September 30, 2003
I'm a bit skeptical, but Justene's latest interview does make you wonder a little what election day's going to look like.
The non-profit corporation is up and we have our tax ID. We have the beginning page up and in place, and a domain registered and ready to go.
We think we have a hosting service, and may have our first sponsor.
We're hoping to open early next week.
We think we have a hosting service, and may have our first sponsor.
We're hoping to open early next week.
The International Monetary Fund has recently published a report which concludes that when taxes are high and you can't write much off, businesses and investors go underground, and the government takes in less money. But if tax rates are too low, the government also takes in less money. In short: if taxes are too low, you don't get much money, but if taxes are too high, you still don't get much money.
This should be common sense. Tax too hard, and people either decide "screw it" and stop bothering to try to earn more, or they cheat more so they can avoid paying. Common sense, right? All the IMF report is doing here is describing what countless economists have been saying for decades.
It's known as "the Laffer Curve." That's just a bell curve which shows that when you tax at 0%, you get no revenues, and if you tax at 100%, you get very nearly 0 revenues, and there's a big hump of high revenues somewhere in the middle. Therefore, the question is, what's the rate at which you get the most tax revenues?
The problem is that the curve can't be plotted precisely. Indeed, that's the main debate--what's the optimal rate? 10%? 90%? 50%? 2%? It seems like a very important question, since at some point, too much taxation just shoots everyone in the foot.
Most everyone on the political left I know (hi Ara!) likes to make fun of the Laffer curve. Although strangely, I can rarely get them to give me a straight answer as to what's so stupid about it. Usually, I just a lot of vague stuff about "deficits as far as the eye can see" and "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer," and, well, really anything except a straight answer. As in, "yes the curve is valid, but," or "no it is not valid, because."
Me? I view this as proof that the political left in this country made a reactionary wrong turn--ceased to be liberal, in other words--some time in the last 20 years. Frankly, every time I hear people on the left joke about this, it reminds me of the people who rant, "I ain't descended from no monkey!" when confronted with the theory of evolution.
(Link via Bill Hobbs.)
This should be common sense. Tax too hard, and people either decide "screw it" and stop bothering to try to earn more, or they cheat more so they can avoid paying. Common sense, right? All the IMF report is doing here is describing what countless economists have been saying for decades.
It's known as "the Laffer Curve." That's just a bell curve which shows that when you tax at 0%, you get no revenues, and if you tax at 100%, you get very nearly 0 revenues, and there's a big hump of high revenues somewhere in the middle. Therefore, the question is, what's the rate at which you get the most tax revenues?
The problem is that the curve can't be plotted precisely. Indeed, that's the main debate--what's the optimal rate? 10%? 90%? 50%? 2%? It seems like a very important question, since at some point, too much taxation just shoots everyone in the foot.
Most everyone on the political left I know (hi Ara!) likes to make fun of the Laffer curve. Although strangely, I can rarely get them to give me a straight answer as to what's so stupid about it. Usually, I just a lot of vague stuff about "deficits as far as the eye can see" and "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer," and, well, really anything except a straight answer. As in, "yes the curve is valid, but," or "no it is not valid, because."
Me? I view this as proof that the political left in this country made a reactionary wrong turn--ceased to be liberal, in other words--some time in the last 20 years. Frankly, every time I hear people on the left joke about this, it reminds me of the people who rant, "I ain't descended from no monkey!" when confronted with the theory of evolution.
(Link via Bill Hobbs.)
* Update * Trivia question: In the 1980s, Laffer worked as an adviser to a major party politician's campaign for President. This candidate advocated a so-called "flat" tax to help stimulate the economy and to boost tax revenues. Who was that candidate, what political party did he belong to, and what's he doing today?
*Update 2* The answer is not Steve Forbes. Any other guesses?
*Update 3* The correct answer was given by Rudy, who named former California governor and Democratic Party stalwart Jerry Brown. He is currently mayor of Oakland.
I still owe an answer to P6 on a discussion we started last week on race issues. It should be coming up in a few days. I'm still chewing on it. In the meantime, go check out his weblog.
I was chatting with my buddy Sid Sharma yesterday, and he was talking about how he worried that some of the more radical anti-American extremists he's run across in places like Ann Arbor might one day try to hook up with groups like Al Qaeda. He's run across people there who burned American flags on 9/11 and shouted that bin Laden was a hero, so that's not as goofy as it might sound.
I was not too worried about that because such people are usually so stupid and drug-addled that they aren't good for much of anything. Besides which, I said, I'm not sure there's been a single decade in American history that hasn't had incidents of domestic terrorism.
Then I came up short. Yes, we've definitely had many domestic terrorists in my lifetime. In the last 40 years, we've had the Symbianese Liberation Army, the Manson Family, the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers under Huey Newton, Ted Kaczynski, abortion clinic bombers, the Oklahoma City bombers, and the Earth Liberation Front, and I'm sure I've forgotten some. Just in the period from 1967 to 1973 there were something like a thousand terrorist bombings in the United States--funny how many people don't remember that.
People don't learn this in history classes, but there were bombings and assassinations being committed by anarchists in the 1920s and 1930s.
You'd also have to put some activities from the second Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s and 1930s (and later), in the realm of terrorism--if public cross-burnings, random rapes and beatings, and lynchings aren't terrorism, I don't know what is. You'd also have to count the activities of abolitionist John Brown in the mid-1800s, and the original Ku Klux Klan of the 1860s and 1870s, I suppose.
But that's sort of where I stopped short. That doesn't quite fill in my "every decade of American history" statement, does it? It leaves most of the 1700s and 1800s blank. Also, other than Klan activity, I can't think of much that would have been going on in the 1940s or 1950s.
Can anyone think of anything I'm missing?
To be clear, my definition of "terrorism" would be the intentional targeting of civilians and private property for destruction, for primarily political purposes.
I was not too worried about that because such people are usually so stupid and drug-addled that they aren't good for much of anything. Besides which, I said, I'm not sure there's been a single decade in American history that hasn't had incidents of domestic terrorism.
Then I came up short. Yes, we've definitely had many domestic terrorists in my lifetime. In the last 40 years, we've had the Symbianese Liberation Army, the Manson Family, the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers under Huey Newton, Ted Kaczynski, abortion clinic bombers, the Oklahoma City bombers, and the Earth Liberation Front, and I'm sure I've forgotten some. Just in the period from 1967 to 1973 there were something like a thousand terrorist bombings in the United States--funny how many people don't remember that.
People don't learn this in history classes, but there were bombings and assassinations being committed by anarchists in the 1920s and 1930s.
You'd also have to put some activities from the second Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s and 1930s (and later), in the realm of terrorism--if public cross-burnings, random rapes and beatings, and lynchings aren't terrorism, I don't know what is. You'd also have to count the activities of abolitionist John Brown in the mid-1800s, and the original Ku Klux Klan of the 1860s and 1870s, I suppose.
But that's sort of where I stopped short. That doesn't quite fill in my "every decade of American history" statement, does it? It leaves most of the 1700s and 1800s blank. Also, other than Klan activity, I can't think of much that would have been going on in the 1940s or 1950s.
Can anyone think of anything I'm missing?
To be clear, my definition of "terrorism" would be the intentional targeting of civilians and private property for destruction, for primarily political purposes.
Lexington Green is wrong.
John Weidner is right.
Green mistakenly believes that Americans of the Jacksonian tradition will not support the rebuild effort in Iraq. But if that were true, they never would have supported the rebuilding of Germany and Japan after World War II. Green is underestimating the common sense of most Americans, who know that you don't do something stupid like abandon the nation you just took down so another tinpot dictator can rise up and threaten you again.
I also think that, like Weidner says, an increasing number of Americans realize just how smart it is to try to drain the swamp of the Middle East. They know that our position in Iraq gives us much greater leverage against terrorist-friendly tyrtants like those who rule Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and they also know that just having a democratic regime in that part of the world is an implicit threat to all those other regimes.
Yes, some Americans have been going wobbly on Iraq lately. Many people, if they thought we were doomed to failure, would say, "crap, that was a mistake, let's bug out!" So, when you combine the bad press of the last couple of months with opportunistic carping by the President's political enemies, you'd have to expect the polls measuring support of our efforts in Iraq to drop.
