Fundie Agnostic

2003-06-16T05:30:00.000-07:00

Aargh. Brunchblogs isn't working. Hell, Brunchma is pretty iffy right now. I don't know if it's on my end or their end. I'll wait and see.

2003-06-10T17:14:00.000-07:00

Psst

I'm moving. Over here.

2003-06-06T20:20:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I wonder if Americans have such different fundamental ideals of what their country is based on and what ideals it represents, that any nationwide consensus we can build is doomed to be superficial and short-loved.

Let's look at the flag-burning amendment. The proposed amendment will almost certainly never become reality, although we will be hearing about it for a long time to come. It's the fact that so many elected officials support it that matters. I and many other people think that for a politician to support the amendment is a blatantly obvious way of gaining short-term political capital by selling something to the voters that sounds good and gives a good visceral feeling, but by doing so the politician runs completely counter to the ideals we believe the country was founded on, and hope it still represents. We tend to percieve the other side as being dumb or blind to see our side. But is that really likely?

We think our point of view is terribly obvious, and wonder about the intelligence of our elected officials and fellow voters that this proposed amendment is discussed at all. But isn't it possible that we're seeing two very different sets of perceptions about what our country is based on?

2003-06-04T19:17:00.000-07:00

Brendan's Law of Political Punditry #1: If they can get away with it, pundits say whatever sounds satisfying to them at the time. Regardless of whether it fits reality, is relevant, or even makes sense in the current context.

I remember something a certain man said on a TV talk show at the height of the Clinton administration. The man was (and is) a fairly well-known partisan Republican political commentator, although one generally thought of as colorless and uninteresting rather than spittle-emitting and anger-provoking. He mentioned an interesting statistic about Bill Clinton: that of the people who voted in 1992 (thus maybe half of the electorate), only 43% of them voted for Clinton. He made it sound as if he believed this factoid had some sort of great signifigance concerning Clinton's legitimacy as President, and then even repeated it with the same lecturing intonation. He made absolutely no attempt to explain why this signified anything other than the fact that Clinton ran against two different guys in 1992, in a country where half the voters don't bother to vote. But hey, it must have been satisfying for him to say at the time, even if it sounds slightly foolish in light of the specifics of his guy's perfomance in 2000.

Speaking of the numbers from the 2000 election. We have all heard Demopartisans trot out the fact that Bush lost the popular vote, treating that fact as evidence that Bush's presidency (and presumably Benjamin Harrison's as well) is somehow not legitimate. Which must be very satisfying for them. But it is unfortunate, because it allows the Republipartisans the opportunity to claim their undeserved moral high ground to remind us, correctly, that the popular vote totals are completely irrelevant. (I say "undeserved," because if the situation were reversed and Gore had won the election and lost the popular vote, you can bet it would be these same Republipartisans crying foul. While the Demopartisans would be sanctimoniously preaching the benefits of the Electoral College.)

(As a quick note: Yes, there are many fascinating oddities in the Florida vote count that allow Demopartisans to build up a better case for Bush's illigitimacy. But the fact that Bush lost the popular vote nationwide is totally and completely irrelevant to the Florida vote count. And in my personal opinion, people who trot out the nationwide popular vote count to use it as evidence when arguing about Florida are severely damaging their own credibility.)

Finally, one of my favorite bits of rhetoric from the Florida situation is a perfect example of Brendan's Rule #1. It regards the infamous butterfly ballot. I heard, out of the mouths of many Republipartisans back then, all about the silliness of the Democratic case against the ballot when it had been a Democratic state official who had approved (some versions of the remark say "designed") the ballot. And much like the partisan talking head mentioned above, these people managed to make this remark sound as if it actually contained some higher meaning, even though it was completely irrelevant. So the ballot was approved by a Democrat. So what? Was the Democratic line on the ballot that it had been designed, in some smoke-filled midnight back-room session, by a bunch of chuckling cigar-smoking Republicans with minds intent on fooling confused Jewish retirees? Or was it that the ballot contained an unfortunate design error that didn't surface until Election Day? As for me, I don't find the Democratic line, that the ballot caused large numbers of Gore supporters to vote incorrectly, to be convincing. But is it too much to ask that people on both sides please say things that actually make sense in the context of the debate, instead of basically meaningless remarks that do no good except for causing some momentary satisfaction?

2003-06-03T19:25:00.000-07:00

Having been reading the "Howard Dean is unelectable" vs. "Howard Dean is the real thing and has a real shot" back-and-forth arguing on the popular blogs, I'd like to clarify my own personal position on Dean. And I apologize if what I am about to say makes anybody's head explode.

I believe that Dean may not have the best shot at the nomination, but he is the Democrat most likely to beat Bush if nominated. But. I'm not convinced that Dean is electable for the right reasons.

Dean has attracted, and is attracting, a devoted and ever-growing following that is perplexing to Kerry, Lieberman and their ilk. But I suspect it's not because of his anti-war stance, or his "outsider" status. It's all because of the undefinable thing that I described in my post of May 29, that Bill Clinton had and Republicans hated him for, that Al Gore couldn't have if he tried, and that George W. Bush apparently has to the great perplexment of Democrats. Call it charisma, because I don't have a better word for it. It's what makes your opponents convinced that the media are pulling their punches with you.

I think Dean has this ability - the ability to have hordes of screaming teenage girls (or their Blogosphere/Punditland equivalent) show up outside his hotel and throw their metaphorical underwear at him. Except maybe for John Edwards, no other Democratic candidate in the running has it.

Is this a good thing? I don't think so. I think if Dean wins, he's not going to win on issues - he's going to win because of this unknown thing that he has. (You know, the thing that decided the 2000 election.) Dean will earn himself the unmitigated hatred of the opposition party the same way Clinton and Bush II did. Limbaugh and Coulter and their friends, overjoyed beyond reason at this wonderful turn of events, will happily turn their rhetoric at the Vermonter serving as their new target. And, of course, Dean will thoroughly enjoy it. Because that seems to be a symptom of having this thing.

Of course, I may be wrong. We may have President Gephardt in two years, which will pretty much disprove everything I wrote above. But we'll see.

2003-06-01T18:58:00.000-07:00

I try hard not to be too partisan, but I often become aware of my prejudices concerning American politics.

Take a look at my links to the left. I like reading Oliver Willis, but the guy is without question extremely partisan. No question which political party he supports. And I'm quite certain that, were he a Republican rather than a Democrat, I would find him too annoying to read. My mind favors Democrats over Republicans, and not to implicate Willis or any other specific person, but cheap shots taken at Republicans go over better with me than similar attacks against Democrats. Even though I know how irrational I am being. (If you say "Yes, but it's okay because the Democrats are right and the Republicans are wrong," you lose.)

But it only goes so far. There are plenty of Democratic-partisan blogs out there that are just so painfully partisan and annoying that I cannot in good conscience link to them; in fact, I can't stand reading them. (I won't name names, but if you follow some of the links to the left and then click on some of their links, you may see what I am talking about.)

2003-05-30T19:38:00.000-07:00

It seems to me that the word humorous can be used in a variety of ways when writing smug opinion pieces.

It can signify a cool detatchment on the writer's part from the absurdities of politics:

"During the humorous presidential election of 2000..."

It can show a vague dislike or disrespect for something or someone:

"Another effect of Bill Clinton's humorous administration is..."

It can even be so bizarre as to cause the reader to wonder if offense should be taken:

"After al-Qaida's humorous terrorist attacks in September 2001..."

2003-05-29T17:02:00.000-07:00

Rand Simberg writes about the possibilities of a rescue of the space shuttle Columbia, in what seems like a hard dose of chilling reality. Simberg's main point seems to be that even if the astronauts and ground crew had had full knowledge of Columbia's situation, still the only possible means of rescue - sending the Atlantis into orbit ahead of schedule - would have put additional lives and an additional shuttle at risk (just how much risk, the article leaves rather vague) with a small possibility of success. Columbia was not Apollo XIII. If you accept the article's conclusions, NASA evaded a major ethical dillema by remaining ignorant of the true situation.

Me, I don't feel well-enough informed about the various risk factors to even try to sound intelligent.

2003-05-28T20:53:00.000-07:00

The Charmer

Seldom has the sporting world seen such a suave, debonair ladies' man as Mike Tyson.

