Live SOTU Blogging
Bullshit.
Bullshit. Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Buuuuuuuuuullshit.
Whoa there! Bullshit ahead!
Yup. Bullshit indeed.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Let me take a moment to say, bullshit.
Bullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshit.
God Bless America.
[Applause]
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
If Only I Had The Words...
Kaus discusses the quickening pace of conventional wisdom and the less-than 24 hour news cycle:
Kaus discusses the quickening pace of conventional wisdom and the less-than 24 hour news cycle:
"The Expectations of Expectations Game: Drezner detects a surge of media favoritism for Edwards and argues this means Edwards will be the story out of Iowa even if he comes in second:Yeah. It's called "bullshit." Call me when Super Tuesday is here.
If Kerry wins, he's going to get a bump, no doubt--and New Hampshire becomes an interesting question. But if Edwards performs better than either Gephardt or Dean at the caucus, reporters are going to lock in on him as the story of the week.
Wait, didn't Ryan Lizza just tell us that "All Kerry needs to do is come in second place and he will be the story Monday Night." But that was four days ago! As Lizza now acknowledges:
The cycle of expectations moves fast here.
He notes:
Within 48 hours, pundits have both blessed Edwards as the late-closing "it" candidate and dismissed the surge as too little too late
So Edwards is now set up to actually surprise people again. ... Someone should try to come up with a name for this faster cycle of expectations."
I Figured It Out
Goldberg's writing reminds me of the look on a smartass's face in the bar just before he says the thing that gets him knocked the fuck out.
Goldberg's writing reminds me of the look on a smartass's face in the bar just before he says the thing that gets him knocked the fuck out.
Monday, January 19, 2004
Moonshot
When reading James Lileks, I often picture him at a fireworks display - head decisively angled up, lost in wonder and lofty dreams, above the rest of us as we sweat and complain about the heat. The trick is to watch his eyes; if you're careful, you can see them shift from side to side as he makes sure that everyone is watching him and is suitably impressed.
High rhetoric that appeals to our grandest conception of ourselves, couched in the language of folksy wisdom, is something that James has become very good at. Good enough that he can, with what would look like justification if you held it cocked at the right angle, characterize the hoots of his critics as merely the result of cynicism and base nature.
Which isn't such a bad thing, as far as it goes; high rhetoric stirs the blood and temporarily lays a template of purpose -- or at least nobility -- over the seemingly haphazard experiences of our lives. There's a reason people still read Shakespeare, and it isn't a love of Elizabethan dress.
But as the Greeks realized, rhetoric is a tool, not an indication of correctness. Show me someone who thinks differently -- who thinks that grand vision and skillful use of language are innately good -- and I'll show you someone who has never read Mein Kampf.
Rhetoric must sometimes be shot down in order for the truth to be discovered, and the best tool for that purpose is cynicism.
When dealing with politics, cynicism is absolutely essential - politics, after all, is about deciding where money is going to come from, and where it's going to go to. Thus, the eternal question of the cynic ("What's in it for me and what's it gonna cost?") is, in many cases, exactly what needs to be asked.
But politics, from time to time, can also be about something greater, about banding together for some common purpose.
As in most things, some sort of balance between the two extremes is necessary. Too much cynicism, and you become paranoid or disgusted or both, and more likely than not you drop out of the public discussion. Too much idealism, on the other hand, can blind you to reality.
Where, then, does one draw the line?
***
Since childhood, I have been fascinated with space. From science fiction shows and books as a kid, to reading about the real thing as a bigger kid, to learning about the details behind the space program as a teenager, to reading about the geopolitical background of the space race as a college student - fascinated. As someone who takes incredible pride in the achievement we made both as a country and as a species on July 20, 1969, I can say without reservation that I am in favor of a manned mission to Mars.
Why?
When you read both science fiction and science fact, it is impossible to not fluctuate between "We can probably do that" and "We won't ever be able to do that."
But if you're like me, as you watch technology progress even in your own lifetime, everytime you finish one of those cycles, you end up a little more optimistic.
Putting a man on Mars would be an enormous step in the direction of "We will do that."
On the timeline of human exploration, Mars is next. We will get there someday, and I'd prefer that day be sooner rather than later.
That is why the Bush administration's recent announcement of a mission to the moon and then to Mars enrages me.
One could reasonably ask why, if I am so proud of John F. Kennedy's challenge and the eventual fulfillment thereof, do I not approve of George Bush's even more daunting charge? The answer is deceptively simple: Bush shared his plan 11 months before an election; Kennedy shared his four months after his inauguration.
The dream of space and new frontiers, then, is relegated to the status of Bush's Crawford ranch. Both are campaign props -- one to make him appear a brush-clearing common man, the other to make him appear a visionary -- and both should incense those who possess the real thing.
Those who remain unconvinced of the deep dishonesty of this proposal need only look at the proposed funding for the program - $12 billion over five years, a laughably low sum for a project of this magnitude. If the President was serious about a project that people knowledgable about such things lowball at $500 billion, he would do what Kennedy did - immediately start pressuring Congress for the money and talking about where it's going to come from. The real money, not a few billion dollars here and there.