But given that the truth of the situation over there is finally getting out, I would expect those bad poll numbers to bottom out soon and then to start getting better. I have every confidence in the common sense of the American people when it comes to these things, as long as we have leadership determined to stay the course.
John Weidner is right.
Green mistakenly believes that Americans of the Jacksonian tradition will not support the rebuild effort in Iraq. But if that were true, they never would have supported the rebuilding of Germany and Japan after World War II. Green is underestimating the common sense of most Americans, who know that you don't do something stupid like abandon the nation you just took down so another tinpot dictator can rise up and threaten you again.
I also think that, like Weidner says, an increasing number of Americans realize just how smart it is to try to drain the swamp of the Middle East. They know that our position in Iraq gives us much greater leverage against terrorist-friendly tyrtants like those who rule Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and they also know that just having a democratic regime in that part of the world is an implicit threat to all those other regimes.
Yes, some Americans have been going wobbly on Iraq lately. Many people, if they thought we were doomed to failure, would say, "crap, that was a mistake, let's bug out!" So, when you combine the bad press of the last couple of months with opportunistic carping by the President's political enemies, you'd have to expect the polls measuring support of our efforts in Iraq to drop.
But given that the truth of the situation over there is finally getting out, I would expect those bad poll numbers to bottom out soon and then to start getting better. I have every confidence in the common sense of the American people when it comes to these things, as long as we have leadership determined to stay the course.
September 29, 2003
One of the more interesting articles Donald Sensing ever wrote was his "Technology Beyond Belief" piece back in May of this year. You should read the whole thing, but I want to focus on this part for the moment:
For those of you who don't know, an "NCO" is basically a sargeant, which is a rank most any enlisted man can aspire to.
I remember how, in my youth in the '80s, I occasionally toyed with the idea of joining the military. Since I'd left home at the age of 15, and had little support system to fall back on--even lived on welfare for a while--the military looked attractive at times, even though I was very much a bleeding heard soft-shelled socialist and Reagan-hating Democrat. But I've always been a stubborn, cranky, speak-my-mind type, and don't take well to being talked down to. I figured the military would hate someone like me and I'd hate them. If I'd been hearing things like this back then, I probably would have joined up.
Recently, Juliette made some similar comments about the modern American military, as have some other friends of mine who've been in the military in the last 10-15 years.
It got me to thinking: the entire concept of organizing military forces along the lines of officers vs. enlisted is a tradition that goes back thousands of years. It goes that far back because it's been functional for that long. But it came about because in centuries past, the vast majority of people were illiterate or only rudimentarily educated. Only a small percentage of the population was educated, and they were the ones who needed to be officers.
Given how advanced the modern American military is, and given the truth that these days a non-com may actually have more education and experience than people commanding him, I do find myself wondering: does the modern American military even need to keep the strict distinction between noncoms and commissioned officers anymore?
Mind you, I'm not suggesting--at all--eliminating rank, or changing everything immediately. I'm not a moron. I just find myself wondering why there's still a need for two separate hierarchies and career paths, one for officers and a separate one for enlisted.
I'm curious if any current or former military people have any thoughts on that question.
Compared to almost all the rest of the world’s militaries, ours is remarkably informal. Rank is important, make no mistake, but there is a much higher level of collegiality among officers and NCOs than civilians imagine. Moreover, the US military is near-ruthlessly results oriented and so is much quicker to jettison unworkable procedures or methods than others. Commanders are generally thirsty for their subordinates to discern better ways of getting things done, and reward initiative. American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are taught to worry first about results - getting the job done - and not to adhere slavishly to the letter of an operational plan. Hence, sergeants will take over platoons if need be, lieutenants will take over companies, and they’ll do it without anyone telling them to.
The American military is the best educated in the world, and this reinforces the ability of differing ranks to work together as co-professionals rather than superior-inferior. It’s not so easy for a colonel to feel terribly snooty over a platoon sergeant when both certainly have BA degrees and the odds are not bad that both will have MA degrees as well. Compound this fact with the fact that since the 1970s the professional education, inside the services, of the noncommissioned ranks has been dramatically improved with centralized, better schools so that their education progression rivals that of officers. Always the NCO corps has been America’s ace in the hole, and today’s NCOs are the best in history. The number of other nations whose NCOs compare is very, very small - only Britain, Israel and Germany come to my mind, maybe Canada, too.
All this serves to “flatten” how America’s military communicates, plans, resources and conducts all it programs and operations. The military is much more horizontally than vertically integrated.
For those of you who don't know, an "NCO" is basically a sargeant, which is a rank most any enlisted man can aspire to.
I remember how, in my youth in the '80s, I occasionally toyed with the idea of joining the military. Since I'd left home at the age of 15, and had little support system to fall back on--even lived on welfare for a while--the military looked attractive at times, even though I was very much a bleeding heard soft-shelled socialist and Reagan-hating Democrat. But I've always been a stubborn, cranky, speak-my-mind type, and don't take well to being talked down to. I figured the military would hate someone like me and I'd hate them. If I'd been hearing things like this back then, I probably would have joined up.
Recently, Juliette made some similar comments about the modern American military, as have some other friends of mine who've been in the military in the last 10-15 years.
It got me to thinking: the entire concept of organizing military forces along the lines of officers vs. enlisted is a tradition that goes back thousands of years. It goes that far back because it's been functional for that long. But it came about because in centuries past, the vast majority of people were illiterate or only rudimentarily educated. Only a small percentage of the population was educated, and they were the ones who needed to be officers.
Given how advanced the modern American military is, and given the truth that these days a non-com may actually have more education and experience than people commanding him, I do find myself wondering: does the modern American military even need to keep the strict distinction between noncoms and commissioned officers anymore?
Mind you, I'm not suggesting--at all--eliminating rank, or changing everything immediately. I'm not a moron. I just find myself wondering why there's still a need for two separate hierarchies and career paths, one for officers and a separate one for enlisted.
I'm curious if any current or former military people have any thoughts on that question.
In reading this exceedingly silly editorial by John Barry and Evan Thomas in Newsweek, I was impressed with just how lacking in introspection most critics of our efforts in Iraq really are. I mean, aside from Barry and Thomas' obvious mixing of rumor, opinion, and fact, without clear separation, the piece has already been proven by countless sources to be extremely lopsided at best. Even as news report after news report in the last couple of weeks have begun to show us that all the gloom and doom from Iraq has been over the top and irresponsible, here they are writing a partisan smear piece that parrots the rabid Bush-hating party line of the last few months.
Maybe we should cut them some slack, though. Barry and Thomas probably went to print on their smear piece before they were able to read much of what's come out in the last week that makes them look so much like first-year journalism students at a backwater community college.
Hell, even Arab papers are beginning to notice just how well things are going in Iraq, and how tilted and distorted the picture we've been getting from the press has been.
Then there are people like former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, who recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
You should read all of Kerik's piece in the Journal, and then contemplate how closely it matches with so many other firsthand sources from Iraq have been saying--not to mention how closely it matches with what so many military people stationed in Iraq, including many military bloggers in Iraq, have been saying.
By the way, Joe Katzman has a terrific and genuinely balanced roundup of articles on the situation in Iraq, and you should go read everything he's linked. Especially some of the firsthand reports from Iraq he's published that are available nowhere else.
Thanks to Ross Judsen for the link to the bizarre, partisan hit piece by Barry and Thomas, and to Sherry for the Bernard Kerik report. An even bigger thanks to our armed forces and government officials for running one of the most amazingly short, clean, and successful military campaigns in world history, and for continuing to run what is shaping up to be the single most successful large-scale military occupation and rebuilding effort in world history.
(I do continue to wonder when the critics will learn enough introspection to stop saying so many thoughtless things before they shoot their mouths off. I will give them one piece of advice: the first step is to have the courage to admit when you're wrong. The second is to learn how to recognize your own prejudices, acknowledge them openly, and be able to admit that they might be blinding you. I know it's hard, I've had to do it enough times in my life, and I have to constantly remind myself to keep doing it now. I can say from experience that it does get easier with time. It only takes a little courage, and the humility of realizing that we're all human and all make mistakes.)