2003-05-28T18:26:00.000-07:00

A Prediction

He may not have the best shot at his party's nomination, but of all the Democrats running for President, Howard Dean has the best shot of knocking off Bush in the general election.

Isn't that a lovely prediction? Now only does it take what seems to be an unpopular, counter-intuitive stand, but there is no way it can ever turn out to be wrong. No matter what happens in 2004.

Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have this personal quality - this indescribable something. It's what I mentioned just a few days ago. It's the something that causes screaming teenage girls to hurl their underwear up onto the stage, beyond all reason. Gore didn't have it. Dole didn't have it. George H. W. Bush didn't have it, and neither did Dukakis. Kerry doesn't have it, and neither does Lieberman. John Edwards might, but he's not using it effectively. Ditto in the 2000 election with John McCain. I don't think it's ordinary charisma - I don't know what it is, because with Clinton and Bush it never worked on me. The more cynical out there say it's favorable media treatment, and nothing more.

My point is: Howard Dean seems to have it.

I see two potential problems for Dean. Neither is that he is too liberal, because as many who care have documented, he's not nearly as left-of-center (whatever that means) as both the DNC and the Republicans have accused him. The first problem is that he might not be optimistic enough - I actually agree with his remarks about us not always having the biggest and strongest armed forces, but his phrasing was a little defeatist.

The second is that he might be seen as too pugnacious. I know all about fighting fire with fire, and that the Dems shouldn't just roll over and play dead because they're scared of Karl Rove and Tom DeLay. But I get the feeling that the American people will reward someone who seems able to soften the more ludicrous partisanship in Washington. Dean doesn't seem like the person to do it.

Of course, George W. Bush campaigned on being a uniter, not a divider. On the fulfillment of that particular aspect of his campaign platform, I'm prepared to award a letter grade of F - -. But in the next election, the winning candidate is going to have to reach out to the opposing party. Somehow.

2003-05-25T17:06:00.000-07:00

Something just occurred to me.

No son or grandson of a President has ever received more votes than his nearest opponent in a Presidential election.

Discuss.

2003-05-24T20:43:00.000-07:00

It looks like The Brunching Shuttlecocks is passing into history. As sad as it is to see it go, let's keep things in perspective. The two guys who ran Brunching aren't dead or anything, the Ratings are moving to a page of their own, and the archives will be around forever. And the Brunchma bulletin board will continue to exist, where Kaiser Soren will continue his average of two posts per week consisting mostly of thread booting and posting links to stuff anybody could have found.

2003-05-24T01:17:00.000-07:00

A Hypothesis.

Every so often a Presidential candidate comes along who the traditional rules don't apply to.

As I am not the first to point out, Bill Clinton repeatedly survived the political equivalent of dinosaur-killing meteorite impacts, both in the 1992 Presidential campaign and afterwards. Loose strings of potential scandal hanging from George W. Bush, which would have been happily pulled by journalists and pundits had it been anybody else, went untouched. By contrast, the merest pinpricks repeatedly plunged Al Gore into near-fatal crises during his Presidential run. It seems that some candidates exist outside the basic physical laws that govern how the universe treats most politicians.

I'm beginning to suspect Howard Dean is a member of this rare group of near-invulnerables. I have still never seen Dean on TV and I have never heard his voice, but I've been repeatedly assured that he has charisma. (Whatever that means - I never thought Bush had charisma, but apparently some people disagree, even among those who dislike his politics.) But more importantly, I'm getting the feeling that whatever attacks are made against Dean simply make his followers more charged and fired-up.

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that I think Dean will be America's 44th President. I suspect John McCain also belonged to this group, and it didn't do him much good in the end. But in my mind, I think I'm already beginning to see Dean, and not Kerry or Edwards or Lieberman, as the Democrats' front-runner in 2004.

2003-05-22T17:17:00.000-07:00

I agree with Jane Galt. I don't agree quite as much with Oliver Willis.

I see a hell of a lot of symmetry in American politics. I won't go quite so far as to say that Bush haters are the mirror image of Clinton haters, or that suggestions that Vince Foster was the victim of foul play are the mirror image of the "Paul Wellstone was murdered" argument.

But I do think that Republicans who hold that Democrats are not only guilty of embracing a scumbag like Clinton, but are also guilty of demonizing a good and decent fellow like George Bush (and yes, that statement is quite reversible if you like) are guilty of a quite insidious form of (deliberately?) selective perception. I'm not saying that I believe my subjective worldview to be inherently superior to theirs. But at least I agnowledge that it is a subjective worldview.

2003-05-17T18:34:00.000-07:00

I'm reading political blogs. I'm reading "Comments" sections in political blogs. People say that Bush has zero principles, cares not one bit about rebuilding Iraq or promoting a healthy economy, and that every single thing he does is for partisan political gain. And then different people say almost exactly the same thing about Bill Clinton. Partisan attacks strike me as being almost perfectly symmetrical. I see no sense in believing one set over another. This is my Fundie Agnostic speaking.

2003-05-17T18:21:00.000-07:00

Calpundit has a little bit on Thomas Friedman that I'm sorry to say I largely agree with. I'm not a regular reader of his columns, but I have read through two books of his, and I think I could do a pretty good parody of his writing style if I tried. I've come to the disquieting realization that I learned almost nothing from The Lexus and the Olive Tree. I learned a lot from From Beirut to Jerusalem, but then it covered a topic I'd known nothing about previously.

I think I'll still read Longitudes and Attitudes when I get around to it, though. He's not a difficult person to read, and when my ignorance is gaping enough he can fill in the gaps.

2003-05-13T17:28:00.000-07:00

This is the funniest example of really stupid partisanship I've seen in a long time.

For those who are concerned about the future of politics in this country, though, I think there's nothing to really worry about until members of Congress start going to Canada en masse.

2003-05-13T17:07:00.000-07:00

I'm sure there are many who won't like it, but I actually think that the redesigned $20 is a big improvement. Of course, I'm used to the not-all-that-pretty Korean bills, so my standards may be low.

My only complaint is that they're redesigning the $5, $10, $50, and $100 as well, but leaving poor little George and Tommy on their $1 and $2 bills all scrunched up and sad-looking. Granted, the bills aren't often counterfeited, but doesn't stylistic consistency mean anything to the government?

2003-05-11T05:06:00.000-07:00

Washington Post account of Kim Jong-Il, the Dear Leader of our wonderful neighbors to the North. I can't bring myself to disbelieve a single sentence of this story.

2003-05-10T19:50:00.000-07:00

Since I wrote a bit about the Iraqi museum looting a few weeks ago, I will add an update here (for the one person who gets his news entirely from this site) that the vanished artifacts are being recovered at a heartening rate. Good to know - of course, there's still the matter of the damage to the library, but I imagine they're still trying to sort out how much damage was done there.

Of course, this is the really disturbing looting.

2003-05-10T19:31:00.000-07:00

I'm going to write an essay on that ol' Liberal Media that people are always talking about, and whether it exists or not, and if it does, in what form it exists. And I'm going to post it to Angelfire. (I'm not going to write it now, but now that I've stated here that I will, I have no choice and I can't back out due to laziness.)

With any luck, it will be well-thought-out and well-organized, in stark contrast to the other stuff I've posted to Angelfire.

2003-05-10T06:40:00.000-07:00

"I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

--Will Rogers

It's really, really easy for me to get all annoying and pedantic, and say that Rogers died in the 1930s, and when he was around the GOP was the party of the rich Northeast and the Dems were the party of white Southerners, and that things have changed tremendously since then. So that we shouldn't take anything that he said about the two parties to have anything to do with today's Democratic or Republican parties.

Except that the above quote is still so perfect. I get the feeling that the Democratic Party could only exist as an opposition party - that they could never run the whole show alone. They need an opposition party to bounce off of, or they cannot exist. While the GOP could do just fine and dandy as the official Party of the State in a hypothetical One-Party America.

Just my $.02.

2003-05-08T17:09:00.000-07:00

The GOP is warning of a rising Hillary Clinton, in order to raise funds for 2004. Even though she's not running for President next year, and isn't up for reelection until 2006.