But he isn't, and so he won't. Given the massive deficits created during his Presidency, Moon/Mars (I refuse to refer to this proposal by its official name, "Kennedy II" - I find the association offensive) is the equivalent of losing your job and telling your wife you're going to take her to Paris so she won't leave you. Not actually taking her, mind you, but telling her you will.
Lileks says that Moon/Mars is not a zero-sum game - that by embarking on this journey, we aren't necessarily passing up the chance to heal spinal cord injuries or somesuch.
He's right. Political promises aren't a zero-sum game. One can crank out brave and noble proposals all day long without consequence. Hey, what say we get rid of poverty? (Hooray!) How about we wipe out illegal drugs? (Hooray!) And rid ourselves of all disease! (Hooray!)
But accounting is a zero-sum game, and pretty words don't pay for solid rocket boosters or heat shielding tiles. A project this large cannot be sustained without gargantuan amounts of money, money that has to come from somewhere. As we're running a deficit, it has to come at the expense of something else, either now or in the future. Does the President want to go to the moon badly enough to repeal any of his tax cuts? No. Does he want to go to the moon badly enough to cut entitlement programs? No. Does he want to go to the moon badly enough to cut education funding? No. Does he want to go to the moon badly enough to cut the defense budget? No.
Actually, I shouldn't put words into the President's mouth - maybe he does want to re-instate the estate tax, gut Medicare, slash education funding, and reduce the Pentagon's budget. I myself believe he (or the ideological warriors to whom he is beholden) ultimately wants to do the middle two.
But he won't say it. He will not go in front of the American people and tell them that they can choose -- that in the end, they have to choose -- Moon/Mars or tax cuts, Moon/Mars or Medicare, Moon/Mars or education, or Moon/Mars or defense. He won't say any of those things, because he knows what the answer would be.
Instead, he talks about Moon/Mars the way he talked in 2000 about the budget surplus - as though it can exist without fiscal discipline and the sacrifice of something we want.
James Lileks should ask himself what happened to those surpluses - and "trifecta" is not a valid answer.
What should be a noble endeavor, one that can indeed inspire us and push us forward, has been immeasurably cheapened by this bit of political theater, and any supporter of the President who secretly dreams of mankind going out into the unknown should feel betrayed.
***
In the end, I understand and agree with Lileks' point of view - something you won't hear me say very often. It would be a great feeling to know we were finally going back out there. Would, that is, if I for one minute thought that that was the President's actual intent. But it is supremely obvious that this is not a serious proposal. It is instead a bit of rhetorical ammunition tossed to his allies for use against his enemies. And why not? The propaganda practically writes itself. With Moon/Mars, people like Lileks can take a break from calling Democrats appeasers and traitors in order to call them bean-counting Luddites and spoilsports.
But opposition to Moon/Mars is, at its core, neither a struggle against progress nor an attempt at playing budget cop. It is instead a refusal to be deceived when a man who wants something from us shouts, "Hey! Look over there!"
I, too, like to look at the stars, James; but if someone tries to pick my pocket while I'm doing it, they're getting their jaw broke.
And that, I think, is the proper balance.
When reading James Lileks, I often picture him at a fireworks display - head decisively angled up, lost in wonder and lofty dreams, above the rest of us as we sweat and complain about the heat. The trick is to watch his eyes; if you're careful, you can see them shift from side to side as he makes sure that everyone is watching him and is suitably impressed.
High rhetoric that appeals to our grandest conception of ourselves, couched in the language of folksy wisdom, is something that James has become very good at. Good enough that he can, with what would look like justification if you held it cocked at the right angle, characterize the hoots of his critics as merely the result of cynicism and base nature.
Which isn't such a bad thing, as far as it goes; high rhetoric stirs the blood and temporarily lays a template of purpose -- or at least nobility -- over the seemingly haphazard experiences of our lives. There's a reason people still read Shakespeare, and it isn't a love of Elizabethan dress.
But as the Greeks realized, rhetoric is a tool, not an indication of correctness. Show me someone who thinks differently -- who thinks that grand vision and skillful use of language are innately good -- and I'll show you someone who has never read Mein Kampf.
Rhetoric must sometimes be shot down in order for the truth to be discovered, and the best tool for that purpose is cynicism.
When dealing with politics, cynicism is absolutely essential - politics, after all, is about deciding where money is going to come from, and where it's going to go to. Thus, the eternal question of the cynic ("What's in it for me and what's it gonna cost?") is, in many cases, exactly what needs to be asked.
But politics, from time to time, can also be about something greater, about banding together for some common purpose.
As in most things, some sort of balance between the two extremes is necessary. Too much cynicism, and you become paranoid or disgusted or both, and more likely than not you drop out of the public discussion. Too much idealism, on the other hand, can blind you to reality.
Where, then, does one draw the line?
***
Since childhood, I have been fascinated with space. From science fiction shows and books as a kid, to reading about the real thing as a bigger kid, to learning about the details behind the space program as a teenager, to reading about the geopolitical background of the space race as a college student - fascinated. As someone who takes incredible pride in the achievement we made both as a country and as a species on July 20, 1969, I can say without reservation that I am in favor of a manned mission to Mars.