Maybe we should cut them some slack, though. Barry and Thomas probably went to print on their smear piece before they were able to read much of what's come out in the last week that makes them look so much like first-year journalism students at a backwater community college.
Hell, even Arab papers are beginning to notice just how well things are going in Iraq, and how tilted and distorted the picture we've been getting from the press has been.
Then there are people like former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, who recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
The rebuilding of the infrastructure has begun and the streets are full of life, with bustling markets and shops. But reconstruction isn't just about bricks and mortar: Iraq's civic structures were in tatters, too, especially its Baathist police force, an organization that had, in any case, no credibility with the Iraqi people. My job was to assist in setting up this force again, with proper training, new values, a respect for human rights. The latter phrase--"human rights"--has been absent from Iraq's vocabulary for decades. Certainly, no one has heard it uttered, until now, within the four walls of a police station. The magnitude of our task can be measured from the fact that we had to teach cops that when you pull a man suspected of a crime into the station, you can't just hang him upside-down and beat him with an iron bar.
Due to our efforts, 40,000 Iraqi police are back to work helping to restore law and order, and assisting the U.S.-led coalition in its hunt for Saddam and his loyalists. It's the beginning of a long haul. Like it or not, building a country from scratch takes time and money. Securing a country such as Iraq will take a professional civil police service, 65,000 to 75,000 strong, an Iraqi army of hundreds of thousands, and a temporary civil defense force to augment U.S. and coalition forces.
To those who claim that we're not doing enough, fast enough, it helps to put matters in perspective. We're doing a hard job to the best of our abilities, in postwar circumstances, with really scarce resources and a clock ticking above our heads. In my four months there, I oversaw the setting up of 35 police stations in Baghdad. Try setting up 35 stations in New York in four months!
New Yorkers will remember that it took the Giuliani administration eight years to create the safest large city in the world and that was with every resource under the sun. Five months ago in Iraq, we adopted a country of 24 million, with no electricity, water, technology, Internet, telephones or radio communications, etc. There was nothing, and yet the critics are saying that it's taking too long. One would think that they themselves have the answer, or the magic pill that will fix it all, but unfortunately, there isn't one! It's always easier to criticize--as some Congressional delegations in Iraq are prone to do--when you have no operational involvement, insight, authority or responsibility. And to those critics who think the answer is the deployment of more U.S. troops, I say: Caution!
You should read all of Kerik's piece in the Journal, and then contemplate how closely it matches with so many other firsthand sources from Iraq have been saying--not to mention how closely it matches with what so many military people stationed in Iraq, including many military bloggers in Iraq, have been saying.
By the way, Joe Katzman has a terrific and genuinely balanced roundup of articles on the situation in Iraq, and you should go read everything he's linked. Especially some of the firsthand reports from Iraq he's published that are available nowhere else.
Thanks to Ross Judsen for the link to the bizarre, partisan hit piece by Barry and Thomas, and to Sherry for the Bernard Kerik report. An even bigger thanks to our armed forces and government officials for running one of the most amazingly short, clean, and successful military campaigns in world history, and for continuing to run what is shaping up to be the single most successful large-scale military occupation and rebuilding effort in world history.
(I do continue to wonder when the critics will learn enough introspection to stop saying so many thoughtless things before they shoot their mouths off. I will give them one piece of advice: the first step is to have the courage to admit when you're wrong. The second is to learn how to recognize your own prejudices, acknowledge them openly, and be able to admit that they might be blinding you. I know it's hard, I've had to do it enough times in my life, and I have to constantly remind myself to keep doing it now. I can say from experience that it does get easier with time. It only takes a little courage, and the humility of realizing that we're all human and all make mistakes.)
Here's still more reason for embarassment. I'll bet I know what non-introspective critics' response will be, too: "lies! all lies!"
With only a few days to go, it's starting to look good for Arnold, although anyone who thinks he knows what will happen for sure is just talking trash.
Still, it does occur to me that if Arnold does win the governor's race out there, it's incredibly good news for Hollywood Republicans. After all, it would demonstrate that, statistically, at least 1 in 3 of them eventually winds up being elected Governor.
Still, it does occur to me that if Arnold does win the governor's race out there, it's incredibly good news for Hollywood Republicans. After all, it would demonstrate that, statistically, at least 1 in 3 of them eventually winds up being elected Governor.
The 12 Rules for Navigating Dean's World have been placed permanently on the sidebar along the right, just beneath "About Dean's World."
They've also been edited slightly. Rules 5 and 6 now read:
Please note that there is also, still, absolutely no 11.
They've also been edited slightly. Rules 5 and 6 now read:
5) I'm more tolerant of personal attacks on me than I am toward contributors. But I make no claims to perfection in either area. I do my best. But, I'd really rather you direct your heat toward ideas you don't like, rather than people who chafe your buttocks.
6) Don't get upset if you find me arguing with you. Don't get upset if several people argue with you. Consider that you might be wrong, or stand your ground and explain why everyone else is wrong. If you hang out here long enough, you'll find this can happen to anyone, at any time.
Indeed, there have been several times where I myself have been the only one defending my position against a dozen or more people who thought I was totally wrong. Other than hiring gypsy witches to put curses upon them and their progeny, I exacted no revenge at all.
Please note that there is also, still, absolutely no 11.
September 28, 2003
I got a nice note from Enzo, a blogger from Italy. He wanted to let me know that many Italians are repulsed by European Anti-Americanism. He also wanted to let anyone who speaks Italian know that they are more than welcome to visit his weblog, "1972".
I wish I spoke Italian.
(Actually I have long had an odd fantasy of learning to speak Latin, Portuguese, Italian, and Arabic. I'm not sure why.)
I wish I spoke Italian.
(Actually I have long had an odd fantasy of learning to speak Latin, Portuguese, Italian, and Arabic. I'm not sure why.)
Those of us who bothered to pay attention to what the administration was doing in the six months before we invaded Iraq knew that there was a pretty good plan in place for governing and reconstruction. Those plans ran well into the hundreds of pages, and had a projected budget of $60-80 billion (which, to be fair, the Bush administration has recently slightly exceeded). Of course the plans were not all-encompassing, for a couple of pretty obvious reasons: first, because extreme detail was impossible until we actually got in there, and, just as important, we wanted to involve the Iraqis themselves as much as possible--and not just the Iraqi exiles, but the people actually living there.
Indeed, in the runup to the invasion, the most frequent worry expressed by leaders in the Iraqi diaspora--and by anti-war critics--was that the Bush Administration was making plans that were too detailed, that did not involve enough input from Iraqis. The very existence of the post-war plans supposedly proved that America was "imperialist" and that its talk of democracy and reform were a sham.
Now, as the reconstruction proceeds pretty much exactly according to plan, and with much lighter casualties in the initial occupation period than many military minds expected, many Bush administration critics claim that there was never any plan, and that things are a mess because these supposedly arrogant and imperialist plans never existed. Instead, our arrogant and imperialist lack of plans is screwing everything up.
It's nice to see that Donald Rumsfeld is laying waste to this stuff, in his usual plain-spoken and straightforward fashion. In fact, it's generally nice to see the Bush administration back from vacation and openly taking on its critics in this area.
My only question is, why do the critics continue to embarass themselves like this? Why do they reverse themselves so often on what they're mad about, and why do they keep making stuff up that's patently untrue? Stuff that can easily be fact-checked, quite often with public documents available right over the internet?
You'd think that at some point they'd figure out that they're better off getting behind the war effort, and concentrating on domestic issues where there are rational policy differences still needing to be hashed out. Or perhaps just by arguing over how long we need to be there and how much we need to involve other nations?
Lack of introspection is about the only explanation I can think of.
Indeed, in the runup to the invasion, the most frequent worry expressed by leaders in the Iraqi diaspora--and by anti-war critics--was that the Bush Administration was making plans that were too detailed, that did not involve enough input from Iraqis. The very existence of the post-war plans supposedly proved that America was "imperialist" and that its talk of democracy and reform were a sham.