Of course the Clintons are still the official punching bags for the GOP. (I believe that for the most part they deserve it, but if I may sound unforgivably cynical for a moment, I think they'd be getting this treatment from the GOP even if they were saints.) Just as the demonization of George W. Bush in Democrats' minds ludicrously overshadows whatever faults the man might actually have in reality, the Clintons are still the Republicans' official Satans, and will remain so until a new Democratic president is elected to become the new Satan.

Not to put a damper on the GOP's festive pinata party, but I should point out that the best and surest way of insuring Clinton isn't elected President in 2008 is in having a Democratic incumbent running for reelection in that year.

2003-05-07T22:12:00.000-07:00

It's apparent to everyone that the early underdog in the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, Howard Dean, shed his underdog status several months ago. (Whether that is because of his personality or media interest, I haven't a clue.)

I suppose the big question now is, will Dean's anti-war stance hurt him now that Saddam has been sent packing, at an astonishingly low cost? The pessimistic side of my psyche is predicting that the situation in occupied Iraq will become extremely nasty in a year or less - maybe to such an extent that some former hawks who still are paying attention might reverse their stance retroactively. If the occpuation turns disasterous, Dean (and possibly Kucinich, Sharpton, et al) will end up looking well in retrospect.

But I don't feel comfortable thinking along those lines. Now, my opinion of politicians in general (of the D, R, or any other variety) is pretty damn low, and cynical to boot. So I really should not be holding our Presidential contenders to very high standards. But it seems very yucky to have a candidate appear to be placing a large bet on things turning ugly for America in the near future. (Yes, I know that if Iraq goes sour, and Dean wins the nomination, Karl Rove will be producing commericals centered around that exact same point in the fall of 2004. But that doesn't make my feeling any less valid.)

Of course, there is a lot more to Dean than his Iraq stance. I think he has the ability to win the nomination even if the Iraq occupation is cake. (Of course, it's too early to discount anyone, even maybe Sharpton.) And, once again, I think anyone capable of winning the nomination is capable of winning the general election. Not a single day of 2004 has happened yet. Knowing our media, Iraq may not even be a campaign issue next year.

We'll see.

2003-05-05T04:41:00.000-07:00

Because I am apparently a mentally ill obsessive-compulsive, I am happy lapping up every tidbit of information I can find on the 2004 Presidential election, now kicking into high gear now that 2003 is not yet half over. Some observations:

1. As I've said before, this election is going to be decided by events that have not yet happened. So I'd dismiss any thoughts that Bush is unbeatable/doomed. Also, I tend to think that any candidate capable of being nominated by the Democrats is capable of beating Bush.

2. The consensus among the Blogosphere is that the frontrunners among the Democrats are (in no particular order) Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Gephardt. (It almost seems like ancient history to think of a time when Dean was regarded as an underdog by the nation's political pundits.) Now, I'm quite well aware that the vast majority of American voters are not political junkies, and probably most of them don't know who Dean, or even Edwards, is. So does that mean it's silly to pay attention to who the frontrunners are right now? No. I'm not living under the illusion that political junkies are a good statistical sample of the public at large - but it's the political junkies and the pundits who are going to shape the way the media reports on these candidates. That's why it will be a huge turnaround if someone other than one of these five guys ends up snagging the nomination.

3. Deep in my head, I don't really take Gephardt seriously. And it's all because of a meme some asshole on a political discussion board planted in my brain years ago about what a scuzzy slimebag Gephardt is. If that idiot's screwed up my objective perceptions, I'll be seriously pissed.

2003-04-28T18:54:00.000-07:00

Some possible (subtle) changes to the men's college basketball game, as early as next season. It might include moving the 3-point line further out, and widening - or changing the shape of - the lane.

I'm not quite knowledgeable enough about the game to weigh in on whether this is a good or bad thing, but a thought did occur to me. As I understand it, men's and women's college basketall are essentially two different sports - a rules change in one game won't carry over to the other game. That's why the 35-second shot clock in the men's game and 30-second clock in the women's, and other subtle differences. But as far as I know, in the vast majority of colleges and universities in the United States, the men's and women's teams play on the same court - so it's impossible to change specifications like the position of the 3-point line in the men's game and not have it impact the women's game. Maybe the article is just misleading and the men's and women's basketball authorities came to this decision in tandem. But if not, isn't the women's game just being pulled along by the whims of the men's game? If the women's basketball rules committee came to this decision, would men's basketball let itself be pulled along for the ride?

2003-04-28T17:10:00.000-07:00

I've noticed a view over the past several months that seems to pervade the online Democratic-leaning pundits. Many people seem to feel that the Democrats are being ravaged by a Republican corps of pundits and media lords, led by Karl Rove, who are using a superhuman grasp of psychology and the media's effect on the public to twist the public's view of reality. The American people aren't sufficiently media-savvy, this viewpoint goes, to see through this manipulation by the GOP-controlled media - and when the media lords add insult to injury by creating the blatant lie of the media being controlled by liberal interests, it simply gives pundits ammunition to dismiss this viewpoint as preposterous whenever some poor liberal pundit tries to articulate it.

I can see why this viewpoint is appealing to a lot of people. Everybody experiences some visceral gratification when they are percieved as an innocent victim. And I believe that the idea of the liberal media, although not lacking in truth, is a ridiculous oversimplification. But. This view assumes that the Democratic politicians who are the victim of this horrible nationwide smear campaign are (a) utterly passive, and (b) as stupid as turnips.

This is why I never bought the argument that Al Gore was done in in 2000 by a relentlessly negative media campaign. Certainly the Bush people were more adept than Gore at using the media to their advantage (look at how successfully they used the Democratic myth of Bush as the retarded fratboy) but for me to believe Gore was the unlucky victim of bad press fed to the media by GOP attack dogs, I'd have to believe Gore is the sort of person who lays his hand on a hot stove, screams in pain, pulls it away, then puts his hand back on the stove, screams again, and then continues to keep his hand on the stove until his arm ends in a blackened stump.

2003-04-25T19:15:00.000-07:00

It seems Calpundit has the same questions I do about President Roh's name. I've never quite understood the explanation given for No being spelled Roh - it apparently being because N often has an R sound (which is quite true - the "no" in street names - Jongno, for instance - often comes out "ro.") Because the N in Roh's name is still pronounced N. So it should be No, or at least Noh, in Roman transliteration.

Of course, Romanization of Korean names is pretty iffy (Park ought to be Bak and Lee ought to be - you ready for this? - "I") but the pronounciation usually comes accross okay. So why "Roh?"

2003-04-25T18:44:00.000-07:00

Could it be possible that Rick Santorum is singlehandedly unraveling Andrew Sullivan's loyalty to the Republican Party? I haven't seen Sullivan so incensed at any one person, Democrat or Republican, since Trent Lott. But at least Bush and much of his party publically repudiated Lott. Does Sullivan stand only for himself at this stage, or for a number of GOP-leaning independents?

2003-04-25T18:36:00.000-07:00

Yes, it's a fourth-grade prank, but this is damned funny too.

2003-04-23T17:26:00.000-07:00

An unfair, mindless partisan cheap joke, which I would never dignify by linking to.

2003-04-23T17:24:00.000-07:00

Andrew Sullivan on Rick Santorum. Doesn't this smell like Sullivan's ceaseless attacks on Trent Lott a few months ago? Yet again, Sullivan is going to mystify those who have gotten locked into the mindset of viewing him as a partisan shill. I have gotten the impression that Sullivan would really like to like the GOP. He really would. But he has a moral conscience that doesn't allow him to look the other way when the party he wants to believe in disappoints him. If there is a shred of partisanship in him, it's in the apparent fact that he holds the GOP up to a much higher standard than he does the Dems. When he attacks a hateful statement by a Democrat, I always get the sense that he is doing so in the context of attacking the hyprocrisy of those partisan Dems who claim to hate intolerace but simply turn a blind eye when one of their own says something unforgivably stupid. But when he attacks Republican intolerance and stupidity, it's with a melancholy air of "why can't these guys become a party I could be proud of?"

If anything, I'm biased towards the Democrats (though at this point, only slightly so). But I find Sullivan's attitude quite refreshing.

2003-04-18T07:43:00.000-07:00

A neat discovery on a different ancient front than the Baghdad looting. This could be pretty interesting.

