their reaction to [his] post might be a result of not fully understanding just how far from the center some of us liberal bloggers are." In this he is absolutely correct.

I heard a term for the first time the other day, "incestuous amplification." It's a military term used to describe the situation you get when a commander only listens to the advice of those who agree with him. No matter how insane his plans, without getting dissenting opinions, said commander is likely to think that his plans are perfectly reasonable and likely to succeed.

This immediately made me think of bloggers in general; by their very nature, blogs tend to create communities of fairly like-minded people who read each other's work and, by linking back and forth, reinforce each other's ideas. This can have some amusing effects- witness the increasingly fanciful scenarios Right wing bloggers are coming up with to justify the more-than-slightly-psychotic fear that France might attack the United States. But it also has the effect of reinforcing various beliefs about what "common" opinion is. This leads to false assumptions about how representative various sections of the blogging community are of larger real-world groups.

It is important for Left wing bloggers to understand this, because "moderate" and "extreme" only have meaning in relation to a group. By inserting different groups into the equation, you end up with different definitions of "moderate" and "extreme."

If, when considering moderate vs. extreme, you substitute "leftie blogs" for "all real-world Democrats," a lot of extreme positions are going to suddenly seem moderate. If you then take these newly-moderate ideas out into the real world, you'll be in for quite a surprise when a good chunk of the Democratic party views you as crazy.

Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? It doesn't matter. It's reality.

***

Another major implication addresses the issue of good liberalism vs. good politics. In order to be seen as moderate, and therefore attract the most support, one must properly frame an issue in terms of the fundamental values of the electorate. One of the primary reasons that the Right has ascended to power in the last twenty years is because they are much better at doing this than the Left. Take, for example, industrial deregulation. Instead of talking about health, safety, and environmental concerns, the Republican party (and, increasingly, members of the Democratic party) simply presents it as an economic growth issue. People who understand that massive deregulation has a detrimental effect on community health, worker and consumer safety, and the environment know that the those who advocate it are actually extremists. However, by minimizing those issues, such advocates are able to promote deregulation without appearing to compromise other values. Hence, they appear to be moderates.

And in politics, appearance is everything.

This does not mean that the ends justify the means and that Democrats should do or say anything in order to win elections. That is a significant part of the reason why the Democratic party is in such trouble- as the Right redefined the arguments to appeal to the voters, the Democrats, instead of fighting back, simply went along with what the voters seemed to want and said whatever was necessary to win. The end result of this is the current epidemic of quasi-Republicanism among the Democratic party.

The conventional wisdom is that the country is more conservative than it was thirty years ago; I'm not so sure. I think that there is a very good chance that, underneath the surface, core values haven't changed. What has changed is that a lot of conservative positions have been repackaged to seem more in tune with those values, and so more and more people are adopting them.

The good news is that this means liberals do not have to sacrifice their beliefs in order to regain power.

The bad news is that it means liberals do have a huge task in front of them: to reframe the debate in the face of thirty years of Right wing marketing.

***

So how should moderate liberal Democrats deal with the extremists on the Left? That seems to be the million dollar question.

The entire CalPundit vs. Apparently Everyone dust-up really picked up steam when Kevin listed several groups that he considers extremist which he thought hurt their own causes more than they helped them by alienating moderates. A discussion about the value of extremists ensued.

Extremists certainly have desirable qualities- it is the extremist groups that are among the most passionate and well organized. Beyond that, if all the extremists could ever rally around a single cause, they would make up a not-insignificant voting bloc. The Republican party realized this a long time ago, and set about consolidating all of its extremists under one tent. It seemed to be a mutually beneficial arangement; the GOP was reinvigorated, and the various fringe groups suddenly had access to real power.

It is important to remember, though, that in bringing the extremist elements into the tent, the Right wing moderates essentially ceded to them control of the GOP. The evolution of the Southern Strategy is a very good illustration of how this occurred.

So, in the end, it seems that the Left wing extremists should be brought into the fold, but on our terms- meshing with existing liberal causes while tailoring their rhetoric to better reflect mainstream liberal values.

The PETA types can come in if they alter their approach; instead of focusing on animal rights for the animals' sake and using such offensive over the top rhetoric, they can join the consumer protection crowd in yelling about unsanitary conditions in livestock facilities.

The environmental loonies can come in if they modify their rhetoric and stop committing arson.

The socialist/communist crowd can join up if they focus on specific areas where the state should have a bigger hand, rather than trying to kill off Capitalism; industrial regulation comes to mind.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

How well would this work? I honestly don't know. But as it is, all we're doing is throwing tomatoes at the crazies while the Right does its damnedest to make it look like they represent us. If we can get them to work for us -- and shut up and quit making us look bad -- maybe we should make the effort?