Now, as the reconstruction proceeds pretty much exactly according to plan, and with much lighter casualties in the initial occupation period than many military minds expected, many Bush administration critics claim that there was never any plan, and that things are a mess because these supposedly arrogant and imperialist plans never existed. Instead, our arrogant and imperialist lack of plans is screwing everything up.
It's nice to see that Donald Rumsfeld is laying waste to this stuff, in his usual plain-spoken and straightforward fashion. In fact, it's generally nice to see the Bush administration back from vacation and openly taking on its critics in this area.
My only question is, why do the critics continue to embarass themselves like this? Why do they reverse themselves so often on what they're mad about, and why do they keep making stuff up that's patently untrue? Stuff that can easily be fact-checked, quite often with public documents available right over the internet?
You'd think that at some point they'd figure out that they're better off getting behind the war effort, and concentrating on domestic issues where there are rational policy differences still needing to be hashed out. Or perhaps just by arguing over how long we need to be there and how much we need to involve other nations?
Lack of introspection is about the only explanation I can think of.
September 27, 2003
Along the Tracks has 20 questions the media aren't asking about Iraq, but ought to be.
But of course, how can they answer them when, according to a recent congressional delegation, there are only a couple of dozen American reporters in the entire country, all of them holed up in a hotel in Baghdad and who apparently see their entire jobs as consisting of reporting our very light casualty figures as earth-shattering disasters that threaten our efforts.
By any rational person's standards, most of the evidence we've seen is that Iraq is going amazingly, fantastically well, better than any rational person would have hoped for before the war began. The media keep giving us nothing but casualty figures--which are extraordinarily light by any historical measure, but pumped up as if they are horrifyingly huge--and not doing anything else in the country.
It's to the point where even Democratic congressmen are saying that this irresponsible media coverage is killing our troops, by simultaneously demoralizing them and emboldening the dwindling enemies they face.
Think I'm alone in my criticism? Try reading this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this.
That's just for starters. I could keep going.
I suppose Democrats can hardly be blamed for jumping all over the President, claiming he "had no plan" for post-invasion Iraq. Even though many of them know that's a bald-faced lie, it's easy for them to rationalize when it looks like the plans the administration laid out are failing--even though they aren't. They can also hardly be blamed for claiming we have flubbed the greatest military victory in human history, with an astonishingly low number of civilian and military casualties, and even though our occupation has suffered extremely tiny numbers of casualties and has racked up impressive victory after impressive victory against dwindling guerilla forces. Even though the vast majority of Iraqis are known to be either friendly to the Americans or, at worst, mistrustful but cautiously optimistic. Because the media's doing such a piss-poor job at its job, it's easy for Democrats to smell blood and act like the political animals they are.
Why aren't reporters doing their jobs, and instead giving people at home an impression of what's going on over there that's directly counter to reality? Failure to go out and act like real journalists threatens the future of Iraq, to waste the lives of American GIs who've fallen, to embolden our enemies, and to cause pointless disunity at home, when we could be arguing about far more pressing and important issues.
Is that what they want? Or is it about time that they start really doing their jobs for once?
(By the way, I got 2/3rds of the above links from Instapundit, who's been doing fabulous work on noting the horribly irresponsible job the press has been doing in Iraq over the last few weeks.)
But of course, how can they answer them when, according to a recent congressional delegation, there are only a couple of dozen American reporters in the entire country, all of them holed up in a hotel in Baghdad and who apparently see their entire jobs as consisting of reporting our very light casualty figures as earth-shattering disasters that threaten our efforts.
By any rational person's standards, most of the evidence we've seen is that Iraq is going amazingly, fantastically well, better than any rational person would have hoped for before the war began. The media keep giving us nothing but casualty figures--which are extraordinarily light by any historical measure, but pumped up as if they are horrifyingly huge--and not doing anything else in the country.
It's to the point where even Democratic congressmen are saying that this irresponsible media coverage is killing our troops, by simultaneously demoralizing them and emboldening the dwindling enemies they face.
Think I'm alone in my criticism? Try reading this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this.
That's just for starters. I could keep going.
I suppose Democrats can hardly be blamed for jumping all over the President, claiming he "had no plan" for post-invasion Iraq. Even though many of them know that's a bald-faced lie, it's easy for them to rationalize when it looks like the plans the administration laid out are failing--even though they aren't. They can also hardly be blamed for claiming we have flubbed the greatest military victory in human history, with an astonishingly low number of civilian and military casualties, and even though our occupation has suffered extremely tiny numbers of casualties and has racked up impressive victory after impressive victory against dwindling guerilla forces. Even though the vast majority of Iraqis are known to be either friendly to the Americans or, at worst, mistrustful but cautiously optimistic. Because the media's doing such a piss-poor job at its job, it's easy for Democrats to smell blood and act like the political animals they are.
Why aren't reporters doing their jobs, and instead giving people at home an impression of what's going on over there that's directly counter to reality? Failure to go out and act like real journalists threatens the future of Iraq, to waste the lives of American GIs who've fallen, to embolden our enemies, and to cause pointless disunity at home, when we could be arguing about far more pressing and important issues.
Is that what they want? Or is it about time that they start really doing their jobs for once?
(By the way, I got 2/3rds of the above links from Instapundit, who's been doing fabulous work on noting the horribly irresponsible job the press has been doing in Iraq over the last few weeks.)
So. I recently got two brand new CDs. Envy me, you mere mortals.
American III: Solitary Man by the immortal Johnny Cash. The man was near the end of his career, and yet arguably turning out the best music of his career. Wonderful stuff.
The Best of Word Jazz: Volume 1 by Ken Nordine. No Volume 2 has ever been issues that I know of. Anyway, you've probably heard this guy's voice a thousand times on countless commercials. "Word Jazz" is his personal, improvisational work. Spoken poetry over jazz music. Wild stuff. This is the best of his early stuff from the 1950s, but believe it or not, he's still recording. In fact, you can hear some stuff from his current radio show in Chicago by going here. The guy's mesmerizing.
Lots of sonic pleasure in Dean's World this weekend.
(By the way, have I ever mentioned how cool Leslie at 3375537.com is? She's way cool.)
American III: Solitary Man by the immortal Johnny Cash. The man was near the end of his career, and yet arguably turning out the best music of his career. Wonderful stuff.
The Best of Word Jazz: Volume 1 by Ken Nordine. No Volume 2 has ever been issues that I know of. Anyway, you've probably heard this guy's voice a thousand times on countless commercials. "Word Jazz" is his personal, improvisational work. Spoken poetry over jazz music. Wild stuff. This is the best of his early stuff from the 1950s, but believe it or not, he's still recording. In fact, you can hear some stuff from his current radio show in Chicago by going here. The guy's mesmerizing.
Lots of sonic pleasure in Dean's World this weekend.
(By the way, have I ever mentioned how cool Leslie at 3375537.com is? She's way cool.)
Andrew Cory recently emailed me to say that you can get a person's name, address, and directions to their home by simply typing their phone number into Google.
I tried it with our phone number and it didn't work. However, I tried it with another phone number and it worked immediately. Just try it--go to Google and enter a phone number. Drop the dashes and just enter it without spaces, i.e. "7345551212".
I don't know how many people are affected but this but frankly it strikes me as pretty creepy. It also may not be illegal, but I suspect that it probably should be. There's a presumption of privacy when you give out your phone number, you don't expect people to find out where you live simply based on it--indeed, it's already illegal for phone companies to give out this kind of info.
I tried it with our phone number and it didn't work. However, I tried it with another phone number and it worked immediately. Just try it--go to Google and enter a phone number. Drop the dashes and just enter it without spaces, i.e. "7345551212".
I don't know how many people are affected but this but frankly it strikes me as pretty creepy. It also may not be illegal, but I suspect that it probably should be. There's a presumption of privacy when you give out your phone number, you don't expect people to find out where you live simply based on it--indeed, it's already illegal for phone companies to give out this kind of info.
There's been a lot of criticism of Wesley Clark lately. Rita, for example, has a pretty good blast at his recent debate performance.
While I have no idea what I think of Wesley Clark yet, I will point out a few things people forget:
1) All this stuff about weak debating skills and occasional incoherence and not having firm positions on many issues was the same stuff they were saying about George W. Bush at this time in 1999.