2003-04-17T19:05:00.000-07:00

Slate on the Baghdad museum looting, by Meghan O'Rourke. This is just sick. And I hope I don't hear any person say that this is a symptom of some deep societal rot in Iraqi or Arab society, showing how much they do not value their own history. This could happen in any society where large numbers of people are suddenly allowed to display the primal rage against authority that had been building but forcibly supressed for so long. More educated Iraqis weren't the ones smashing stuff (though they may have been stealing items - of course having ancient treasures stolen is far preferable to having them smashed to pieces).

Barring any evidence to the contrary, I think most likely the American military authorities simply didn't care. This isn't a case of not being able to see the future - this is a case, as I said the other day, of the Americans just not giving a crap. And it will turn out to be a terribly short-sighted form of not giving a crap, if this does turn out to be the black mark that O'Rourke fears.

ANOTHER VIEW: Calpundit links to a John Derbyshire column suggesting that the looting may not entirely be a bad thing, insofar as many relics may end up safer than they had been in the museum. Putting aside the echoes of Western imperialism in his column that Calpundit brings to the fore, Derbyshire is building his argument on the assumption that the most important pieces in the museum are now not lying in smithereens on the ground. It's an important distinction - it's not really as terrible a blow to our cultural heritage if these pieces have merely been looted, to turn up again, perhaps, in years or decades. And it's actually rather heartening to think that much of the early looting was done with sensitive equipment, rather than by smashing glass cases - anything stolen by an expert thief was most assuredly not subsequently smashed to pieces. (I hope we can assume that the Akkadian royal mask currently pictured on Slate is in one piece and well cared-for, somewhere.) But what of the subsequent looting by Iraqi mobs eager to take out their rage at the remnants of Saddam's rule? I hope it's possible that, in the coming days, we learn that reports of even that destruction have been exaggerated.

2003-04-17T07:23:00.000-07:00

A different take on the Baghdad museum looting by Jim Hoagland at the Washington Post. But it puzzles me too. He seems to hint that the museum was largely not the victim of random looting - that much of the destruction was to cover a Baathist trail out of Baghdad - that some of the museum's treasures have been spirited away elsewhere. But he never quite tells us what he is getting at.

I'm getting the sense from the accounts I've read that something as-yet unexplained happened just before Baghdad fell - that the highest levels of the Iraqi government simply disappeared, to parts unknown. (Out of respect for my own ignorance, I will not name possible countries Iraq's leaders may have fled to, especially not ones begining with S and ending with A.) I suppose it is possible that the second decapitation attack, the one just a day or two before the fall of Baghdad, somehow wiped out Saddam, his sons, and his entire inner circle. But I can't help but feel that, had that happened, we would have seen much more chaos among the remnants of the Iraqi regime.

There is evidently a huge amount we have yet to learn about just what happened - and may still be happening.

2003-04-17T06:46:00.000-07:00

The more intellectual forums at the Brunching Shuttlecocks message board are great. I don't post there much, not least because if the regulars figured out just how flaky I really am when it comes to staking out a position and consistently defending it, things could get unpleasant. But I lurk there constantly, and today I'm going to reprint a quote, totally without the person's permission or even knowledge, that helps to sum up a lot of what's been bugging me about American political discourse:

I mean, is there any more abused word than "liberal" in modern America-Centric politics? When someone claims that the "left", composed of "liberals," opposes "liberal democracy", it doesn't take a genius to realise that we need to start inventing some new words.

-McDuff

2003-04-15T18:51:00.000-07:00

More stories of repugnant looting from Baghdad. Not that it matters, but it's quite likely that it's the more destructive sort among average Iraqis who are responsible for this, simply not caring amidst their rage against the fallen regime that these old treasures have no symbolic association with Saddam whatsoever.

But why, exactly, hasn't the only authority left in the city, the American and British military, been doing enough to prevent the looting? It's extremely easy to point fingers at Rumsfeld & Co., saying that they should have anticipated this level of mayhem, and accusing them of incompetence. But that, I feel, would be disingenious. True incompetence is unlikely; a simpler explanation is that they really just don't give a crap. I really, really hope Iraq's educated elite forgives my country for this.

2003-04-15T18:45:00.000-07:00

Boy, I've been lazy here lately. But then, that's what happens when a friend from China visits. While I've been hiking around the mountains near Gyeongju, I have not been in an Internet cafe.

2003-04-09T06:05:00.000-07:00

Reading articles like this one, I'm growing less and less convinced that Saddam Hussein is calmly relaxing in a bunker somewhere thinking, "All the pieces are falling into place nicely. My plan is working perfectly."

I'm mighty relieved that it appears this war may end without huge American casualties, carpet-bombing of Baghdad, Syria getting involved, etc. (And I sadly admit that the preceding sentence may turn out to be incredibly naive within a few days.) Of course, once the Allies are running Iraq, the hard part begins. Let's see what happens.

2003-04-07T20:17:00.000-07:00

SARCASM SARCASM SARCASM CNN.com headline: At least 6 killed in battle for Baghdad.

I must say, that's an astonishingly low figure. Kudos to the Allied military planners. Out of curiosity, how many of the 6 were Iraqi troops, and how many were Allied troops?

2003-04-07T17:31:00.000-07:00

Article by Mary Lynn F. Jones in The American Prospect arguing the case that George W. Bush will be unemployed come January 2005.

Of course, we can't forget the famous October 1995 editorial in the Wall Street Journal stating that Clinton would lose to any Republican candidate who didn't "drool on stage." I hate to say it to optimistic partisans, but the 2004 election will likely be decided by events that - get ready for a shocker - haven't happened yet. A lot of my partisan Democratic friends have said, with gloom in their voices, that Bush is going to be reelected in 2004. There is no uncertainty in their voices - it's like they've gotten their hands on newspapers or encyclopedias from the future that they have been instructed to keep secret.

The 2004 election campaign hasn't happened yet. George W. Bush is not Bill Clinton. Nor is he his father. He's also not a retarded chimpanzee - and in my opinion, if the Democrats keep pretending he is, they'll have him around to beat up on until 2009.

2003-04-06T21:14:00.000-07:00

A thought has occured to me. Unless Saddam Hussein is hauled before some kind of international tribunal alive, I will probably spend the rest of my life suspecting that he's safe and sound and living it up on the French Riviera, or someplace in Saudi Arabia, or God knows where. And I don't think I'm the only one. I hate to say it, but if the Pentagon were to announce Saddam's death, my BS detector would begin sounding an alarm at this point.

2003-04-04T16:53:00.000-08:00

Michael Kelly, 1957-2003

Well crap. I've been reading Kelly since I started reading the Washington Post my freshman year at college. To be honest, he often made me hurt from rolling my eyes too hard - but he was never boring, and usually brilliant as hell. I for one will miss him.

2003-04-02T05:34:00.000-08:00

Thoughtful scariness from Gary Anderson, at the Washington Post.

2003-03-31T19:51:00.000-08:00

Some vital new intelligence here regarding the intentions and innermost thoughts of our favorite neighbor to the north.

2003-03-30T06:52:00.000-08:00

I suspect a hoax of some sort, but if this is true, North Korea is still managing to find new ways of shocking and appalling me.

2003-03-29T20:58:00.000-08:00

As much as I feel that the foreign policy advocated by those who are called "neocons" is leading the U.S. down the wrong path, I feel weirdly bad talking about "the neocons." Because it sounds to me to be reminiscent of the talk radio buffoons and their talk of "the liberals."

Are "the neocons" a more cohesive entity than "the liberals?" Is it proper to make wide, sweeping statements about one, but not the other?

2003-03-28T23:30:00.000-08:00

New regular reading for me: CalPundit.

2003-03-28T19:23:00.000-08:00

I'm often embarassed by the fact that the US seems determined to piss off most of the rest of the world in maintaining its place as global leader. However, I also have a sane bone in my body. That is why a part of me would be immensely satisfied to see some kind of permanently-affixing duct tape to be sealed over this guy's mouth.

Now, I'm sure it's possible that his words have been twisted around by the news media. And I totally believe that the 1st Amendment protects the right of Americans to say stupid things. But it is inevitable that some of the more blustery pro-war commentators - the O'Reileys and Limbaughs of the country, guys who know that they're lying but don't give a crap because they figure the American people are too stupid to know the difference - are going to claim this maroon is representative of all of us who are the least bit ambivalent about being proud of America's current course.

2003-03-26T16:04:00.000-08:00

Chat on the current situation in Afghanistan with Marc Kaufman, in Wednesday's Washington Post.