Why?
When you read both science fiction and science fact, it is impossible to not fluctuate between "We can probably do that" and "We won't ever be able to do that."
But if you're like me, as you watch technology progress even in your own lifetime, everytime you finish one of those cycles, you end up a little more optimistic.
Putting a man on Mars would be an enormous step in the direction of "We will do that."
On the timeline of human exploration, Mars is next. We will get there someday, and I'd prefer that day be sooner rather than later.
That is why the Bush administration's recent announcement of a mission to the moon and then to Mars enrages me.
One could reasonably ask why, if I am so proud of John F. Kennedy's challenge and the eventual fulfillment thereof, do I not approve of George Bush's even more daunting charge? The answer is deceptively simple: Bush shared his plan 11 months before an election; Kennedy shared his four months after his inauguration.
The dream of space and new frontiers, then, is relegated to the status of Bush's Crawford ranch. Both are campaign props -- one to make him appear a brush-clearing common man, the other to make him appear a visionary -- and both should incense those who possess the real thing.
Those who remain unconvinced of the deep dishonesty of this proposal need only look at the proposed funding for the program - $12 billion over five years, a laughably low sum for a project of this magnitude. If the President was serious about a project that people knowledgable about such things lowball at $500 billion, he would do what Kennedy did - immediately start pressuring Congress for the money and talking about where it's going to come from. The real money, not a few billion dollars here and there.
But he isn't, and so he won't. Given the massive deficits created during his Presidency, Moon/Mars (I refuse to refer to this proposal by its official name, "Kennedy II" - I find the association offensive) is the equivalent of losing your job and telling your wife you're going to take her to Paris so she won't leave you. Not actually taking her, mind you, but telling her you will.
Lileks says that Moon/Mars is not a zero-sum game - that by embarking on this journey, we aren't necessarily passing up the chance to heal spinal cord injuries or somesuch.
He's right. Political promises aren't a zero-sum game. One can crank out brave and noble proposals all day long without consequence. Hey, what say we get rid of poverty? (Hooray!) How about we wipe out illegal drugs? (Hooray!) And rid ourselves of all disease! (Hooray!)
But accounting is a zero-sum game, and pretty words don't pay for solid rocket boosters or heat shielding tiles. A project this large cannot be sustained without gargantuan amounts of money, money that has to come from somewhere. As we're running a deficit, it has to come at the expense of something else, either now or in the future. Does the President want to go to the moon badly enough to repeal any of his tax cuts? No. Does he want to go to the moon badly enough to cut entitlement programs? No. Does he want to go to the moon badly enough to cut education funding? No. Does he want to go to the moon badly enough to cut the defense budget? No.
Actually, I shouldn't put words into the President's mouth - maybe he does want to re-instate the estate tax, gut Medicare, slash education funding, and reduce the Pentagon's budget. I myself believe he (or the ideological warriors to whom he is beholden) ultimately wants to do the middle two.
But he won't say it. He will not go in front of the American people and tell them that they can choose -- that in the end, they have to choose -- Moon/Mars or tax cuts, Moon/Mars or Medicare, Moon/Mars or education, or Moon/Mars or defense. He won't say any of those things, because he knows what the answer would be.
Instead, he talks about Moon/Mars the way he talked in 2000 about the budget surplus - as though it can exist without fiscal discipline and the sacrifice of something we want.
James Lileks should ask himself what happened to those surpluses - and "trifecta" is not a valid answer.
What should be a noble endeavor, one that can indeed inspire us and push us forward, has been immeasurably cheapened by this bit of political theater, and any supporter of the President who secretly dreams of mankind going out into the unknown should feel betrayed.
***
In the end, I understand and agree with Lileks' point of view - something you won't hear me say very often. It would be a great feeling to know we were finally going back out there. Would, that is, if I for one minute thought that that was the President's actual intent. But it is supremely obvious that this is not a serious proposal. It is instead a bit of rhetorical ammunition tossed to his allies for use against his enemies. And why not? The propaganda practically writes itself. With Moon/Mars, people like Lileks can take a break from calling Democrats appeasers and traitors in order to call them bean-counting Luddites and spoilsports.
But opposition to Moon/Mars is, at its core, neither a struggle against progress nor an attempt at playing budget cop. It is instead a refusal to be deceived when a man who wants something from us shouts, "Hey! Look over there!"
I, too, like to look at the stars, James; but if someone tries to pick my pocket while I'm doing it, they're getting their jaw broke.
And that, I think, is the proper balance.
Thursday, January 15, 2004
Endorsement
For all your electronics and office needs, shop Best Buy.
Well, shop wherever you want, but at least consider Best Buy for a few seconds.
A tiny little plug is in order tonight, because a few hours ago I was able to exchange this piece of shit chair that broke1 within three weeks of purchase for this sturdier, more comfortable chair, despite not having the box the first one came in, nor the receipt. I just wheeled it in through the entrance (I vainly tried to convince my little brother to push me while I sat in it and barked out orders - "Starboard, you bastard, and run like the devil is nipping at your hindquarters!"), explained the situation, and received a full refund, which I immediately put toward the new chair.
