The tree in the back yard apparently took out our DSL Monday, meaning I had to go to (one of the three) Starbucks half a mile from home to get email, which meant that blog reading and writing was light. I also had some other writing to do that I couldn’t because of lack of connectivity, so I’m starting the week behinder than ususal.

I’m struggling with a response to Quiggin – as usual, I’m loading too much into it and need to cut it back, which I’m working on now.

And I picked up Tim Power’s book, Declare, and didn’t get much else done – I’m blaming Powers for my lack of productivity.Verizon customer service was good enough to have me wondering if this is the same company that I used to hate, and eighteen hours after I first called them, we have connectivity again.

So I connect, get a trackback from Laughing Wolf, and see that he thinks I’m Hillary Clinton. He’s wrong.

He’s actually wrong on two counts; first in assuming that I’m surprised when people as individuals do the right thing without the guidance of Big Brother. Almost everything I’ve written on the subject (and it’s getting to be a lot, so I don’t blame him for not having read it, but here’s an example) says otherwise. He’s also wrong in denigrating the role of government, however.

It’s a fairly common error in certain conservatives and libertarians, who assume that government is, at best, a parasite – it’s actually a symbiote.

Looking back on U.S. (and to an extent, Western) history, very little would have been accomplished without either government or individual intelligence and energy. As Sondheim says, “It Takes Two”. The issue is finding and maintaining a balance between these.

But that’s another story, as the Witch says. We’ll talk about that later; there’s work to do now.

Just scanning the blogs and news (note that it’s interesting that in the last year, I’ve reversed the order), and noticed an interesting thing that no one else seems to have picked up on yet.

In the well-blogged NY Times interview with econometrician Ray Fair, reporter Deborah Soloman makes the following statement:

But in the process you are shaping opinion. Predictions can be self-confirming, because wishy-washy voters might go with the candidate who is perceived to be more successful.

Which pretty much sums up my problem with the less-than open journalism that we’re seeing these days.
To be sure, to partisans on each side, it feels like their ox is the one gored. But to me, as someone with a basically Democratic bent but who hasn’t yet drunk the Kool-Aid and signed on, it sure looks like they’re shaping opinion right and left, and doing it in the interest of the Kerry/Edwards campaign.

Doing this, not only are they doing no favors for the polity we’re all a part of, but they’re doing Kerry and the Democrats no favors either.

Slate’s search engine sucks, and so I can’t find the stories in Kaus’ archives about the overconfident Gray Davis and the way that the partisan, opinion-shaping coverage (led by the L.A. Times) of the recall election hung him out like a Chinatown duck.

If I’m correct, the media aren’t doing Kerry any favors either.

I’ve been working on a reasoned response to John Quiggin’s arguments on al-Sadr, but I’ve been distracted by the latest bit of spooge from Yglesias. Quiggin most recently makes the claim that

…the bloody campaign to destroy Sadr was both morally indefensible (as well as being politically stupid). I restate the point I made when the fighting was at its peak.

Almost certainly, the current fighting will end in the same sort of messy compromise that prevailed before the first campaign started. Nothing will have been gained by either side. But 2000 or so people will still be dead. Sadr bears his share of the guilt for this crime. The US government is even more guilty.

As I’ve noted, I think he’s wrong both in his political and moral analysis but I certainly owe some kind of an argument to support that claim.It’s in the works.

Then I read Matt Yglesias weighing in on the same subject.

To put this another way: Who wants to die for Iyad Allawi? Certainly I don’t. If people do, they should consider forming a new Abraham Lincoln Brigade and shipping out.

Now personally, I don’t argue that those who care more than Matt or I do about, say – genocide in Darfur, or the Hutu/Tutsi conflict – ought to saddle up and head out to personally do something about it. I accept that they’re a legitimate part of our polity, and that these are issues we need to decide on together, and costs that we will bear together. Matt thinks that the only way one gets to play is to be willing to go fight.

Does this mean we can simply turn this election over to the troops? I’m willing to if he is…

But I’m getting effing tired of giving any moral authority at all to people who think that’s a clever argument.

[Update: I edited out a sentance I wrote out of bad temper; Yglesias doesn’t deserve to be called names, and I’m embarassed to have been the kind of person who did. Sorry to all concerned.]