You know, sometimes I wish I could get ahold of an encyclopedia published a decade from now so I could read up about what's happening in Iraq in March 2003. Since there's certainly no way to find out from current news reports.

2003-03-25T04:57:00.000-08:00

Which War on Iraq Figure Are You? I came out Tom Daschle. But that's just because I took the quiz in a more dovish mood.

Which means, I guess, that I waffle more than Daschle.

2003-03-24T19:17:00.000-08:00

Pointless Waste of Time on the Iraqi war. And, surprisingly, I pretty much agree with it.

2003-03-23T05:28:00.000-08:00

If we are to believe the general news media, so far the entire combined Iraqi armed forces have managed to kill exactly twice as many Americans as one psychotic American soldier in Kuwait. It's amazing how such a huge proportion of Allied deaths seem to be from friendly fire and accidents.

Sounds like there is heavy fighting in Umm Qasr, but it may be days before we know just how heavy. Also reports of major resistance at the Euphrates. I have a first cousin who's in the infantry fighting there.

No deep thoughts. Just reflections that it will likely be a while before we know for certain what's going on in Iraq.

2003-03-23T05:23:00.000-08:00

Myths and Misconceptions about Iraq. From SpinSanity. Check it out; it's pretty even-handed.

2003-03-22T05:21:00.000-08:00

So far so good - no truly disasterous news has come over the wire in the past few hours. No word yet on what the casualty toll is from last night's Baghdad blasts. I guess modern warfare is like this: nations go to war knowing full well that innocent civilians are going to pay the ultimate price for the hideous, inexcusable crime of being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, at the wrong moment in history. The flattened cities of World War II are a testament to this. I've never read up on the morality of war; maybe I ought to.

I've come to the conclusion that my position on this war is thus: I believe it is possible that the good consequences of conquering Iraq might outweigh the bad consequences. But it may be years before any of us truly know for certain. (Heh. Does my answer make anyone hungry for waffles?)

2003-03-22T05:13:00.000-08:00

(This is a couple hours old - just posting it in the RIGHT blog this time.)

Has "Shock and Awe" started? The guys on ABC News last night sure seemed to think so (unfortunately ABC News seems to be the only network carried by AFN; it was damned irritating to hear the ABC anchors repeating "This IS Shock and Awe" once a minute). I still think the US can do this without killing large numbers of Iraqi civilians. If many civilians do die, I will naturally assume that the administration and pro-war pundits were just kidding around when they called this war a war of liberation. I know that this war has NEVER first and foremost been a war of liberation. But the loonier rhetoric of the pro-war crowd - sometimes coming from individuals I had never previously thought of as loony - would have people believe that improving the lives of innocent people was somehow the chief issue.

2003-03-20T18:22:00.000-08:00

I'm thinking this war may be over soon. I'm leaning more towards "Saddam is a delusional goner" than "Saddam has some tricks up his sleeve."

Of course, getting a US-occupied Iraq is just the first step in a long road. So I won't pay attention to the commentators, who run more on bluster and fraudulent emotion than logic and information (and know it), who will undoubtedly be pointing fingers at the anti-war crowd and saying, "I told you so!" I can't really criticize such people, as blustering over carefully reasoned arguments when you don't have your facts in order is a long tradition in the species' political history.

Lots of anti-war protestors in the streets. Dunno what effect they will have. It's easy to point fingers at them and say that a large number of them are opposing the war for stupid or asinine reasons. Undoubtedly that's true. As are many - but not all - people who support the war. Of course, the existence of someone who agrees with you for a stupid reason, or out of pure ignorance, does not diminish the validity (or lack thereof) of your position. No doubt many people voted the same way as me in the 2000 election out of stupid or asinine reasons, but that doesn't mean I don't stand by my vote.

2003-03-19T19:25:00.000-08:00

Assuming there is no real news out of the Mideast by the time the morning papers go to press, I wonder how dramatic the Post and NYT headlines will be tomorrow morning. Nothing's happened so far today that we hadn't really expected this morning.

2003-03-19T19:11:00.000-08:00

Seems the war's started. I hear an English-language news broadcast here in the PC-Bang, with Korean dubbing so I can't make it out.

Senator Byrd has denounced this war in far more eloquent English than thousands of anti-war protestors. The world's gone topsy-turvy. I'm feeling inspired by the words of an ancient former Klansman, and rightly so.

Ah well. The media may tell us otherwise, but there most likely won't be any real news for a while.

2003-03-18T19:25:00.000-08:00

Robert Wright on dubious and valid worries about the Iraq war in Slate. The whole article is by its very nature made up of guesses, but it's still worthwhile. I really, really, really, really, really hope that he's right about Saddam not having nukes.

2003-03-18T17:49:00.000-08:00

More about Tractor Man on the Mall. I'm still not clear on exactly what he hopes to accomplish. I also can't help but wonder if it was just bad luck on his part that he pulled this stunt during a week when the natio's news media were focused elsewhere, thus depriving him of attention. (I like the little afterthought mention that Iraq got in the story. I wonder if the Post reporters are responsible for that, or if he really did rail against the government's tobacco policies for a good long while, then added as a side note, 'No war in Iraq.')

If I were still living in the area, you bet I'd try to get as close as possible to the commotion. I'm kinda stupid that way.

2003-03-17T19:04:00.000-08:00

Of note: Washington Post editor Robert G. Kaiser's online chat on the current international situation.

2003-03-17T18:46:00.000-08:00

This is very, very weird. A man has driven a tractor decorated with an American flag and covered with pro-veteran bumper stickers into a pond near the Reflecting Pool in DC. I believe I know which pond he's in. The police have him surrounded, and he's managed to shut down all traffic within a several block radius. I don't have the faintest idea what his agenda or cause might be. Let's hope this ends quickly and peacefully.

2003-03-14T18:37:00.000-08:00

I don't like this feeling inside me. Just a short time ago I was still convinced that the Administration didn't want to have to invade Iraq - that what Bush wanted was to squeeze Iraq so hard something inside cracked. Like a successful coup or something. Now I'm thinking war is inevitable and I just want it to be over with. I'm fed up with all the theories about how things could go horribly, disasterously wrong. I just want things to happen and be over with, so we can see the outcome for ourselves. If horrible things are going to happen, then they should just happen and get themselves over with.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I see myself as chomping on popcorn and impatiently waiting for the movie to start. Ugh.

2003-03-14T18:32:00.000-08:00

I'm happy that I'm still registered to vote in Maine, and voted for Maine candidates by absentee ballot in 2000 and 2002. Otherwise, I almost certainly would have voted for this doofus last November, and would be feeling mighty embarassed right about now.

2003-03-12T20:14:00.000-08:00

Even though I took a course on Balkan history at GW, I'm hopelessly ignorant when it comes to the situation there today. I wish I were better informed about the Ballkans. I wish I had even a smidgen of knowledge about what Djindjic's death will mean for the future. I should so know this stuff.

2003-03-12T17:10:00.000-08:00

I'm sure it's horribly misleading and guilty of oversimplification, but this chart from Slate is great.

2003-03-09T05:12:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Post: "In the coming weeks, all signs indicate, President Bush will launch the first war without direct provocation in the nation's history."

Um. Ahem. 1898?

Maybe I'm forgetting that I'm writing from the viewpoint of 105 years later, when it's pretty clear that Spain wasn't behind the Maine's destruction. But although the Maine may have been a godsend for the cause of American propaganda, if I remember my history right it wasn't the Maine alone that provoked the war. The American public had been worked up into a hawkish frenzy by the exaggerated claims of Spanish provocation.

I'm going to come right out and admit that I have no recollection of what started the war against Mexico in the 1840s, so I'll give the Post the benefit of the doubt on that one.

2003-03-09T04:10:00.000-08:00

Check out Mark Rosenfelder's arguments for and against invading Iraq. They're about two and a half weeks old now, but not out of date yet. Good to see that someone better read than me is just as ambivalent about the prospect of war. Though I get the feeling that he's rather reluctantly pro-war, but wishes very badly someone other than Bush were the public face of America right now.