Customer service is what keeps 'em coming back.
Anyway, I can finally be comfortable when using the computer again, so maybe now my sunny nature and lighthearted playfulness will come through more effectively here at VVH.
Just kidding - everyone who disagrees with me still sucks.
1. The chair I broke was actually quite nice- comfortable, nice soft suede, reasonably priced. Unfortunately, it has a critical design flaw: the arms. They are attached to the base in such a way as to place a tremendous amount of stress just behind the downward curve when one leans back - which wouldn't be a problem if they were metal, but they're plastic. The kicker is that that's the exact spot where they decided to put the bolts that hold the armpads in place. The first time I leaned back to get a really good yawn and stretch in, both arms snapped clean through, right at the bolts. The arms on the new chair are plastic too, but they have a supporting ridge that runs underneath them, adding a lot of strength in the critical spot - which isn't as critical, as the arms are a part of the structure of the chair itself, rather than just being bolted onto the sides.
For all your electronics and office needs, shop Best Buy.
Well, shop wherever you want, but at least consider Best Buy for a few seconds.
A tiny little plug is in order tonight, because a few hours ago I was able to exchange this piece of shit chair that broke1 within three weeks of purchase for this sturdier, more comfortable chair, despite not having the box the first one came in, nor the receipt. I just wheeled it in through the entrance (I vainly tried to convince my little brother to push me while I sat in it and barked out orders - "Starboard, you bastard, and run like the devil is nipping at your hindquarters!"), explained the situation, and received a full refund, which I immediately put toward the new chair.
Customer service is what keeps 'em coming back.
Anyway, I can finally be comfortable when using the computer again, so maybe now my sunny nature and lighthearted playfulness will come through more effectively here at VVH.
Just kidding - everyone who disagrees with me still sucks.
1. The chair I broke was actually quite nice- comfortable, nice soft suede, reasonably priced. Unfortunately, it has a critical design flaw: the arms. They are attached to the base in such a way as to place a tremendous amount of stress just behind the downward curve when one leans back - which wouldn't be a problem if they were metal, but they're plastic. The kicker is that that's the exact spot where they decided to put the bolts that hold the armpads in place. The first time I leaned back to get a really good yawn and stretch in, both arms snapped clean through, right at the bolts. The arms on the new chair are plastic too, but they have a supporting ridge that runs underneath them, adding a lot of strength in the critical spot - which isn't as critical, as the arms are a part of the structure of the chair itself, rather than just being bolted onto the sides.
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
English Cop
Am I the only one who is disturbed by the growing practice of using the word "literally" for emphasis, even though one actually means "figuratively"?
Always in need of new hyperbolic twists to describe events that are largely similar to events that have occurred numerous times before ("He made a tremendous catch!", "he made an awe-inspiring catch!", "he made a god-like catch!", "he made a catch that defies the laws of physics as we currently understand them!"), sports writers seem particularly vulnerable to this benign form of spontaneous NewSpeak1.
Take, for instance, this:
In the English language, the word "literally" signifies that what follows is untainted by hyperbole or rhetoric, and so you should pay close attention to it.
So quit crying wolf and just find a new adverb, damn it.
1 NewSpeak? How? By using a word in a situation where it actually means the opposite of its accepted definition, you ultimately render the word meaningless - the ultimate goal of NewSpeak as understood by Winston Smith.
Update: Good news/bad news.
Good news: According to the folks at the American Heritage dictionary, I am right about this practice being quite improper. But we knew that.
Bad news: According to the same source, I am wrong - it isn't new at all. Apparently critics have been bitching about this for quite some time:
Am I the only one who is disturbed by the growing practice of using the word "literally" for emphasis, even though one actually means "figuratively"?
Always in need of new hyperbolic twists to describe events that are largely similar to events that have occurred numerous times before ("He made a tremendous catch!", "he made an awe-inspiring catch!", "he made a god-like catch!", "he made a catch that defies the laws of physics as we currently understand them!"), sports writers seem particularly vulnerable to this benign form of spontaneous NewSpeak1.
Take, for instance, this:
"[Peyton Manning] literally put the Chiefs defense in the electric chair and kept playing with the switch."No, Clayton, he did not, unless I missed the follow-up article in which you describe the charred remains of the Chiefs being cleaned off the field with a vacuum.
In the English language, the word "literally" signifies that what follows is untainted by hyperbole or rhetoric, and so you should pay close attention to it.
So quit crying wolf and just find a new adverb, damn it.
1 NewSpeak? How? By using a word in a situation where it actually means the opposite of its accepted definition, you ultimately render the word meaningless - the ultimate goal of NewSpeak as understood by Winston Smith.
Update: Good news/bad news.
Good news: According to the folks at the American Heritage dictionary, I am right about this practice being quite improper. But we knew that.
Bad news: According to the same source, I am wrong - it isn't new at all. Apparently critics have been bitching about this for quite some time:
" For more than a hundred years, critics have remarked on the incoherency of using literally in a way that suggests the exact opposite of its primary sense of “in a manner that accords with the literal sense of the words.” In 1926, for example, H.W. Fowler cited the example “The 300,000 Unionists... will be literally thrown to the wolves.” The practice does not stem from a change in the meaning of literally itselfif it did, the word would long since have come to mean “virtually” or “figuratively” but from a natural tendency to use the word as a general intensive, as in They had literally no help from the government on the project, where no contrast with the figurative sense of the words is intended."