2) All this stuff about weak debating skills, as well as frequent outbursts of incoherence, and a lack of firm convictions on most issues, was what they said about Eisenhower all throughout his candidacy--and throughout all 8 years of his Presidency.
There were times when Eisenhower was so incoherent that no one could figure out exactly what he'd said, or even what he'd meant to say. He was far more incoherent than George W. Bush, and far more often. Some even accused him of doing it on purpose just to avoid tough questions. But people loved the guy anyway, and by most historical accounts he was a surprisingly effective President.
Does all that mean Clark's gonna be our next President? No, of course not. I merely point out that the primaries are still months away, and that successful candidates have overcome being shaky and incoherent and wishy-washy, especially this early in the game.
(By the way, "stupid" was also a charge Eisenhower's critics loved to level at him. Sound familiar?)
While I have no idea what I think of Wesley Clark yet, I will point out a few things people forget:
1) All this stuff about weak debating skills and occasional incoherence and not having firm positions on many issues was the same stuff they were saying about George W. Bush at this time in 1999.
2) All this stuff about weak debating skills, as well as frequent outbursts of incoherence, and a lack of firm convictions on most issues, was what they said about Eisenhower all throughout his candidacy--and throughout all 8 years of his Presidency.
There were times when Eisenhower was so incoherent that no one could figure out exactly what he'd said, or even what he'd meant to say. He was far more incoherent than George W. Bush, and far more often. Some even accused him of doing it on purpose just to avoid tough questions. But people loved the guy anyway, and by most historical accounts he was a surprisingly effective President.
Does all that mean Clark's gonna be our next President? No, of course not. I merely point out that the primaries are still months away, and that successful candidates have overcome being shaky and incoherent and wishy-washy, especially this early in the game.
(By the way, "stupid" was also a charge Eisenhower's critics loved to level at him. Sound familiar?)
It has recently been revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney has been receiving a deferred compensation salary package from his old company, Halliburton. As has been known in the past, he also has stock options in the company that he may exercise in the future. (Stock options are not stock; instead, they're an option to buy stock at a pre-set price.)
Cheney has defended himself by pointing out that his deferred compensation cannot rise or fall based on his old company's performance. Furthermore, he's already pledged to give the proceeds from any future exercise of his stock options to three designated charities. As such, John Cole rightly defends Cheney from those who would irresponsibly accuse the man of "accepting blood money" or "war profiteering." Such claims are irrational nonsense, and should be ridiculed as the partisan smears that they are. John does a good job of showing why such irresponsible claims are beneath civilized people.
However: as people like Ara Rubyan are wont to point out, most people don't listen with their heads, they listen with their hearts. Cheney has publicly claimed to have "no" financial ties to the company, but it turns out he does have them. There's no way to get around how bad that looks, and what a terrific opportunity for political gamesmanship it presents to his political opponents. Like it or not, it's now open season on Dick Cheney.
It doesn't really matter one little bit that Cheney can't possibly profit from, or lose money on, anything Halliburton does while he's in office. The fact is that he said he had no financial ties, and he does. His claim may have been an unthinking blunder, but some will automatically call it a lie simply because that's just how politics works. That's an accusation that will have some bite, and will confuse people who don't bother to look deeply into the issue.
And most people won't look deeply into the issue. Shallow boneheads like Bill Maher will be sure to keep the drumbeat going non-stop for the next year and beyond. Irresponsible, ill-informed attacks like the ones from Oliver Willis are going to continue. For better or worse, Cheney should have known better. Such an oversight is all but unforgivable politically. I'm sure the VP's office is in full damage-control mode now, but I'm afraid the damage has already been done.
Although a resignation by Cheney would probably be an overreaction, the Bushies ought to quietly drop Cheney from the ticket next year. Bush needs to get over his well-known tendencies toward fierce loyalty, and consider the problems of a wartime Presidency crippled by accusations of financial malfeasance. However ill-founded such accusations might be, politics ain't always fair. To be an effective wartime leader, a President must rid himself of distractions that make it harder for him to do his job.
Regardless of whether Bush wins or loses re-election, just having this problem around will serve as an unnecessary, and possibly dangerous, distraction. It needs to be dealt with.
Cheney must go.
Cheney has defended himself by pointing out that his deferred compensation cannot rise or fall based on his old company's performance. Furthermore, he's already pledged to give the proceeds from any future exercise of his stock options to three designated charities. As such, John Cole rightly defends Cheney from those who would irresponsibly accuse the man of "accepting blood money" or "war profiteering." Such claims are irrational nonsense, and should be ridiculed as the partisan smears that they are. John does a good job of showing why such irresponsible claims are beneath civilized people.
However: as people like Ara Rubyan are wont to point out, most people don't listen with their heads, they listen with their hearts. Cheney has publicly claimed to have "no" financial ties to the company, but it turns out he does have them. There's no way to get around how bad that looks, and what a terrific opportunity for political gamesmanship it presents to his political opponents. Like it or not, it's now open season on Dick Cheney.
It doesn't really matter one little bit that Cheney can't possibly profit from, or lose money on, anything Halliburton does while he's in office. The fact is that he said he had no financial ties, and he does. His claim may have been an unthinking blunder, but some will automatically call it a lie simply because that's just how politics works. That's an accusation that will have some bite, and will confuse people who don't bother to look deeply into the issue.
And most people won't look deeply into the issue. Shallow boneheads like Bill Maher will be sure to keep the drumbeat going non-stop for the next year and beyond. Irresponsible, ill-informed attacks like the ones from Oliver Willis are going to continue. For better or worse, Cheney should have known better. Such an oversight is all but unforgivable politically. I'm sure the VP's office is in full damage-control mode now, but I'm afraid the damage has already been done.
Although a resignation by Cheney would probably be an overreaction, the Bushies ought to quietly drop Cheney from the ticket next year. Bush needs to get over his well-known tendencies toward fierce loyalty, and consider the problems of a wartime Presidency crippled by accusations of financial malfeasance. However ill-founded such accusations might be, politics ain't always fair. To be an effective wartime leader, a President must rid himself of distractions that make it harder for him to do his job.
Regardless of whether Bush wins or loses re-election, just having this problem around will serve as an unnecessary, and possibly dangerous, distraction. It needs to be dealt with.
Cheney must go.
Sgt. Hook has a lovely photo essay you should see.
Just click each link in the song he quotes. Note: for some reason, it worked better for me if I clicked a link, looked at the picture, then closed the picture before looking at the next one. Otherwise some of the photos got cut off.
Just click each link in the song he quotes. Note: for some reason, it worked better for me if I clicked a link, looked at the picture, then closed the picture before looking at the next one. Otherwise some of the photos got cut off.
I have noticed a creeping tendency among Dean's World commenters to use the term "raghead" and/or "towelhead." I've let this go a few times, because it's usually been in response to an emotional article about terrorist activity. Especially on or around 9/11.
However, it's gone on long enough and I'd like to ask that this stop.
Sikhs don't deserve such aspersions cast upon them. Neither do people in parts of the world where cloth headgear is practical for keeping the sun off.
I have friends who are Arabs. I often eat at restaurants run by Arabs, most of whom are fine Americans and decent, hardworking people (who also make some of the greatest food in the world). My doctor is an Arab--a Palestinian no less, and a hell of a nice guy.
As it happens, I will also soon have in-laws who are Arabs.
"Raghead" and "towelhead" are not nice terms, as they tend to blur the distinction between criticizing thugs and murderers and decent people.
What you say on your own web site or in your own home is your business. I have friends and relatives who often use racist language and, while I wish they'd stop it, that doesn't mean I'll disown them. However, when you're here, you're in my house, and I'd appreciate you respecting my wishes in this regard.
Thanks, all, for being a part of Dean's World.
However, it's gone on long enough and I'd like to ask that this stop.
Sikhs don't deserve such aspersions cast upon them. Neither do people in parts of the world where cloth headgear is practical for keeping the sun off.
I have friends who are Arabs. I often eat at restaurants run by Arabs, most of whom are fine Americans and decent, hardworking people (who also make some of the greatest food in the world). My doctor is an Arab--a Palestinian no less, and a hell of a nice guy.