2003-03-09T04:05:00.000-08:00

I wonder if the Washington Post regularly edits its printed letters to the editor. In the March 8 Free For All, Ms. Montague says that for Tom Shales to suggest President Bush appeared medicated at his news conference was "beyond the pale." But she doesn't say why. It's now common knowledge that, for instance, Kennedy was sustained by large quantities of prescribed drugs during the Cuban Missile Crisis (and to a lesser extent during other points in his presidency, due to his numerous medical problems). True, people probably weren't publically stating this at the time. And Ms. Montague might have a point if she specifies that, at this point in time, it's improper to speculate on the President's status. But she doesn't say that. She doesn't give any reason for her opinion. And so, she merely comes across as huffy.

2003-03-09T00:06:00.000-08:00

Washington Post Style article on President Bush's inexplicably poor oratory skills. This President does seem to have a real disdain for the possibilities of using the English language as a tool to turn public opinion. You can say "Bush is stupid," but even if he were a retarded ape it wouldn't explain anything because he'd still have the best speechwriters money can buy. Maybe he honestly thinks that his purposes will be better served if he sticks to plain language. I think he is mistaken - a year has passed since the "Axis of Evil" speech, and those words are now remembered more in mockery than any other way. Very strange.

2003-03-08T23:50:00.000-08:00

Calpundit reaches a turning point in his stance on war with Iraq.

2003-03-07T20:23:00.000-08:00

Thought for the Day: Say that most political commentators unconsciously believe that other people think like them. That is, they see other people as reflections of themselves. They believe their own cynicism, lack of intellectual ethics, and so on are shared by all people in politics. Now, for those who support the same causes and beliefs as oneself, that's okay. If they're your comrades, why carp? But people with radically different political views or beliefs? The fact that they are part of a universe percieved to be so full of selfishness and cynicism is damning.

Which brings me to my hypothesis: By looking at what a pundit says about his/her political oppostition, you will recieve a gilmpse into his/her own soul. Try it on your favorite rabid spittle-emmiting jackass, of either Right or Left persuasion (doesn't matter in the slightest). I call it the I-Know-You-Are-But-What-Am-I Theory of Political Commentary.

2003-03-06T05:10:00.000-08:00

I'm sure people are going to be frothing at the mouth and talking about the decline of American broadcast standards after hearing the "voice-of-Saddam-in-CBS-interview-was-actually-actor-with-fake-Arabic-accent" story. (Scroll down after clicking on the link.)

Me, I just think it's funny. It's much too laughter-provoking for me to actually get upset over it. If a dumb move is really this transparently obvious, there isn't much need for me to point out the dumbness.

2003-03-05T16:08:00.000-08:00

I'm beginning to think I was wrong about my theory that what Bush & Co. really want is to keep squeezing Iraq until something breaks. Either that, or the administration is beginning to think the squeezing tactic won't work. Because I can't help but think that what we're seeing now is the final dive towards war.

I do think that "Shock and Awe" is deliberate misinformation that's been fed to the media. (Or that the media have been complicit in misleading the Punditry with. Anybody who thinks that the broadcast and print media have been marching in lockstep to undermine and impede this administration is simply wrong. Perhaps deliberately so.) I'm too cynical at this point to believe that the administration genuinely wants to prevent mass civilian casualties in Iraq if doing so would inconvenience them, but the Punditry has been painting this war as a "war of liberation" for the Iraqi people. And, y'know, "Shock and Awe" is going to kinda undermine the claim that this war is ultimately in the best interests of the Iraqi civilians.

Of course, if "Shock and Awe" actually happens AND mass civilian casualties are a result, the Punditry is going to tie itself into knots trying to explain why the war in Iraq is still a "war of liberation." I don't dispute that. But after painting itself into a rhetorical corner, I don't think the administration is going to go the path of possible mass death.

2003-03-02T04:39:00.000-08:00

A bit of a relief: apparently the story coming out of Maine, regarding teachers giving children of servicemen/women a hard time, was largely a load of hooey. If the link requires you to register with the Bangor Daily News, and I unfortunately suspect it will, the gist of it is: There were reports that teachers across Maine who opposed an Iraqi war were being somewhat malicious to kids who had parents in the Mideast, but they were greatly exaggerated. There was only one such complaint and it involved a teaching assistant; some other complaints of teachers being less than accomodating for other reasons got mixed in and inflated the story's importance.

I'm not the biggest fan of an Iraqi war. I think people who equate a lack of support for war with a lack of support for the military are full of hot air. But to me the thought of a teacher making a student uncomfortable because of his/her parent's involvement is just wrong. I attended Maine public schools for grades 2 through 12, and I was hoping that none of my former teachers were a part of this. I'm very happy to hear that it's much ado about nothing.

2003-03-01T23:18:00.000-08:00

Check out this somewhat scary article on North Korean insanity from Exile.

2003-03-01T22:36:00.000-08:00

An addendum to the Harvard Snow-Penis Story: Check out the discussion on the Brunchma bulletin board.

2003-03-01T18:50:00.000-08:00

I went to a department store yesterday. Out of curiosity, I looked over the selection of globes. They were all quite accurate and up-to-date, and it was fun seeing the Korean names for every country in the world.

They all had one thing on common.

They each showed only one Korea.

2003-03-01T18:47:00.000-08:00

I try to figure out Korean public opinion, through the microcosms of my acquaintances and classes. It's all I can do, since I can't understand the language. But it's not easy.

Two minutes before the end of an adult class last week, a student with impeccable timing went off on a tangent on how much he hates both George Bush and Osama bin Laden. It would have been a perfect topic of discussion had he brought it up slightly earlier. I may be American but I have an armor-plated hide when it comes to foreigners dissing my government. Besides, I read enough pro-Bush commentary that I could probably put together a fairly intelligent, reasonable defense of his actions (which I generally wouldn't believe in or agree with, but that's another story).

One thing this student said during his unfortunately abbreviated tirade was that he's quite happy that North Korea has nukes. I didn't probe for his reason, though I figure there are two possible explanations:

1. Nationalism. YES! We Koreans have nuclear weapons! Sure, different government, but it's our people.

2. Realpolitik. YES! One more check on American hegemony! Ooh, and btw, it's by Koreans.

I'm wondering if I dare bring up this topic this coming week.

2003-02-28T23:20:00.000-08:00

I think I'm safe. I did Google searches on both "fundamentalist agnostic" and "fundie agnostic" and nothing of importance turned up.

2003-02-28T18:17:00.000-08:00

Yes, I've changed my title. Two things have happened in the past few hours:

1. Someone who had an AntiPundit blog before me contacted me and asked me to change. Fair enough. The more I roll it around in my brain, the more I'm getting to like the expression "fundamentalist agnostic."

2. Glenn "AntiPundit" Reynolds LINKED TO ME. We'll see what that does to my traffic. Thanks, Mr. Reynolds - but as far as I'm concerned, the AntiPundit name you liked is someone else's property now.

2003-02-27T18:14:00.000-08:00

Even though I often disagree with his politics and his opinions, I am happy to say that I remain a devoted reader of Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds. And, one thing that is coloring my perceptions of those bloggers who are Democratic-leaning (do the words "left" and "right" mean anything nowadays?) is the method they use to criticise him. He's demonstrated fairly well that accusing him of "McCarthyism" is nothing more than name-calling - and that it contributes nothing more to reasoned debate than, say, spewing the word "liberal" like it's a racial slur. Yet so many partisan Democratic bloggers quite happily use him as a target for insults that aren't even well thought-out - they just consist of political-hindbrain slurs like "McCarthyite."

One reason why I'm very happy to have found Oliver Willis is that Willis obviously respects Reynolds, and can disagree with him without descending into meaningless name-calling.

What I find extremely amusing is the fact that, if it weren't for (a) the possible war with Iraq, and (b) Reynold's opinion on gun control, there would be little reason for even the most partisan Democratic bloggers to oppose Reynolds. I concede that this is an almost meaningless sentence, but Reynolds is really not all that Republican.

2003-02-27T05:18:00.000-08:00

This current article on Slate links to a four-year-old article that makes for some mighty interesting reading, if only for the similarity of rhetoric. It will have to be up to you and your own judgement, to figure whether it's the current crop of hawks or doves who look stupider in light of the fact that the GOP was saying much the same things in 1999 that the anti-war crowd happens to be saying now.

2003-02-23T05:50:00.000-08:00

Am I too optimistic?