Update: This post is so unwieldy because there's an argument going on between my gut and my brain. My gut says, "Screw the loonies! We don't need 'em!" but my brain thinks otherwise. So this was an attempt to reconcile the two with some sort of logic. I leave up to you to decide how successful it was.

Football And Two Questions

And the war goes...not quite as well as we thought.

I leave to others to discuss the various problems that have been cropping up, with this exception: We have the best quarterback in the world. We have the best receivers in the world. What kind of coach in that position risks it all by assuming that the opposition linebackers will be pushovers and benching the fat guys?

As some of the more level headed among us have pointed out, it's too early to really say one way or another whether the complications we've seen so far are relatively minor or not. The fact that people who know what they're talking about are grumbling disturbs me, but, again, we'll just have to see.

But I do have two questions.

1. How long until the blast fax (or InstaPundit) regurgitators on the Right start talking about the 'hypocrisy' of those who were opposed to the war who now demand to know why heavier forces weren't in place before the war began?

The only way you could possibly call this hypocrisy is if you accept the absurd premise that the anti-war movement was fundamentally opposed to the safety of our troops and that, if war occurred despite the movement's best efforts, they hoped for a long and protracted conflict with high casualties on all sides.

Of course, that is the belief of a large chunk of the hawk contingent; as I've said earlier, such people are either liars or fools. But rather than meaning that we won't be hearing such accusations, this virtually guarantees that we will.

Additionally, this kind of attack should most enrage the "Balking Hawks," whose entire opposition to the war was based on their lack of confidence in this Administration to properly carry out the war and deal with the aftermath.

So as soon as this kind of talk starts popping up, it would be helpful if the entire Left starting collectively screaming bloody murder. Thank you for your cooperation.

2. If the war continues to fail to live up to expectations -- particularly if we start taking heavy casualties -- how long will it be before we start hearing more news reports like this?

I'm not saying that the New Yorker is doing Karl Rove's dirty work in this instance, but if the conventional wisdom remains "the administration failed to listen to the military and therefore caused the war to go worse than it could have," we will start seeing a lot of quotes from "senior administration staff" placing the blame on Rumsfeld and possibly a few other key figures (Richard Perle would seem to be the best target; having resigned his chairmanship of "an influencial Pentagon advisory board" under fire for conflicts of interest, he's already in hot water and so could be a very tempting scapegoat). At the same time, we'll start hearing from the conservative press that the President wanted more forces in the Gulf but Rumsfeld nixed it. As important as Rumsfeld is to the President, I don't think anyone seriously doubts that Rove would throw him to the wolves if it became clear that the execution of this war could hurt Bush in '04.

Sidenote: Before I get nasty emails yelling at me for disparaging our armed forces, it needs to be pointed out that "fat guys" is a reference to offensive linemen, which, from what I understand, is exactly the kind of role our heavy armored divisions need to be playing in the war, once they get there.

Edit: Sometimes, when you're tired and not thinking straight, you get your main idea down, but screw up the details. Of course I didn't mean Daniel Pearl, the WSJ reporter who was killed last year. I meant Richard Perle. Stupid mistake. Thanks go out to the proprietor of Merde In France and to commenter Raybin, both of whom pointed out my error. This post has been edited accordingly.

Note From the Management

I realize that posting has been rather light this week.

Sorry.

Real life things kept coming up this week, and sleep is currently a rather dim memory. Beyond that, the war has pretty much been monopolizing my free thoughts, and the amount of information, analysis, and conjecture that must be sifted through in order to be able to write anything even marginally relevant about it is becoming something akin to a full time job (one for which I emphatically am not paid).

So basically, check back tomorrow. A good night's sleep and a massive caffeine infusion should be what I need to actually make VeryVeryHappy worth reading again.

Bloodless Coup

That's funny. I don't remember hearing the news reports about a group of eight year olds taking control of the Federal Government.

The things you miss when you're at the dentist's...

Uncomfortable Realizations

Hmm. Well, it seems that I wasn't quite as successful in negotiating that slippery curve this evening as I thought, because it is now clear to me that I am in Hell.

I think I am going to be holding a grudge against Kevin Drum for pointing this out to me.

Nattering Nabobs of Negativism

As the war progresses, Glenn Reynolds seems to be moving further and further toward the deep end of the crazy pool, but to prove that I'm not all negative, all the time, here's something about which he and I agree.

Goodbye, Connie. Kindly never show up in public again.