Things To Read If You Think I Swear Too Much
I really like this riff on the idiotic effort to put Reagan on the dime...
I really like this riff on the idiotic effort to put Reagan on the dime...
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
The Right Rediscovers The Concept Of "Implication"
The Right keeps trying to tell us that irony is dead -- due, one suspects, to the fact that it keeps kicking them in the balls -- but I know that it is alive and well, because it's coming damn close to killing me.
Witness:
Glenn Reynolds excoriating Joe Conason for suggesting, in "the dumbest bit of oil-based conspiracy-theory yet," that Bush called for a mission to Mars so that Halliburton can drill there for oil, "an idea that could only occur to someone utterly ignorant of the laws of physics."
Witness:
In an update, Glenn Reynolds saying in response to an email pointing out that Conason was not referring to oil drilling, "it sure seems like it to me, and a whole bunch of readers."
Witness:
In yet another update, Glenn Reynolds agreeing with an emailer that Conason strongly implied that the drilling would, in fact, be for oil, and that his misapprehension was fully justified because of his hypersensitivity caused by the constant "blood for oil" accusations against the war in Iraq.
Witness:
In the same update, Glenn Reynolds stating his belief that pointing to non-oil drilling in order to defend Conason's article "is more O'Neillesque backpedaling," and that Conason is "trying to have it both ways" by writing a technically correct piece that implies that Mars drilling would be for oil.
And then witness:
Glenn Reynolds, who makes frequent use of the phrase "they're not anti-war, they're just on the other side" when referring to terrorists and vandals, self-righteously denying that he "deliberately [blurs] the line between antiwar and anti-America," and then detailing the way in which what he says is technically correct - ignoring the obvious fact that the context, ambiguous phrasing, and constant repetition of the above phrase strongly imply an inherent connection between the two.
I don't know about you, but I say fuck it - I'm just glad to see that the Right now realizes that you can say something without saying it.
Now, let us talk of imminent threats to national security, hmm?
The Right keeps trying to tell us that irony is dead -- due, one suspects, to the fact that it keeps kicking them in the balls -- but I know that it is alive and well, because it's coming damn close to killing me.
Witness:
Glenn Reynolds excoriating Joe Conason for suggesting, in "the dumbest bit of oil-based conspiracy-theory yet," that Bush called for a mission to Mars so that Halliburton can drill there for oil, "an idea that could only occur to someone utterly ignorant of the laws of physics."
Witness:
In an update, Glenn Reynolds saying in response to an email pointing out that Conason was not referring to oil drilling, "it sure seems like it to me, and a whole bunch of readers."
Witness:
In yet another update, Glenn Reynolds agreeing with an emailer that Conason strongly implied that the drilling would, in fact, be for oil, and that his misapprehension was fully justified because of his hypersensitivity caused by the constant "blood for oil" accusations against the war in Iraq.
Witness:
In the same update, Glenn Reynolds stating his belief that pointing to non-oil drilling in order to defend Conason's article "is more O'Neillesque backpedaling," and that Conason is "trying to have it both ways" by writing a technically correct piece that implies that Mars drilling would be for oil.
And then witness:
Glenn Reynolds, who makes frequent use of the phrase "they're not anti-war, they're just on the other side" when referring to terrorists and vandals, self-righteously denying that he "deliberately [blurs] the line between antiwar and anti-America," and then detailing the way in which what he says is technically correct - ignoring the obvious fact that the context, ambiguous phrasing, and constant repetition of the above phrase strongly imply an inherent connection between the two.
I don't know about you, but I say fuck it - I'm just glad to see that the Right now realizes that you can say something without saying it.
Now, let us talk of imminent threats to national security, hmm?
Pussy-Ass Liberal Promotes Diplomacy
Or, you know, an associate professor at the Naval War College.
From yesterday's Wall Street Journal's letters to the editor:
Or, you know, an associate professor at the Naval War College.
From yesterday's Wall Street Journal's letters to the editor:
"It is ironic that David Frum and Richard Perle ('Beware the Soft-Line Ideologues,' editorial page, Jan. 7) dismiss diplomacy while using an example that clearly indicates the risks of an assertive foreign policy. They express concern over the future of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. Yet the assasination attempts on Mr. Musharraf must be partly caused by frustration over assertive American actions abroad and Islamabad's reluctant support of those actions.
And condemning diplomacy because it has not solved an incredibly complicated problem such as the Israeli/Palestinian dispute is ridiculous. Their shallow perspective is akin to dismissing the utility of military force following our defeat in Vietnam.
My students at the Naval War College are chiefly military officers, many of whom served in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are not 'soft-line ideologues.' Yet it has constantly surprised me how many of them believe that diplomacy will be a crucial weapon in the struggle against terror. Given that military force alone will never defeat the diverse forces that generate terrorism, we must avoid the narrow focus that Messrs. Frum and Perle offer."