The President of the United States shows remarkably little respect for our intelligence. Am I too optimistic when I disagree with those people who think there's some kind of cognitive deficit at work inside his head?

The Vice President and the Attorney General have the unfortunate tendency to sound like the bad guys in a badly written Libertarian tract. Am I too optimistic to think that, personal political differences between them and me aside, they're genuinely trying to keep the country and its people safe, but they just happen to be rather tone-deaf to how their own words sound?

The occasional protestor at anti-war marches gives the definite impression of being more on the side of Saddam Hussein than America as a country. Am I too optimistic that this impression is created entirely by people who wish to shock, secure in the knowledge that their way of life isn't going anywhere soon, and is not a symptom of a wider rot among what is often called the Left?

The occasional reaction to large anti-war protests is that the protestors in general are anti-American, wish to see Saddam remain in power, don't want to support our troops, etc. Am I too optimistic that all this is just more political name-calling that we've all seen before, and isn't a symptom of increasing polarization in American society?

2003-02-23T05:21:00.000-08:00

Fascinating Washington Post Outlook article on the probable future direction of the Democratic presidential nomination politics. And I will most likely be intently following the whole thing from here in Korea, even as I'm getting more and more jaded with American domestic politics. It's just junk food for my brain. I love it.

2003-02-22T01:27:00.000-08:00

I can easily see why many people dislike Andrew Sullivan; the man annoys the hell out of me rather often. But sometimes it's useful to keep around an intelligent gay man who has no tolerance for sexual bigots, of the male or female persuasion. Witness his reaction to some of the quotes coming out of the Great Harvard Snow-Penis Scandal of 2003. Especially interesting is the repugnant Harvard Crimson letter he linked to. Let me list some of my own reactions to the views expressed therein:

1. Penises do not commit rape; brains commit rape. Regardless of what pop-culture witticisms may have led you to believe, penises do not have minds of their own.

2. I hope this does not come as a shock to anyone, but my body features a penis as an integral part. This penis is usually flaccid, but it has the capability to become erect (may it never lose this capability, knock on wood). I fail to see how, if my penis were erect, it would constitute an implied threat. If my erect penis is an implied threat, does this mean that I am a threatening figure of "male dominance?" Although (again) pop culture may have led you astray on this point, when a battle of wills commences between a male brain and an attached erect male penis, the brain always wins. Sexual assault is the product of a diseased mind, not an overly willful penis. Thus, if my erect penis is an implied threat, then I am a potential rapist and should treated accordingly. (Note: Granted, I may have the physical ability to rape a woman with my erect penis. I also have the physical ability to push people in front of subway cars, torture small animals, commit arson, and write bad checks. I do not actually recall doing any of these things in my lifetime, though.)

3. Logically following from #2, the letter writer is assuming that every man walking around with a penis capable of an erection is a possible rapist and is threatening. It is at this point that the burden of proof shifts to the letter writer, to explain why the word "bigot" should not be used to describe her.

4. Last year on the George Washington University campus, a rather large paper-mache vagina made an appearance. It made the cover of the school paper, although I forget exactly what the special occasion was that prompted its creation. Although it did not particularly interest me, I don't recall being the slightest bit offended or threatened by it.

That's about it. I especially like the quote, "The unwanted image of an erect penis is an implied threat; it means that we, as women, must be subject to erect penises whether we like it or not." Ugh yech yech. You don't imply that a part of my body that I can't help but have is "threatening" and should be forever hidden, even in snow-sculpture form, without making me actively angry. I pride myself on not becoming offended easily, and I wouldn't be offended if I thought that the letter writer was a member of a loony minority. But I suspect there are a lot of women who will advocate the same views - who will without remorse denigrate the male body, and make it a thing of derision.

SLIGHT DIGRESSION ALERT. And I suspect the letter-writer would call herself a "feminist" - proof in my eyes that the word has evolved far beyond (and far below) its original meaning. I once saw a female chauvinist declare that "feminism," by which she meant her own bigoted views, was the belief that women were human beings. What a disgusting bit of linguistic trickery. In other words, to believe that women are human beings is to believe that women are better than men. Now, for all I know, the letter writer wouldn't try to pull such a semantic bait-and-switch (thus the DIGRESSION ALERT) but what she wrote came awfully close to it.

Sorry if this has been somewhat of a rambling angry diatribe, but I believe very strongly that (a) I am a person, and (b) my female friends are people. And every person is a prisoner of their bodies, and every person should be proud of and happy with their bodies (this is why I support the idea of nudism in principle, though I don't think I'll actually practice it anytime soon). And my body is not something I should be ashamed of, and my female friends' bodies are not something they should be ashamed of.

And yes, I acknowledge that the letter writer wrote that she had once been the victim of a sexual assault of an undetermined nature. A white supremacist who was mugged by a black person is still a white supremacist.

2003-02-21T22:27:00.000-08:00

Heheheheheh.

2003-02-21T22:24:00.000-08:00

Go read Oliver Willis. Like Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds, he's smarter than I am. Unlike Sullivan or Reynolds, his opinions are not far removed from mine.

And he's funny.

2003-02-20T20:12:00.000-08:00

When an army was sent to punish Ke . . . the whole Empire said, "This is not coveting the Empire but avenging common men and common women."

. . .

In eleven expeditions [Tang] became matchless in the Empire. When he marched on the east, the western barbarians complained, and when he marched on the south, the northern barbarians complained. They all said, "Why does he not come to us first?" The people longed for his coming as they longed for rain in time of severe drought. Those who were going to market did not stop; those who were weeding went on weeding. He punished the rulers and comforted the people, like a fall of timely rain, and the people rejoiced greatly.

-Mencius, about 300 B.C.

Yes, I'm bringing this up in relation to the prospect of punishing the ruler in Baghdad. The more hawkish among you already see where this is going, no doubt, and are amazed at my tunnel vision. "You're going to point out that, among the fall off Allied bombs, those who are going to market and weeding won't be able to go on as usual. But you're forgetting that the nature of war has changed totally since ancient times; there are as a matter of necessity no more noncombatants in combat zones. We can't take out Saddam without taking innocent lives. War is hell. Deal with it."

But the thing is, Imaginary Sparring Partner Who Lives Only In My Head, pro-war commentators have been painting this possible conflict for weeks as a great liberation for the Iraqi people. They say to such an extent that the Iraqi people will be better off after Saddam's overthrow, that they take to claiming that anti-war protestors are anti-Iraqi people. (This, coming from commentators who would never dare call protestors anti-American or pro-Saddam.) They want to cast Bush as the Tang figure, but if he devastates the Iraqi infrastructure and kills civilians he won't be.

Incidentally, although I managed to snip it completely out, the main point of Mencius' anecdote is that the people of other nations held Tang in high esteem because he practiced good kingly government. Admitted, we don't live in the black-and-white world Mencius inhabited, and there is little Bush could do to have him liked by the common people (the "street") everywhere. But you have to wonder if he's handling that aspect of rule quite as well as he plausibly could.

2003-02-19T18:19:00.000-08:00

Statement of Views:

Is homosexuality unnatural? Yes.

Bear in mind, though, that to come to this country, I had to strap myself in a huge contraption that hurtled through the air at hundreds of miles per hour, whipping through the atmosphere at a tremendous height, while I stayed safe inside am artificially controlled environment.

Also, I'm wearing clothes at the moment.

Am I pro-life or pro-choice? Yes.

I think every human being has a right to be protected from harm. And the government of a modern State is to provide that, if and when the human being is too weak or helpless to protect itself. Obviously when it comes to abortion the question is, at what point is a human being a human being?

I'm not convinced that birth is the answer. But I'm not convinced conception is either - all you've got for the first few weeks is really a bundle of genetic material (this is the cue for witty wags to pipe up and say, "All a human being IS is genetic material!"), and I don't think that a predetermined genetic code is what determines when a being can be said to have rights. And yet, any other boundary line would seem to be even more arbitrary.

Standing uneasily alongside my belief that every human being deserves to be protected from harm, is my belief that every human being has a right to say what goes on in his/her own body. Period. Man, woman, neuter being, anyone. Our bodies are our prisions, and are ALL WE HAVE. So how do I reconcile my two beliefs?

Simple. I donate money to artificial womb research. Once we start growing babies in pods, there will be no more debate over abortion. Is there any other way?