Nursery Rhymes, or Complete Break From Reality: TMRM Loses His Mind

Beware: This is the result of my having to spend a good chunk of the day in my car, hyped to the gills on inhuman ammounts of caffeine, and out of range of decent radio stations.

A Bush Family Lullaby

(see sidenote below for cadence)

Tell the press McCain is crazy,
They’ll accept it ‘cause they’re lazy,
And their thoughts are awful hazy,
And their moods are awful phase-y.

The press thinks Gore tells lies,
So they’ll bitch about his ties,
And climax over your rise,
And not let Krugman criticize.

Come just a few votes short,
Then be elected by the Court-
But not the recount they abort-
While Jim Baker’s screaming “Tort!”

Give big tax cuts to the rich,
Put the nation in the ditch,
Then blame Clinton and his bitch,
While Scaife pays Drudge the snitch.

Tell the world to fuck itself,
Then sit back and count your wealth,
While the press praises your health,
And how you’ve improved yourself.

Let Dick screw California,
While the Clinton’s try to warn ya,
And Ashcroft fights mari-warn-yah,
Like a Christian that’s reborn-a.

But if the country’s getting pissed,
‘Bout the terrorists you missed,
And North Korea who you dissed,
And executives you’ve kissed.

If the voters are a-doubtin’,
Then you better start a-shoutin’,
‘Bout the rules Iraq’s a-floutin’,
And violations you’ve been toutin’.

If Osama ain’t been captured,
‘Cause your staff’s been so enraptured,
By evidence that’s manufactured,
And the UN that you fractured,

Make Coalitions of the Willin’
‘Cause our gas tanks need a-fillin’
And you sorely need a villain
Who you’ve got a chance of killin’.

Drop the bombs from way up high,
And say there’s more than meets the eye,
Give Halliburton-the-whole damn-pie,
Send Ari Fleischer out to lie.

Once Baghdad’s been demolished,
And the Bill of Rights abolished,
And your designer shoes are polished,
And the twins are good and colleged,

The GOP will know the score,
And will beg you for some more,
And Democrats that you deplore,
Will be fucked until ’04.

Then your story will be completed,
(‘Cept the records you’ve deleted),
‘Cause the Founders you’ve defeated,
And the nation’s soul depleted.

You’ll have ruined all our lives,
Filled up all our backs with knives,
But from the rich you’ll get high-fives,
And they’ll offer you their wives.

“It can’t happen here” they’ll say,
“God don’t let it, please” they’ll pray,
But it’s happening today,
So God Bless The USA!


Sidenote: Proper cadence:

da-da-DA-da-DA-da-DA
DA-da-DA-da-DA-da-DA
DA-da-DA-DA-DA-da-DA
da-da-DA-da-DA-da-DA

Crunch extraneous syllables into their neighbors, playing around with the emphasis.

This song can actually be sung. Trust me.

Sidenote the Second: Is this an accurate, well-thought out depiction of my political views?

If you think so, don't ever read my site again.

Sidenote the Third: Man...there is something seriously wrong with me.

Sidenote the Fourth: But seriously. If you had spent two hours of your life making something up in your head (even if those were idle, on the road in the car by yourself hours), would you want it to simply disappear, or would you want to preserve it for future generations?

What's a Little Hypocrisy Between Friends?

The Honorable Mr. Sullivan seems to dislike the BBC.

He has written no less than 8 posts since Sunday (the earliest day that is displayed on his main page; I will not go digging through that man's archives. I have my limits) about the bias, the incompetence, and the generally traitorous nature of the BBC.

He justifies this with the following:

WHY THE BBC MATTERS: My harping on this theme is not simply media criticism. It's war analysis. Remember one of the key elements, we're finding out, in this battle is the willingness of the Iraqi people to stand up to the Saddamite remnants. That willingness depends, in part, on their confidence that the allies are making progress. What the BBC is able to do, by broadcasting directly to these people, is to keep the Iraqi people's morale as far down as possible, thereby helping to make the war more bloody, thereby helping discredit it in retrospect. If you assume that almost all these reporters and editors are anti-war, this BBC strategy makes sense. They're a military player. And they are objectively pro-Saddam.

So, basically, he's angry that the BBC isn't lying about the progress of the war, because if they made it seem like the war was proceeding perfectly, the Iraqis would feel free to rise up en masse against Saddam and end the war quickly.

Aside from the rather...flawed...nature of his assumptions, what Sullivan doesn't seem to quite get is the fact that the BBC is a news organization, subject to all the ethical constraints that that entails. While the possibility that the factual BBC reporting is dampening Iraqi's will to dissent is an unfortunate side effect, it does not nullify the BBC's basic responsibility to its primary audience: the British people.