Via BuzzMachine, the story of a media sting that went very bad (or actually, very good). Two Middle Eastern men tried to charter a helicopter in St. Louis. They acted suspiciously, the FBO operator called the cops, the FBI showed up and cuffed the men – and then

…the FBI verified that the two men were employed by NBC New York and were on assignment to get a story of how easy it is to charter a helicopter for a terrorist attack.

Actually, it appears that it isn’t.

I strongly believe that we – the alert citizens – are the first line of defense (as opposed to offense, which let’s leave to the military, OK?) against terrorist attacks. Points to the alert charter staff, and points to the police and FBI who responded quickly.

Others are less sanguine about our ability to stop attacks. But an alert, informed, and un-panicked citizenry – with responsive police on the other end of the phone – seems to me like the most effective tool we could have. And this story shows how it ought to work.

Be interesting to see if NBC makes a story out of it…

So I said I’d take a shot at the Kerry speech I think he should have given, both about Vietnam and about VVAW.

I’m working on it, but first, let me take a moment to give some personal background that is certainly more than a bit relevant. As a good suburban family, we have a couple of picture walls in our house. One of the pictures is a water-damaged, grainy, B & W print of me…marching, with my organizer’s armband at an antiwar demonstration in May of 1970 in Westwood Village.

It was a successful demonstration; we got a good turnout, the police were overwhelming (giving us the media’s sympathy). Nixon had just revealed his invasion of Cambodia – which turned out so well, after all.

I helped organize other demonstrations against the war in college, but drifted away from the New Left for a variety of reasons (many of which I touch on in my blogging; my personal philosophy sadly hasn’t drifted much in 35 years). One of them was a point I made in a 1973 paper, in which I suggested that the New Left was flawed by the inescapable fact that it represented to many of its participants an adolescent rebellion against their parents instead of a meaningful effort to build a new politics. By 1972 or 3, I’d simply seen too much of it from the inside.I’m not ashamed of those stances today (although I’m glad no recordings exist – outside of some dank FBI storage boxes, I’m sure – of my rhetoric then). I say this for two simple reasons: 1) I was flat wrong about the threat posed by the Soviet Union and the Communist movement in the 50’s through the 70’s. I was in good company, but I was just plain wrong. The challenge was real, and had to be confronted, by force if necessary. 2) Vietnam was, however, the wrong place to do it. It was an unnecessary war. Ho Chi Minh had approached Harry Truman, asking for recognition and aid, and the Viet Minh had cooperated with the OSS in fighting the Japanese. In Ho’s words:

These security and freedom can only be guaranteed by our independence from any colonial power, and our free cooperation with all other powers. It is with this firm conviction that we request of the United Sates as guardians and champions of World Justice to take a decisive step in support of our independence.

What we ask has been graciously granted to the Philippines. Like the Philippines our goal is full independence and full cooperation with the UNITED SATES. We will do our best to make this independence and cooperation profitable to the whole world.

Any time for a decade or so after this – probably into the late 50’s or early 60’s – the U.S. could have taken the side of the Vietnamese people and supported their nationalist desires. We didn’t.

We got a Communist-backed war of national liberation. Our bad, we chose the French over the Vietnamese. Lots of good that’s done us…

My guess is that some people will agree with and understand my position; others will debate me but still find my positions understandable. I don’t see any unbridgeable gap between where I was then and where I am now, and I think that most people would agree that these positions and the change betwen them at least makes some sense. I was wrong about the threat posed by the USSR and China through their proxies. That makes me as wary about adopting Trent-like positions on the level of threat posed as about adopting the rosy views of John Quiggin – without careful examination of all sides. I was wrong before, after all.

But given that I do see a major threat coming from the Islamists – as evidenced by 3,000 dead who were mostly civilians – I do continue to think that the challenge is real and must be confronted.

That’s how I got from there to here.

Kerry needs to do at least this well in explaining how he got from antwar undergraduate to Navy officer with an ‘interesting’ record to a leader in the antiwar movement who told lies to a presidential candidate who supports the invasion of Iraq. He needs most of all to explain his ‘gentlemen’s heoism’ in service, and do it quickly.