As it happens, I will also soon have in-laws who are Arabs.
"Raghead" and "towelhead" are not nice terms, as they tend to blur the distinction between criticizing thugs and murderers and decent people.
What you say on your own web site or in your own home is your business. I have friends and relatives who often use racist language and, while I wish they'd stop it, that doesn't mean I'll disown them. However, when you're here, you're in my house, and I'd appreciate you respecting my wishes in this regard.
Thanks, all, for being a part of Dean's World.
September 26, 2003
Madman Matt Evans is setting up a non-profit corporation called Operation Give under which we can coordinate the Toys for Iraq effort. This will allow us, amongst other things, accept donations for Chief Wiggles' toy drive from people who don't have the energy to shop for stuff, or who can only give 5 or 10 bucks. That is, if we can't get someone to donate the hosting service.
We're still working on setting up the web site. We're going to make sure to be deliberate about things, so we can do it right, but I suspect we'll have something more for everyone to see in the next few days. Stay tuned. In the meantime, here is where you send stuff to Chief Wiggles, along with suggestions for things to send, if you don't want to wait on us.
Those of us who've created buttons and volunteered in other ways will not be forgotten. Give us a little time to get back to people. Suggestions for vendors are still appreciated.
We're still working on setting up the web site. We're going to make sure to be deliberate about things, so we can do it right, but I suspect we'll have something more for everyone to see in the next few days. Stay tuned. In the meantime, here is where you send stuff to Chief Wiggles, along with suggestions for things to send, if you don't want to wait on us.
Those of us who've created buttons and volunteered in other ways will not be forgotten. Give us a little time to get back to people. Suggestions for vendors are still appreciated.
* Update * Oh, by the way, Virginia Postrel's instructions for shipping to an APO are spot-on correct from what I can see. Although I recommend against using Amazon, simply because you get get much better deals on bulk toys and other items at the Oriental Trading Company, and for toothbrushes and toothpaste and stuff at Toothbrush Express. At vendors like that, you can buy literally dozens of items and still only spend 20 or 30 bucks.
Still looking for a place to buy cheap flip-flops...
The folks at KQED and WBUR in California have come up with a neat quiz for recall voters. Basically, they take each candidate's stated position on a variety of topics, but don't tell you which candidate said it. You answer which ones you feel most closely line up with your beliefs, and when you finish, they let you know how you match up with the candidates.
Pretty clever, and potentially useful if you're going to be voting in the recall election.
Pretty clever, and potentially useful if you're going to be voting in the recall election.
You know, if FDR hadn't been so stingy, think how history might have changed.
The kid might have been able to afford a decent haircut, just for starters.
The kid might have been able to afford a decent haircut, just for starters.
Edward Said finally died yesterday. So, yet another lying anti-semite and apologist for terrorism leaves the world.
Makes the heart bleed, don't it?
Makes the heart bleed, don't it?
* Update 09/27 * Joe Katzman has a better discussion on Said than we do here, so maybe you should go read it.
I like how some are portraying Said's critics as "right wing." That shows just how far the level of political discourse has sunk with some people.
I'm honored that the Watcher's Council chose one of my essays as one of the best of the week. Thanks guys.
I understand that the council may be looking for new members, too. You may want to write them to see if they have any openings.
I understand that the council may be looking for new members, too. You may want to write them to see if they have any openings.
One of the things that regular readers of Dean's World know is that I think that a lot of "feminist" ideas are profoundly misogynist.
Mind you, I do consider myself a feminist. Just look up the dictionary definition of what "feminist" is supposed to mean, and I am one. So, dare I say, are most people I know. But, I honestly believe that a lot of what many so-called "feminists" have sold to the culture is profoundly anti-woman, and is especially insulting to our grandmothers and great-grandmothers. Why? Because it demeans, degrades, and ultimately dismisses the power, status, and respect that women have enjoyed throughout the ages in the West.
In no area is this more apparent to me than in the insistence that we should all adopt "non-sexist" language. This seems based on the assumption, as espoused by Jjoan Ttaber Altieri, that women are oppressed by the use of masculine pronouns as gender-neuter. Do I exaggerate? In Altieri's words, women did not ask to be considered "part of the human race" until the 1970s. It's as if they were little better than slaves, and treated with little respect, accorded few rights, had no special privileges, until the 1970s.
So, while Altieri makes a good defense of the use of "they" as a singular pronoun with a centuries-old tradition--a usage I am increasingly non-hostile to--she doesn't note that this usage was irregular, and was irregular long before the grammarians she rails against actually existed. Which would rather undercut one of her main points.
Mind you, I'm no grammarian. The last English class I took, I laughed through most of the book's proscriptive rules. I followed them in my papers, but purposefully broke some of them in ways that I thought the teacher wouldn't catch. I recognized that they were stupid, and that anyone who wasn't paying very close attention probably wouldn't catch them. I was right: the teacher didn't notice when I went out of my way to break the rules she was teaching us. After the class, having earned my meaningless "A," and having learned nothing useful at all, I chucked the book and never looked back.
In fact, here are some assertions that will infuriate some of my grammarian friends: there is not a single thing wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition. Furthermore, there is nothing, nothing at all, wrong with starting a sentence or a paragraph with "and." Still further, the word "whom" is practically dead and should almost never be used, except to express a certain formality. Am I done? Hell no, just try to stop me! There is also no such thing as a "split infinitive" in English, and there's not a thing wrong with the phrase "to boldly go where no man has gone before." There's also not a damned thing wrong with the phrase, "If you see it the same way, you should vote for Al Gore and I."
I gleefully thumb my nose at anyone who says otherwise, to any of the above.
Still, to me, when we say "one giant leap for mankind," this should be read to include women. So also should we read any phrase such as "let he who disagrees speak now or forever hold his peace." Some feminists want to say that such phrases exclude women by definition. But let me ask this: does the "no it doesn't include women" viewpoint elevate women, or does it ultimately demean them?
Undercutting another of Altieri's points is her claim that people now routinely use terms like "firefighter" and "mailman" and "flight attendant." Not in my experience. Indeed, what I see is that, in everyday conversation, women are far more apt to use terms like "mailman" and "stewardess" than the PC variations, unless they think someone will be offended. I also note that despite the efforts to expunge "sexist" terms from everyday language, women frequently use terms like "you guys" and "dude!" to refer to each other informally, even though these terms are supposedly masculine.
The English language obviously has some problems with indefinite gender. "They" has a centuries-long tradition as a gender-indefinite singular pronoun. Grammarians are wrong to claim otherwise. But, its usage has also always been irregular, and everyday speakers seem to recognize that in some contexts "they" just sounds weird (e.g. "a baby needs their diaper changed regularly."). I consider it far from a settled matter that supposedly "sexist" language is really sexist. It's problematic at times, but I somehow doubt that, ultimately, this problem has ever held women back.
Indeed, I suggest that to say this problem in the language has somehow made women second-class citizens is, by its very nature, a misogynist statement.
Well, that's what I think. Why don't you tell me what you think?
Mind you, I do consider myself a feminist. Just look up the dictionary definition of what "feminist" is supposed to mean, and I am one. So, dare I say, are most people I know. But, I honestly believe that a lot of what many so-called "feminists" have sold to the culture is profoundly anti-woman, and is especially insulting to our grandmothers and great-grandmothers. Why? Because it demeans, degrades, and ultimately dismisses the power, status, and respect that women have enjoyed throughout the ages in the West.
In no area is this more apparent to me than in the insistence that we should all adopt "non-sexist" language. This seems based on the assumption, as espoused by Jjoan Ttaber Altieri, that women are oppressed by the use of masculine pronouns as gender-neuter. Do I exaggerate? In Altieri's words, women did not ask to be considered "part of the human race" until the 1970s. It's as if they were little better than slaves, and treated with little respect, accorded few rights, had no special privileges, until the 1970s.
So, while Altieri makes a good defense of the use of "they" as a singular pronoun with a centuries-old tradition--a usage I am increasingly non-hostile to--she doesn't note that this usage was irregular, and was irregular long before the grammarians she rails against actually existed. Which would rather undercut one of her main points.