The function of a free press in a democracy is to provide the electorate with the most accurate, timely information possible, so that when it comes time to choose a path for their country at the ballot box, their decision can be an intelligent and informed one. The same holds true between elections, when informed people can pressure their elected representatives one way or another through organized campaigns, contributions, or simple calls to their offices.

Tinkering with this process is extremely dangerous because it is tinkering with one of the foundations of democracy itself. Besides, who does Sullivan suppose should decide what should and should not receive this "special" kind of coverage? Should it always be used in wartime to help end hostilities as quickly as possible?

In that case, most members of the American press corps are traitors, and Matt Drudge should be shot, for hampering the war effort in Bosnia by forcing a sitting President to devote huge amounts of time and resources to an adultery scandal.

Somehow, I don't think this is what Sullivan meant.

However, to be fair, there is a line between informing the public and compromising national security.

Quoting Sullivan again:

"The BBC -- the UK's premier news organization, which consistently has the best sources in the intelligence world and the least compunction about leaking -- ran a story mentioning that bin Laden "keeps in touch with the world via computers and satellite phones." Bin Laden stopped using the satellite phone instantly. The al-Qaeda leader was not eager to court the fate of Djokar Dudayev, the Chechen insurgent leader who was killed by a Russian air defense suppression missile that homed in on its target using his satellite phone signal. When bin Laden stopped using the phone and let his aides do the calling, the United States lost its best chance to find him."

This incident happened in 1998, and it is almost certain that if we had been able to kill Bin Laden at that time, the 9/11 attacks would never have taken place.

It seems then, that the BBC is a traitorous organization, or at the very least a hopelessly stupid one, which can be indirectly blamed for the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history.

Except...oh, whoops. Please forgive me. I accidentally quoted former National Security Council members Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon instead of Sullivan. And the news organization they were referring to wasn't the BBC.

It was The Washington Times, Sullivan's employer.

My mistake.

Edit: Corrected an extremely minor punctuation error, and removed a bit of redundancy ("one of the foundations upon which democracy is founded"? I'm better than that...)

A Little Too Far

I wish I could simply label Andrew Sullivan a fringe figure and ignore him forever after. Unfortunately, he enjoys just enough journalistic fame to make his half-baked ideas (read: kool-aid regurgitation) deserve countering.

For the past few months, the France-bashing that has reached truly epic proportions among the Right has annoyed me, as I've mentioned a few times before.

But in the end, the doltish "freedom fries" variety of francophobia is a relatively minor problem. When the war is over, and other concerns press for our attention, these things will lose their relevance and will be forgotten.

This kind of thing will not:

"It seems to me that the alliance with France is now over."

In this post, Sullivan makes me think of the dull kid in the group who takes the joke too far.

Think about it: A few children are standing on a corner, making fun of an old woman.

"She looks stupid!" says one.

Laughter.

"She smells funny!" shouts another.

More laughter.

"Ha ha!" Sullivan yells, and throws a brick at her head.

The alliance with France is now over? Is this man out of his mind?

The fact that people who share Sullivan's deranged worldview actually occupy key positions in our government (Richard Perle, anybody?) and are capable of influencing our foreign policy is one of the main reasons I think I should drink more.

Nitpicking

I'm getting tired of yelling about Glenn Reynolds. I think that, by now, it is quite obvious that the man irritates me.

That's all right. It's certainly not a crime to irritate me; if it was, I would live in the middle of a vast swath of vacated property, because most of the residents of my town would be incarcerated.

However, hypocrisy really kicks the irritation level up a few notches, especially when it contributes, intentionally or not, to someone's agenda (the agenda, in this case, being the general effort on the Right to throw as much mud as possible at news organizations such as CNN and the New York Times in order to make conservative outlets like Fox News more palatable).

And so, with that, I quote the law professor from Tennessee:

"CNN MENTIONED SALAM PAX-- and gave his URL. This isn't cool.
More reason to hope the troops get to Baghdad soon, and keep Saddam's goons busy in the meantime."

I agree. But it would have been nice if he had at least apologized for committing the same offense on numerous occasions.

After all, surely Mr. Reynolds is not under the impression that Iraqi government agents combing through American news sources for information pay no attention whatsoever to "The New York Times of the bloggers"?

A Question

Why is it, exactly, that we are bothering to drop e-bombs in Iraq if their effects can be protected against with aluminum foil?