What do I think of capital punishment? Remember what I said about human beings needing to be protected from harm? Deep down, I think that the modern, secular, impersonal State should not be allowed to strap down a helpless, however guilty person, and strip him/her of life.

And I'm very lucky to have the luxury of such a viewpoint. I have never lost a friend or relative to violence. I've always been the uninvolved bystander. So take what I say with a grain of salt.

I have to give kudos to the anti-death penalty movement, though, for their inspired choice of Free Mumia! as their slogan. As a fictional character, Mumia is the perfect symbol. Since he's not a real person, he doesn't have the messy baggage, the details, that are unconnected to the main issue but would confuse the case. And the man he supposedly killed, being a fictional character as well, likewise comes with no baggage that would only confuse the issue. Good Job!

How about gun control? Gun control is a wonderful idea if we can only make sure that there are NO GUNS, ANYWHERE. Of course, remove that assumption and we begin to run into problems. It's kinda like pacifism: pacifism is a wonderful philosophy, just as long as EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD IS A PACIFIST TOO.

Should the U.S. attack Iraq? I'm not going to pretend I know more than I actually know.

Should the U.S. attack Canada? Absolutely. If American armies aren't laying waste to Ottawa by summer, it will be the final proof needed that Western Civilization is on a rapid decline.

2003-02-17T20:43:00.000-08:00

I strongly suspect (feel free to replace "suspect" with "hope") that what the Bush administration most wants in Iraq is not a war - what they want is to squeeze the egg so hard it breaks. That is, frightening the Iraqi government to provoke a coup d'etat that puts a more accomodating faction in power.

That's all I can think of when I read the rumors of the heavy bombing campaign that the military is apparently planning, to kick off a war. Link: Shock and Awe. I can only hope this is to scare the living daylights out of any Iraqis in charge - though, to voice a more reassuring thought, if this were an actual plan, would we really know of its existence? (The frequency with which the media has been breathlessly informing us of what logically ought to be top-secret plans is, I think, insulting to our intelligence.)

If, indeed, we launch a massive attack on Iraq that kills a huge number of civilians, I hope at least the pundits who have said this war will benefit the Iraqi people will publicly reconsider their previous views. Else, I may have a hard time taking these same people seriously again.

2003-02-17T20:28:00.000-08:00

I must remember to read Oliver Willis more often. He may actually fit my need of a Democratic-leaning political blogger who isn't an annoying irritant who talks sense only by chance. (Not that I would ever name names.)

2003-02-15T18:50:00.000-08:00

Andrew Sullivan, Instapundit, and Little Green Footballs are all convinced that this dude is historically illiterate.

Maybe it's just my own upbringing, saturated with and fascinated by history, but I find that hard to believe. "Peace in our time" is a quote associated with great powers coddling the vicious little dictator because they either want to kick their problems down the road a few years, or they think the vicious little dictator will be pacified with a lollypop. I mean, even friggin' Babylon 5 knew that. And maybe I'm only burying my head in the sand while the sea of stupidity flows around me unnoticed, but I can't see how this dude could dredge up the quote without knowing where it came from and what connotations it has.

But then, if this guy was being ironic or sarcastic, what exactly was he doing in the middle of a demonstration? And if he was mocking the surrounding crowd, did they not notice? Maybe I really am overestimating the historical literacy of the human race.

2003-02-15T17:09:00.000-08:00

Michael Waltzer on the American Left. I've never read Dissent, but the Brunchma boards pointed me towards this article. I found myself nodding my head "yes, yes, YES!" while reading it. Although I hadn't thought out the specifics quite as well, this piece largely confirmed, for me, what had been in my head.

As much as I insist that I don't understand what the "Left" and the "Right" are, I have to admit that, while the "Right" still eludes me, I'm beginning to see what people talk about when they speak of the American "Left." I don't know if this means I'm thinking with more mental clarity, or less.

2003-02-12T19:37:00.000-08:00

I'm not usually a big fan of Derf (his generic people have got to be some of the ugliest creatures ever seen in human artwork) but this is pretty damn funny. Found via Instapundit.

POSTSCRIPT: Twenty minutes after posting this, I stumbled across this. Figures.

2003-02-11T19:21:00.000-08:00

There are a couple of Republican-leaning columnists and prominent bloggers I read regularly (Andrew Sullivan, Jonah Goldberg, and although Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds isn't really Republican-leaning, in the current political climate he might as well be), but rather few Democratic-leaning columnists even though I suspect that I lean towards the Democrats myself. (Politics is such a vague and nebulous thing, that I don't know how to go about becoming a staunch and dedicated Democrat or Republican. To me, it would involve pretending to believe a lot of things I don't really believe.)

I'm not sure if I find the Democratic-leaning pundits uninteresting, unconvincing, or something else; in any event, there is no commentator on that side of the political divide that I find drawn to. Fortunately, there exist in this world online bulletin boards where extremely bright people with quite different views from those mentioned above come to congregate. The Brunching Shuttlecocks board is one of the most random boards on the Web. On its political forum, people much brighter than I am debate the issues with a unanimous away-from-the-GOP bent. I'm not entirely happy with the solidly Democratic-leaning board demographics (the one guy who claims to support Bush is obviously a troll, although I'm still unsure exactly what manner of troll he is), but there is enough of a diversity of views that some pretty interesting discussions can coalesce.

For some antidotes to right-leaning pundits, read this thread, this thread, and this thread (especially beginning on Page 3).

2003-02-10T21:19:00.000-08:00

Mickey Kaus has this to say about John Kerry:

They called [me] irresponsible for pointing out Sen. John Kerry's gross characterological deficiencies before Kerry had a chance to display them on the campaign trail. But it didn't take long! It's been barely two months since Kerry declared for president, and he's already 1) zig-zagged opportunistically on the Iraq war issue and 2) zig-zagged opportunistically on the dividend taxation issue.

I'm intrigued. Did I read that right, or is Kaus calling Kerry a politician?

2003-02-05T19:33:00.000-08:00

I've come to the conclusion that those people who point out that disasters which kill more than 7 people get far less attention than either the Challenger or Columbia disasters did, raise interesting points but aren't seeing quite the same "big picture" that others see. The body count isn't really the issue here. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing only killed a small number of people, for instance, but it was huge news because it did much to shatter America's sense of being encased in an indestructable shell. (Afterwards, unfortunately, the sense of invisible protection grew back.)

The feeling has been explained by others far better than I ever could. I feel, though, that it's one of people strapping themselves inside a gigantic deathtrap for the cause of human exploration and knowledge - and not coming back. I suspect it is more good luck than bad luck, that in 112 (is that the figure? something like that) flights, we've had two total catastrophes. I doubt that over a decade of fatality-free American space exploration fooled some of the crew members into believing their safe return was guaranteed. To put it bluntly, we admire their guts.

Space programs, be they American, Russian, or Chinese, give us a similar sense of expansion and pioneering as the naval explorations of several centuries ago gave the Europeans. Only difference is, this time there are no indigineous cultures to destroy. I can't see huge numbers of people living on the moon or Mars in the next couple of decades - we could probably colonize Antarctica or the bottom of the ocean more easily. And maybe the shuttle is an obsolete vehicle that ought to be retired. Maybe most of what astronauts do should be left to machines. Most, of what they do. If anyone should argue that money spent on the space program could be spent better here on Earth, I would counter by asking if that person seriously believes the money would be spent better here.

2003-02-01T18:10:00.000-08:00

[angry parody]

President Bush, a Republican, has consoled the nation on live TV following the tragic deaths of 7 astronauts on the space shuttle Columbia. Similarly, it was President Reagan, a Republican, who consoled the nation after the deaths of 7 astronauts on the space shuttle Challenger. We get 12 years of Republican presidents - and a shuttle blows up. 8 years of Democratic presidents - and nothing happens. The first two years of a Republican president are barely over - and good-bye Columbia. Why isn't the GOP being asked some tough questions? Huh? Sick bastards! Those poor astronauts? What does the GOP have against Israelis, anyway?!?!?!

[/angry parody]

Sorry - just had to get the above paragraph out of my system. "A Modest Proposal" it ain't, but my nerves are shot after becoming maybe the last American anywhere to read of this horrible disaster. If I read one more jackass smugly implying that this wasn't an accident, without any supporting evidence or logic or anything, I am going to scream.

Sorry.