Mind you, I'm no grammarian. The last English class I took, I laughed through most of the book's proscriptive rules. I followed them in my papers, but purposefully broke some of them in ways that I thought the teacher wouldn't catch. I recognized that they were stupid, and that anyone who wasn't paying very close attention probably wouldn't catch them. I was right: the teacher didn't notice when I went out of my way to break the rules she was teaching us. After the class, having earned my meaningless "A," and having learned nothing useful at all, I chucked the book and never looked back.
In fact, here are some assertions that will infuriate some of my grammarian friends: there is not a single thing wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition. Furthermore, there is nothing, nothing at all, wrong with starting a sentence or a paragraph with "and." Still further, the word "whom" is practically dead and should almost never be used, except to express a certain formality. Am I done? Hell no, just try to stop me! There is also no such thing as a "split infinitive" in English, and there's not a thing wrong with the phrase "to boldly go where no man has gone before." There's also not a damned thing wrong with the phrase, "If you see it the same way, you should vote for Al Gore and I."
I gleefully thumb my nose at anyone who says otherwise, to any of the above.
Still, to me, when we say "one giant leap for mankind," this should be read to include women. So also should we read any phrase such as "let he who disagrees speak now or forever hold his peace." Some feminists want to say that such phrases exclude women by definition. But let me ask this: does the "no it doesn't include women" viewpoint elevate women, or does it ultimately demean them?
Undercutting another of Altieri's points is her claim that people now routinely use terms like "firefighter" and "mailman" and "flight attendant." Not in my experience. Indeed, what I see is that, in everyday conversation, women are far more apt to use terms like "mailman" and "stewardess" than the PC variations, unless they think someone will be offended. I also note that despite the efforts to expunge "sexist" terms from everyday language, women frequently use terms like "you guys" and "dude!" to refer to each other informally, even though these terms are supposedly masculine.
The English language obviously has some problems with indefinite gender. "They" has a centuries-long tradition as a gender-indefinite singular pronoun. Grammarians are wrong to claim otherwise. But, its usage has also always been irregular, and everyday speakers seem to recognize that in some contexts "they" just sounds weird (e.g. "a baby needs their diaper changed regularly."). I consider it far from a settled matter that supposedly "sexist" language is really sexist. It's problematic at times, but I somehow doubt that, ultimately, this problem has ever held women back.
Indeed, I suggest that to say this problem in the language has somehow made women second-class citizens is, by its very nature, a misogynist statement.
Well, that's what I think. Why don't you tell me what you think?
You know, when you get the wrong boobie, you just feel totally betrayed.
Know what I mean?
(Via Sage One.)
Know what I mean?
(Via Sage One.)
September 25, 2003
Matt Evans of The Buck Stops Here has volunteered to set up a domain for the toys for Iraq project. Michele Catalano is almost done with the first draft of a page for the site, and we're collecting all the buttons people have sent for it. Val Prieto says he'll catch the email for the project, and we've gotten some other good suggestions.
However, we still need more help, though, so chime in if you've got some more ideas, and especially if you're willing to volunteer.
However, we still need more help, though, so chime in if you've got some more ideas, and especially if you're willing to volunteer.
Tony S. has details on the most amazing scientific story I've heard in a long, long time: the apparent creation of a primitive form of life in a lab. Well, sort of. It's really quite amazing anyway.
The Short Story Symposium has over two dozen stories by fifteen different authors. Neato. Go check it out.
The Counter-Revolutionary has been translating entries from a 1954 Soviet encyclopedia into English. I asked him to translate an entry on the Kulaks.
Who were the Kulaks? Long-time readers will recall that I wrote about them here as well as here. We also published a submission on them here. The short answer: they were generally poor rural farmers who owned small plots of land. Stalin killed between 5 and 10 million of them in what he called his de-kulakization program. At one point, all it took was being an inconvenience to the regime to be labeled a "filthy blood-sucking Kulak."
The description of the Kulaks from the Soviet encyclopedia is bone-chilling.
Some people have no idea--no idea--how important freedom of speech and the press really are.
Who were the Kulaks? Long-time readers will recall that I wrote about them here as well as here. We also published a submission on them here. The short answer: they were generally poor rural farmers who owned small plots of land. Stalin killed between 5 and 10 million of them in what he called his de-kulakization program. At one point, all it took was being an inconvenience to the regime to be labeled a "filthy blood-sucking Kulak."
The description of the Kulaks from the Soviet encyclopedia is bone-chilling.
Some people have no idea--no idea--how important freedom of speech and the press really are.
Another project that Chief Wiggles is working on is a campaign to free wrongly-imprisoned Iraqi generals. Before you snarl about that you should go read about it. The Winds of Change crowd has the best overall summation of the Free the Generals campaign--and once again, I urge you strongly to read first before snarling about it. The short story: generals who were not really part of the Saddamite regime, who did the honorable thing and ordered their troops to stand down and surrender peacefully, were imprisoned and are still imprisoned. Meanwhile, Saddamite generals who did no such thing, but instead fled, are now in some cases running about the country leading some of the sporadic attacks on coalition forces.
Joe Katzman, who runs Winds of Change, asked me if Michele and I could help with a button campaign like the Toys for Iraq campaign we're working on. I cannot answer for Michele, but I'll answer for myself in a way I suspect she'll agree with: I'm freaking exhausted. For the first time since I started blogging, I've recently begun thinking about shutting my blog down entirely, I'm so tired. I don't really have time for Toys for Iraq, but I'm doing it anyway. Trying to add this second cause, no matter how important it seems, would probably strain me past the breaking point.
However, that does not mean no one else can help. So: if you think you can help out with designing some buttons, and maybe some other resources, please go learn about the Free the Generals campaign and leave Joe Katzman a comment volunteering your assistance.
Joe Katzman, who runs Winds of Change, asked me if Michele and I could help with a button campaign like the Toys for Iraq campaign we're working on. I cannot answer for Michele, but I'll answer for myself in a way I suspect she'll agree with: I'm freaking exhausted. For the first time since I started blogging, I've recently begun thinking about shutting my blog down entirely, I'm so tired. I don't really have time for Toys for Iraq, but I'm doing it anyway. Trying to add this second cause, no matter how important it seems, would probably strain me past the breaking point.
However, that does not mean no one else can help. So: if you think you can help out with designing some buttons, and maybe some other resources, please go learn about the Free the Generals campaign and leave Joe Katzman a comment volunteering your assistance.
September 24, 2003
Remember the story I told yesterday about Gail Halvorsen, the original Uncle Wiggle Wings? In response, Plunge, Chief Wiggles' co-blogger, shot me a note. Get this:
Man. Dig that crazy internet.
Thought you might find this interesting.
I sent your site to my sister and others because I found it fascinating. She called me almost immediately, Gail Halvorsen was her next door neighbor. Now his daughter and her family live in the home and he is only about 15 miles away!
My sister is arranging a lunch so I can meet him and discuss this fascinating convergence of events and history.
Thanks again for sharing!!!!!
Regards,
Plunge
Man. Dig that crazy internet.
Okay, I got the A-OK from Chief Wiggles himself, as well as his blog-buddy Plunge. We're going to set up a button campaign, and a standing page the button can link to, telling the story, giving people lists of links they can shop from, and all that good stuff.
Michele is going to help put the page together. I'll do the writing. Yes, of course we'll be linking to Chief Wiggles' blog, but this page will be one that has nothing on it but stuff about how to help, which can be linked to in our button campaign.
We need more help. We could use it in several areas:
1) We need recommendations for online places that are good to order appropriate toys and supplies from. Yes, people can box stuff up and send it themselves, but I want to also reference online sources you can go to, click a few buttons, and have them ship to Iraq for you.
The Oriental Trading Company is a great one, but I'd like more options. Including places you can order items the Oriental Trading Company doesn't have, like school supplies, candy, toothbrushes, toothpaste, floss, brushes, combs, flip-flops, and other minor supplies you think parents of children might like to have.
2) Anyone want to do the legwork of contacting some of these vendors and see if they'll give us some sort of discount for people who order items for Chief Wiggles? I tried calling Oriental Trading Company about it and they didn't think they could help in that regard. I also don't have the energy to call all over the place. But if anyone here knows someone they could call, a vendor who might help out, that would be great.