Or is it that we haven't yet, and people are simply acting on the mistaken belief that this will protect their electronics?

I haven't been able to find any information beyond descriptions of how e-bombs work and potential uses. If anyone knows the answer, please drop me a line.

Language Cop

Goddamnit, Reynolds, quit trying to popularize made up words!

If you want to fuck around with your area of expertise, fine. Make up laws all you want.

But leave my language alone.

Guerrilla Vs. Terrorist

Andrew Sullivan talks in this post about the Iraqis using "terrorist" tactics in the ongoing war.

While the line between a guerrilla and a terrorist is pretty fuzzy, it seems that irregular surprise attacks by small groups upon military targets of an overwhelmingly superior invading army are textbook guerrilla tactics.

Although the distinction may seem fairly minor, semantic accuracy is important during wartime, when rhetoric on both sides escalates to white-hot levels.

This is especially true when the deliberate choice of words is itself part of a larger intellectual effort - in this case, the linking of Saddam's regime to terrorism.

While I would like this to be a solitary knock against Sullivan, the confusion (or deliberate obfuscation) between "guerrilla" and "terrorist" in this case is sufficiently widespread to merit a more broadly-targeted rebuke.

Sidenote: Does this mean I approve of the attacks in question? Of course not. These are attacks against my country's soldiers, and as such I absolutely condemn them. Anyone who would suggest otherwise is an idiot whom I would politely ask to go to hell and never visit my site again.

Things That Do Not Matter Even A Little

If Daniel Day-Lewis wins the Best Actor award at the Oscars tonight, I will consider repealing my Eternal Loathing and Disgust For The Academy Awards, which I instituted in the wake of the snubbing of Saving Private Ryan in favor of Shakespeare in Love for Best Picture a few years ago.

Update: Guess not. Plus they screwed Scorsese. Again. Fuck the Oscars. The Academy voters are scum.

Consequences

As several people have expressed dismay over my seemingly fluid stance on the war, I want to briefly expand on "the consequences of pulling up short" that I referred to in my last post.

Excerpting my response to a reader's comment:

"One of the biggest reasons that I am now in favor of continuing the war to its conclusion is because I am afraid of what Saddam (or his successor) will do to reconsolidate power if we fail to take him out after dealing such devastating blows to his infrastructure. Remember what happened to the people who rose up against him in the last Gulf War after the cease-fire?"

For the full context, please see the comments section in that post.

Thank God For The War

I can no longer be classified as anti-war. I have registered my dissent, and I still do not trust this administration, but now that we are committed, I hope for a swift victory and a quick end with a minimum of casualties. Even if I were the commander-in-chief, I would not end the war today. The minute we started this war, we were committed to a path, and even though it is a path I disagreed with, the consequences of pulling up short are too great to justify doing so.

But that does not mean I do not object to the glorification of war that I am seeing in significant portions of the exhultant pro-war camp.

I agree that sometimes war is necessary. While I do not believe that this is one of those times, I do not necessarily hold the belief that it is against the pro-war faction. There are some very good arguments to be made for that position, and there are some very smart, responsible people who believe them.

But there are some things on which there can be no disagreement among reasoning human beings.

One of those is that war is terrible. War is awful. War is horrendous. War is about using utterly brutal force to compel an enemy to follow your wishes.

Another one of those things is that no matter how precise our weapons may be in comparison to weapons of the past, accidents still happen, actions still have unintended consequences, and things still go hideously, horribly wrong.

Anyone who does not acknowledge these two things is either deranged or unbelievably ill-informed.

And anyone who does acknowledge these things and yet still relishes the idea of war is either a literal sociopath or a stunningly ignorant child who cannot seperate the fantasy of people dying in movies from the reality of people dying in the real world.

Al-Jazeera is currently running one of the most abominable photographs I have ever seen. I hope to God that it is faked, but I very strongly doubt that it is. Even if it is, though, it serves as a horrid reminder of exactly what is happening to some of the innocent as we attempt to rid Iraq of the guilty. (Extraordinarily graphic- do not click through if you are not prepared to see the truly obscene)

With this picture, I accuse all who celebrate this war, all who cheer when they see bomb flashes on their television screen, and all who hope for greater, more widespread war, of being either subhuman or children.

War is a serious endeavor, to be entered into only by serious men and women, and only after serious consideration, soul-searching, and debate.

By treating the war like an action movie, you affirm your rightful place at the children's table, and thus exclude yourself from all future discussion among the grown-ups. You can squeal and curse and celebrate the war's beginning all you want amongst yourselves.

The adults, both those who opposed this war and those who supported it, will celebrate when it ends.