-Andrew L. Stigler
Associate Professor, National Security Affairs
United States Naval War College, Newport, RI
Monday, January 12, 2004
Cloning
Except for a bit of difference in the shape of the mouth, Megan McArdle looks exactly like a girl I used to date.
Weird.
Needless to say, the ex-girlfriend wasn't a mildly irritating libertarian with a tendency to say something inflammatory about her political opponents and then pretend not to understand why they got pissed about it.
Except for a bit of difference in the shape of the mouth, Megan McArdle looks exactly like a girl I used to date.
Weird.
Needless to say, the ex-girlfriend wasn't a mildly irritating libertarian with a tendency to say something inflammatory about her political opponents and then pretend not to understand why they got pissed about it.
Public Service
If, due to illness or a sharp blow to the head, you think it might be interesting to discuss the Paul O'Neill blitzkrieg we are currently experiencing with a Bush supporter, let me save you the time and effort.
You: Well, it seems like some of Bush's critics were right about his lack of engagement when it comes to -
Them: Oh, so, what, no screaming for an investigation?
You: I- what?
Them: The documents O'Neill showed on 60 Minutes were marked "secret"! Isn't that like outing a CIA operative? Huh? Huh?!?
You: Actually, those papers were released by the -
Them: Hypocrite!
You: No, you don't understand, O'Neill didn't leak those papers, they were-
Them: I tried! I really did! I hoped that maybe, just this once, the Left would show some integrity and show some consistency. I'm deeply disappointed. This only goes to show that I was right to call the Democratic Party the party of goat-fucking and socialism the other day. How can you live with yourself?
You: Um...
Them: I just can't hold a rational discussion with someone who refuses to snap out of their Bush=Hitler fantasies!
You: Look, what's your fucking -
Them: Oh, there's that Democratic rage again! No one will ever take you seriously! All you can do is sputter in outrage whenever someone talks sense!
You: I'm not-
Them: Valerie Plame! Valerie Plame!
If, due to illness or a sharp blow to the head, you think it might be interesting to discuss the Paul O'Neill blitzkrieg we are currently experiencing with a Bush supporter, let me save you the time and effort.
You: Well, it seems like some of Bush's critics were right about his lack of engagement when it comes to -
Them: Oh, so, what, no screaming for an investigation?
You: I- what?
Them: The documents O'Neill showed on 60 Minutes were marked "secret"! Isn't that like outing a CIA operative? Huh? Huh?!?
You: Actually, those papers were released by the -
Them: Hypocrite!
You: No, you don't understand, O'Neill didn't leak those papers, they were-
Them: I tried! I really did! I hoped that maybe, just this once, the Left would show some integrity and show some consistency. I'm deeply disappointed. This only goes to show that I was right to call the Democratic Party the party of goat-fucking and socialism the other day. How can you live with yourself?
You: Um...
Them: I just can't hold a rational discussion with someone who refuses to snap out of their Bush=Hitler fantasies!
You: Look, what's your fucking -
Them: Oh, there's that Democratic rage again! No one will ever take you seriously! All you can do is sputter in outrage whenever someone talks sense!
You: I'm not-
Them: Valerie Plame! Valerie Plame!
Sunday, January 11, 2004
Thursday, January 08, 2004
New Rules! New Rules!
Andrew Sullivan, apparently deciding that it is now acceptable to attack people for breaking promises they never actually made, says:
President Bush Breaks Pledge To Resign If WMDs Not Found
Donald Rumsfeld Still Has Not Fired Paul Wolfowitz, As Promised
Condi Rice Backs Away From Promise To Teach The President How To Pronounce "Nuclear"
Bush Has Yet To Fulfill Promise To See Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling Jailed
Goddamn, writing about politics sure is a lot easier when you can just make shit up.
Andrew Sullivan, apparently deciding that it is now acceptable to attack people for breaking promises they never actually made, says:
"Howard Dean has now formally reneged on his December 15 pledge to premise U.S. foreign policy on U.N. permission."Finally! You have no idea how long I've been waiting to break these out:
President Bush Breaks Pledge To Resign If WMDs Not Found
Donald Rumsfeld Still Has Not Fired Paul Wolfowitz, As Promised
Condi Rice Backs Away From Promise To Teach The President How To Pronounce "Nuclear"
Bush Has Yet To Fulfill Promise To See Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling Jailed
Goddamn, writing about politics sure is a lot easier when you can just make shit up.
It's Too Bad My Mother Isn't A Professional Bitch
Because then I could be paid to write columns for conservative publications that completely ignore abstract concepts like "honesty," "integrity," and "history books," just like Jonah Goldberg.
There is much Sullivan-esque nonsense in this column about Howard Dean, but Jonah -- ever the compassionate conservative -- has saved me the trouble of extensively quoting it by including this bit that displays the whole thing in microcosm:
That's right, Jonah, I said it. Yo mama.
Because then I could be paid to write columns for conservative publications that completely ignore abstract concepts like "honesty," "integrity," and "history books," just like Jonah Goldberg.