Wow. Roger Simon (who’s been carrying the U.N. Oil-for-Palaces scandal) goes to New York and all of a sudden the New York Times gets bold about it.

Coincidence? I think not…

I’ve been watching the Kerry/Swift Boat Vets hoo-hah with some interest – mostly because it’s actually interesting to me to watch major-league hardball be played by people who are good at it on both sides.

I don’t clutch my chest and swoon over the moral outrageousness of it – either the claimed acts by Kerry or the attacks – because (I always seem to be referring to stuff I’ve already written – does that annoy people?) I’ve covered my position in some detail already:

It’s not a matter of doubt to me that Kerry – as much or more than Bush – used privilege, probably connections, and his knowledge and ability to manipulate the system to get himself what he wanted; possibly, in my estimation, to get his ticket punched so that, like his hero John Kennedy, he could campaign as a warrior.

Why does this matter? Not because I’m making a ‘Kerry is as bad as Bush’ argument (although I reserve the right to make it later). But it matters, because in truth if you look closely at the resumes of the thousand people in the country who could plausibly run for President, what percentage of them do you think have gamed portions of their careers?

I think that Kerry has a strong case in the form of his supportive crew. I think that the Swift Boat Vets have a strong case, given the specificity of their claims and the willingness of their witnesses to stand behind their claims with their names and honor.

Does this sway me on the election? Actually, the answer may surprise you. Yes, it does – but not because of what Kerry (and his troops) did thirty-five years ago. But because of what they’re doing today.

The stunning ineptitude of the Kerry campaign in dealing with this issue, in my mind, calls into question their ability to lead the country.

One of the first things a competent person does when they decide to run for office is to sit down and list the bases that their opponents will use to attack them. I’ve done it, and believe me, I’ll never be running for anything…but the stories I could tell!

Every one of Kerry’s Vietnam-era vulnerabilities was something I was aware of, and with ten minutes of Google research, I bet I can find a dozen national-level commentators who were aware of them as well.

The Swift Boat Vets have been unhappy with him for decades. His service in Vietnam, on it’s face, needs an explanation (four months, three Purple Hearts, no days off duty from injuries). His behavior after the war (Winter Soldier, VVAW, medals across the White House Gate) needs an explanation.

I don’t think that explanations would be that hard to make. If I have time tonight, I’ll try and mirror Noah Millman and draft the Vietnam speech Kerry should have given when he announced his candidacy.

He hasn’t made that speech.

He shows no signs of making that speech.

His handlers and spokesmen are reduced to fits of incoherence when confronted by the claims made about his service. What will they do in October when the claims – and video – of his VVAW speeches and activities are broadcast?

There are three major qualifications to lead this country. You have to have some idea where you want us to go. You have to make us believe you can take us there. And you have to be able to communicate, not only to articulate your vision and show your character but to respond to challenges and convince us that you have the capability to do so.

I’m not seeing it.

I’d like to.

Check out Gideons Blog’s draft of an acceptance speech for Bush.

That’s a damn good speech.

Randomly surfing today while I’m doing some writing, and a tripped over ‘ MY WAR – Fear And Loathing In Iraq‘ by milblogger ‘CBFTW.’

First of all, it’s a damn good blog – whoever this guy is, he’s a helluva writer. He conveys the immediacy, determination, and frustration he writes about incredibly well.

Other bloggers have pointed to him, so he’s only a discovery to me (if you haven’t been there yet, click on over and read a bit, you’ll be glad you did). But aside from discovering a good blog and a good writer, this kicked off an interesting round of thinking in me.

I’ve been wrestling for a while with a post on the ‘two Americas’ cliche. Yes, it’s a cliche, but sometimes cliches exist because they are true. I’m going up to West Los Angeles pretty much every day from my suburban home, and I really do see a huge cultural gap between the well-off residents of Brentwood, Venice and Santa Monica (my old haunts) and the South Bay, where I live now.I’ve written a bit about it before:

…I was having a late-night dinner at a terrible Italian restaurant in Long Beach, CA (wow, too awful to even allow me to remember the name), and the only other party was a group of “modern-Okie” aerospace workers … badly dressed, overweight, uncultured (they were talking excitedly about ‘The Bachelor’). The dads (two couples w/multiple kids) were apparently in the aerospace industry, and I had a jolt of realization … these were the families that built the airplanes that I fly around in, and millions of families like them build our houses, buildings, sewers, provide water and electricity, etc. etc. And I began to look at my own attitudes and wonder just why the hell I felt permission to look amusedly at them, and to wonder for a moment which team I was on, and which one I wanted to be on.

and in getting connected with all the amazing people in the military I’ve met through Spirit of America, most of them definitely were not on the same side of the cultural divide as my friends in Venice Beach.