3) We'll need someone to filter and field email questions. I'll set up an email address for it.
4) We'll need those of you with web sites to link the page when it's done.
5) Also, if you know of any churches, civic groups, clubs, employers, etc. who might participate, please let them know about the campaign. You can refer them to the Chief's article right now, and the button page once we have it up.
Thanks all. Leave comments here with any responses, I can't keep up with all my email as it is.
Michele is going to help put the page together. I'll do the writing. Yes, of course we'll be linking to Chief Wiggles' blog, but this page will be one that has nothing on it but stuff about how to help, which can be linked to in our button campaign.
We need more help. We could use it in several areas:
1) We need recommendations for online places that are good to order appropriate toys and supplies from. Yes, people can box stuff up and send it themselves, but I want to also reference online sources you can go to, click a few buttons, and have them ship to Iraq for you.
The Oriental Trading Company is a great one, but I'd like more options. Including places you can order items the Oriental Trading Company doesn't have, like school supplies, candy, toothbrushes, toothpaste, floss, brushes, combs, flip-flops, and other minor supplies you think parents of children might like to have.
2) Anyone want to do the legwork of contacting some of these vendors and see if they'll give us some sort of discount for people who order items for Chief Wiggles? I tried calling Oriental Trading Company about it and they didn't think they could help in that regard. I also don't have the energy to call all over the place. But if anyone here knows someone they could call, a vendor who might help out, that would be great.
3) We'll need someone to filter and field email questions. I'll set up an email address for it.
4) We'll need those of you with web sites to link the page when it's done.
5) Also, if you know of any churches, civic groups, clubs, employers, etc. who might participate, please let them know about the campaign. You can refer them to the Chief's article right now, and the button page once we have it up.
Thanks all. Leave comments here with any responses, I can't keep up with all my email as it is.
* Update * Here is a flyer you can print up and pass out in church, at work, or wherever!
A large bipartisan group of congressmen have come back from Iraq and blasted the press for hunkering down in Baghdad and having a "police blotter" mentality about their reporting, and for giving a much more negative account of the situation over there than is really justified.
The delegation was unanimous in its denunciation of the reportorial slant. Note, too, that if you read carefully, most of the negative comments are from Democrats (although Republicans agreed).
(Thanks, Jeff.)
The delegation was unanimous in its denunciation of the reportorial slant. Note, too, that if you read carefully, most of the negative comments are from Democrats (although Republicans agreed).
(Thanks, Jeff.)
Democratic Cogressman and Vietnam Veteran Jim Marshall of Georgia says that excessively negative press is killing our troops. He may be exaggerating, but I'm not so sure. It's sure as hell demoralizing people at home, making some people waver in their (much-needed) support. Certain politicians are also exploiting this negative press for their own selfish aims. I can't imagine that it's not demoralizing some of the troops and encouraging our enemies, too.
What's so infuriating is the fact that it's so wrong. The situation there is going incredibly well. Much better than anyone had a right to expect. I plan, over the next few days, to highlight a number of articles that show this, but in the meantime, Frank J. is doing something even better: devoting a new weblog to publishing stories from people actually over there in Iraq to tell you the things the press isn't telling you. If you think you can help, especially if you know someone over there, please visit this page and get involved. Because we cannot afford to let the press and opportunistic politicians to exploit the few negative stories in order to make people think--wrongly--that our efforts are failing.
What's so infuriating is the fact that it's so wrong. The situation there is going incredibly well. Much better than anyone had a right to expect. I plan, over the next few days, to highlight a number of articles that show this, but in the meantime, Frank J. is doing something even better: devoting a new weblog to publishing stories from people actually over there in Iraq to tell you the things the press isn't telling you. If you think you can help, especially if you know someone over there, please visit this page and get involved. Because we cannot afford to let the press and opportunistic politicians to exploit the few negative stories in order to make people think--wrongly--that our efforts are failing.
Thanks to Allison, I went to the terrific Oriental Trading Company web site, which has a dynamite selection of cheap novelty goods and toys at bulk prices. Check out what I was able to pick up:
$12.95 for 1 dozen colored-lens sunglasses
$3.95 for 2 dozen pastel bead bracelets
$9.95 for 6 dozen coloring books
$11.85 for 3 units of 2 dozen boxes of crayons (* Update * See below!)
$15.95 for Shipping
Total cost: $54.65
I could have gotten away with spending as little as $20 and still gotten some neat stuff. They have cars, flying toys, balls, stuffed animals, wooden games, puppets, kaleidoscopes, novelty jewelry (be careful with this, don't be sending stuff like toy lipstick and such), and more. In other words, tons of cheap, simple stuff that kids would love.
I was a little confused since I'd never shipped to an overseas military address before, but it turns out that anything you send to a military base just uses standard US mail. In this case, Wiggles' address is:
Chief Wiggles
CPA-C2, Debriefer
APO, AE 09335
The "city" is APO, and the "state" is AE. That'll get it there.
So what are you waiting for?
(Just remember, no guns, violent toys, or Barbie-type dolls. That's the Chief's rule.)
* Update * I was dismayed to find out that Crayons are not a good idea because it gets very very hot over there and crayons start to melt at around 105 degrees f. I called Oriental Trading Company to try to change my order only it was already shipped. Dang it. Hope it'll be okay. Anyway, anyone wanting to send coloring supplies should probably try to find colored pencils with sharpeners instead. I'd recommend magic markers except any parent knows those go dry way too quickly.
September 23, 2003
The occupation of Germany in the first couple of years after World War II were very difficult. People in many places were constantly hungry, clean water wasn't always available, and coal for heat wasn't always to be had. Medical supplies weren't available everywhere, the roads and railroads were a mess, and electricity and telephone service took a long time to get turned back on in many parts of the country. It took many years before the country was returned to what could be called "normal."
Complicating matters, our "ally" Stalin had seized about a third of Germany, which became known as East Germany. The Western allies (the UK, France, and the USA) held the rest of the country, which became known as West Germany. However, due to diplomatic wrangling, the Western forces held about half of the capital city, Berlin. So Germany basically looked like this:
That's right. Berlin was about a hundred miles deep into Stalin's Germany, but the free world still had possession of half of that one city. Stalin's troops would often shoot at people who ran to what became known as the "American sector" of Berlin. But many people took the risk and ran there anyway. Meanwhile, to keep the free part of Berlin alive, the West used the railroads and the roads to keep people supplied with food, coal, and other supplies.
Stalin found this intolerable, and found excuses to cut off the railway and road access that had been negotiated after the war. It was a loophole: the allies had access to the roads and the rails, but if the rails and roads were destroyed, how could they get there?
Once Stalin did this, the people of Berlin were faced with a stark choice: starve, freeze to death in the winter, or capitulate to Stalin. To make it enticing, Stalin offered them free food and coal and shelter. But countless Germans refused to leave the free part of Berlin.
In the West, a different loophole was found. The treaty
Complicating matters, our "ally" Stalin had seized about a third of Germany, which became known as East Germany. The Western allies (the UK, France, and the USA) held the rest of the country, which became known as West Germany. However, due to diplomatic wrangling, the Western forces held about half of the capital city, Berlin. So Germany basically looked like this:
That's right. Berlin was about a hundred miles deep into Stalin's Germany, but the free world still had possession of half of that one city. Stalin's troops would often shoot at people who ran to what became known as the "American sector" of Berlin. But many people took the risk and ran there anyway. Meanwhile, to keep the free part of Berlin alive, the West used the railroads and the roads to keep people supplied with food, coal, and other supplies.
Stalin found this intolerable, and found excuses to cut off the railway and road access that had been negotiated after the war. It was a loophole: the allies had access to the roads and the rails, but if the rails and roads were destroyed, how could they get there?
Once Stalin did this, the people of Berlin were faced with a stark choice: starve, freeze to death in the winter, or capitulate to Stalin. To make it enticing, Stalin offered them free food and coal and shelter. But countless Germans refused to leave the free part of Berlin.
In the West, a different loophole was found. The treaty