There is much Sullivan-esque nonsense in this column about Howard Dean, but Jonah -- ever the compassionate conservative -- has saved me the trouble of extensively quoting it by including this bit that displays the whole thing in microcosm:
"[Dean] says such amazingly crazy things, he's just so much more entertaining than the ever-cautious Gephardt. For example, Dean recently said that he didn't want to "prejudge" Osama bin Laden's guilt or innocence since he'd have to face a "jury trial."I was going to point out that there's a reason why they were called the Nuremburg Trials, but then I realized that this was probably just an extended riff on Jonah's recurring daydream - the one in which he discovers a time machine and goes back to personally shoot Hitler, Goering, and Goebbels, only to be scorned upon his return by liberals who will never know the service he has performed for humanity. Then he hits the game-winning home run in game seven of the World Series.
Can you imagine FDR declaring he didn't want to "pre-judge" Hitler?"
That's right, Jonah, I said it. Yo mama.
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
How Many Lies/Distortions/Misrepresentations/Outright Fucking Slanders Does It take To Get To The Soft-Headed Center Of An Andrew Sullivan Post?
Ha ha. No, seriously. I stopped counting when I got to 15. This is just freakin' ridiculous. I'll get to it later today when I have time, but let's just say, I'm with Roy - Sullivan's so full of shit, I don't even believe he's gay anymore.
Ha ha. No, seriously. I stopped counting when I got to 15. This is just freakin' ridiculous. I'll get to it later today when I have time, but let's just say, I'm with Roy - Sullivan's so full of shit, I don't even believe he's gay anymore.
Sunday, January 04, 2004
Blogs Are Vastly Superior To Traditional Media
Reynolds just can't help himself. As an update to a post on the successful landing of the Spirit rover on Mars, he snarks "Er, good news except for worshippers of Michael Moore, anyway", and links to a post by what appears to be a German blogger.
Yet more proof that anything good for America is bad for liberals.
Except...um...wait a minute. That blog Glenn links to...it seems rather...suspicious:
The joke, of course, is on anyone who takes InstaPundit seriously. The site he links is run by a Righty, one who believes in the feeble-minded idea that a valid way of discrediting the Left is to state without evidence that liberals are upset by anything good that happens to the United States.
If pressed, I'm sure that Reynolds would say that linking to a troll as proof of liberal perfidy was his idea of a joke, but that's a weak excuse that should be laughed at by anyone with a brain and a few grains of integrity. In the context of a "straight" news post, linking to someone pretending to be a liberal in order to make liberals look stupid is inexcusable. Most people won't click through the link, simply assuming that it proves what Reynolds says it does. Of those that do click through, many will read that post and that post only, and, again, will assume that it is genuine.
Which means only the small percentage of people who actually bother to look at the rest of the site realize that no, liberals are not, in fact, angered by the successful landing of the Spirit rover.
This is a classic form of deniable disinformation - it leaves the majority of people under the impression that a complete fabrication is in fact the truth, while leaving just enough wiggle room to be able to claim innocence when confronted with it.
It is very difficult to see Reynolds as anything but despicable for engaging in this sort of thing.
For the record, this is not new territory for Reynolds, and it is the reason I have absolutely no problem calling him a lying bastard, even in polite company.
Reynolds just can't help himself. As an update to a post on the successful landing of the Spirit rover on Mars, he snarks "Er, good news except for worshippers of Michael Moore, anyway", and links to a post by what appears to be a German blogger.
Yet more proof that anything good for America is bad for liberals.
Except...um...wait a minute. That blog Glenn links to...it seems rather...suspicious:
"I mean, this just isn't fair. It doesn't make sense. Europe's supposed to be so smart, and the Americans are - as Michael Moore told us so convincingly - "ignorant people ... who don't even have a passport"! And: "Just a handful can speak a language other than English".At this point, those of us used to such antics recognize deliberate stupidity, and so we scan the site's blogroll, and see that it is dominated by Rightwing blogs. Odd, that. I would think that a Michael Moore fan would link to a few liberal sites.
Michael, where are you? We need help! MICHAEL??"
The joke, of course, is on anyone who takes InstaPundit seriously. The site he links is run by a Righty, one who believes in the feeble-minded idea that a valid way of discrediting the Left is to state without evidence that liberals are upset by anything good that happens to the United States.
If pressed, I'm sure that Reynolds would say that linking to a troll as proof of liberal perfidy was his idea of a joke, but that's a weak excuse that should be laughed at by anyone with a brain and a few grains of integrity. In the context of a "straight" news post, linking to someone pretending to be a liberal in order to make liberals look stupid is inexcusable. Most people won't click through the link, simply assuming that it proves what Reynolds says it does. Of those that do click through, many will read that post and that post only, and, again, will assume that it is genuine.
Which means only the small percentage of people who actually bother to look at the rest of the site realize that no, liberals are not, in fact, angered by the successful landing of the Spirit rover.
This is a classic form of deniable disinformation - it leaves the majority of people under the impression that a complete fabrication is in fact the truth, while leaving just enough wiggle room to be able to claim innocence when confronted with it.
It is very difficult to see Reynolds as anything but despicable for engaging in this sort of thing.
For the record, this is not new territory for Reynolds, and it is the reason I have absolutely no problem calling him a lying bastard, even in polite company.
Pardon Our Dust
I'm trying to get something interesting to work here on VVH, and I'm not sure how well Blogger will cooperate...if weird things happen to VVH over the next hour or so, that's why.
Update: Nevermind. I was attempting to use the one AudioBlog post Blogger gives you as a free trial to record a new VVH FAQ. Unfortunately, the free trial only gives you one minute of recording time, rather than the full four minutes of a regular audio post. Needless to say, one minute is not sufficient for my purposes. It's unfortunate, because while audioblogging itself has always struck me as rather dumb, I like the idea of people being able to listen to my FAQ, which ideally would serve as a half-assed introduction to the site. I think it would have added a nice personal touch to the site, made it a bit more human, in the same way that posting a photograph does - although, now that I mention it, the damn photograph usually doesn't work either.
Oh well.
I'm trying to get something interesting to work here on VVH, and I'm not sure how well Blogger will cooperate...if weird things happen to VVH over the next hour or so, that's why.
Update: Nevermind. I was attempting to use the one AudioBlog post Blogger gives you as a free trial to record a new VVH FAQ. Unfortunately, the free trial only gives you one minute of recording time, rather than the full four minutes of a regular audio post. Needless to say, one minute is not sufficient for my purposes. It's unfortunate, because while audioblogging itself has always struck me as rather dumb, I like the idea of people being able to listen to my FAQ, which ideally would serve as a half-assed introduction to the site. I think it would have added a nice personal touch to the site, made it a bit more human, in the same way that posting a photograph does - although, now that I mention it, the damn photograph usually doesn't work either.
Oh well.
January 2003 In Review
~ Because I'd have to be an idiot to review such a shitty year all at once ~
Highlights of this month, last year:
Happy New Year! Goodbye 2002, Hello 2003!
And that was just January. Happy New Year!
~ Because I'd have to be an idiot to review such a shitty year all at once ~
Highlights of this month, last year:
Happy New Year! Goodbye 2002, Hello 2003!
- I wake up, hear a noise in the bathroom, and find Patrick Duffy in the shower. "Who is the President of the United States!" I demand, shaking him violently.
"Al Gore. Why?"
It was all a dream! Huzzah!
I wake up, again, this time in a puddle of my own vomit. I see a newspaper on the floor displaying a picture that looks more or less like this. I start looking for more whisky.
- 8:52 PM EST 1/1/03: Glenn Reynolds tells his first lie of the year: "Abortion and cloning. Two reasons why I'm not a Republican." Ha ha ha. And I don't want to feed Matt Drudge his own stupid hat.
- President Bush suggests that someone literally drill a hole through the middle of the Federal Budget, give him a jar of vaseline, and hold all his calls for a few hours. Low-level staffer suggests $600 billion in tax cuts, arguing that the practical effect will be the same, and will reduce the chances of an embarrassing photograph. Bush agrees, begins raising stink about corporate dividends being "taxed twice." I say something that rhymes with "shuck gorge tush" everytime I pay sales tax. Donald Rumsfeld asks to "borrow" Federal Budget.
- National Institute of Health announces intention to build facility for retired research chimpanzees. NIH officials swear that there will be no more escapes, all concerned having learned their lesson the last time.
- Steve Case resigns from AOL/TimeWarner, laughs at America, lights a cigar by focusing the sun's rays with a diamond the size of an egg, goes off to have sex on top of a pile of money.
- Arianna Huffington starts a campaign against SUVs, which has the unanticipated effect of turning SUVs into a symbol of freedom and patriotism for idiot Right-wingers. Figuring it's worth a shot, I write to Arianna suggesting she run ads denouncing the practice of sticking pencils in your own eye.
- Joe Lieberman announces his candidacy for President of the United States. Those in attendence can hear the faint sound of people in 2004 laughing at him.
- Stemming the negro tide that threatens to engulf Ann Arbor becomes a White House priority. White kids with mediocre ACT scores rejoice.
- PROOF OF SADDAM'S WMD!!! Ha ha! Just kidding.
- France threatens to veto military action in Iraq, subjecting me to a year of idiot bullshit about French plans to a) control the EU b) control Earth c) steal our women d) nuke us or e) all of the above.
- Media throws spotlight on mislabelling of boxes made in China as "made in USA", ignores mislabelling of idiot as "President."
- The Department of Homeland Security, a massive government bureaucracy encompassing hundreds of federal agencies, officially comes into being; pro-Bush libertarians are unsure whether they should orgasm or kill themselves. Being a nice guy, I suggest they do both.
- Through the US Forest Service, the Bush Administration tries out a tactic used to greater effect later in the year: Cut down the trees to protect the forests. I suggest a similar method of protecting Andrew Sullivan.
- Nelson Mandella says unkind things about President Bush, allowing Bush's supporters to say all manner of nasty things about Mandella that they previously were unable to say because he's, you know, a fucking hero. If Nelson Mandella knew anything about tyrannical oppression, he would support the liberation of Iraq.
- President Bush delivers State of the Union Address. Doesn't trip on way up to podium, therefore speech is deemed a success by people who should know better.
And that was just January. Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