CBFTW is.

Here’s his Blogger profile:

Interests

* drinking
* skateboarding
* reading
* music
* anti social behavior
* film
* culture
* politics
* San Francisco
* 80’s music
* Charles Bukowski
* whiskey
* Military History
* cult movies
* photography
* art
* punk rock
* abandoned buildings
* Your Mom
* dive bars

Favorite Movies

* Taxi Driver
* Swingers
* Say Anything
* Reality Bites
* Pretty In Pink
* Clerks
* Full Metal Jacket
* Breakfast Club
* Dirty Harry
* The Warriors
* Falling Down
* Texas Chainsaw Massacre
* Beat Girl
* Cape Fear
* Chopper
* Reservoir Dogs
* Pulp Fiction
* True Romance
* Barfly
* Apocalypse Now

Favorite Music

* JAZZ
* Blues
* punk
* harcore
* metal
* alternative
* grunge
* SLAYER
* 80’s music
* classic rock
* classical
* Social Distortion
* Rockabilly
* Sinatra
* Big Band
* everything.

Favorite Books

* Love is A Mad Dog From Hell
* Ham On Rye
* Catcher In The Rye
* On The Road
* Hells Angels
* Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas
* Steal This Book
* Anarchist Cookbook
* The Killer Inside Me
* Army Training Manuals and Field Manuals
* Ranger Handbook
* Jack Kerouac
* Hunter S. Thompson
* Hemmingway
* Naked Lunch
* James Ellroy

Here’s a guy as comfortable as I am hanging out at Skylight Books or searching for an old Social Distortion live album.

Maybe – just maybe – there are a lot of us trapped at the boundary between the two cultures. Maybe it’s the old guys like me who are so polarized, and many of the younger cohorts just don’t worry about it as much as we do.

That’d be good news.

More good news in the form of the response of his chain of command on discovering his blog.

He calmly looked up and told me that my shit was really good, and he liked reading my stuff, and that I was a good writer. He even mentioned something about including it in the units history and archives. That didn’t relieve me one bit, like I said, it made me more freaked out. I’m waiting for him to say the word: “BUT” followed by my punishment. Then we discussed things, and he pointed things out, and told me things. I agreed with 100% of everything he was saying, and the final conclusion from what he told me was that I could continue writing, but maybe have my Plt Sgt read my stuff before I post. He stressed that he didn’t want to censor me and that I still had the freedom of speech thing, as long as I wasn’t doing anything that would endanger the mission. I totally 110% agree with him on that one. I thanked him and I told him that I of course would not want to do anything that would endanger anybody here or back home, which is of course true. He suggested that I should look into getting this stuff published and made into a book someday.

Yes, the military continues to impress me.

In light of my earlier piece criticizing John Quiggins claim that the fighting in Najaf constitutes a ‘war crime,’ let’s go to Omar, at Iraq the Model (hat tip Instapundit):

The chief of Najaf IP, brigadier Ghalib Al Jazaeri was interviewed by Al Sharqyia TV today and gave some important statements. Mr. Ghalib confirmed the IP control over the majority Najaf and said that Al Mahdi militia are besieged in small areas. He also said that most of them are surrendering and that among the 1200 captured till now there are 1000 from outside Najaf (Basra, Kut, Amarah, Baghdad) and 4 of them were Iranians who confessed that they have joined the Mahdi army.

…his statement that most of the thugs were from outside Najaf rule out all the claims that this is an uprising, as if it was so then we would’ve seen the people of the city themselves revolting in large numbers but the fact is that Muqtada has gathered his criminals from many cities and focused on Najaf and Baghdad only because he knew he wouldn’t find enough people to support him had he depended on the people of Najaf alone. While the fights in other cities were small compared to Baghdad and Najaf and there was absolutely no fights in the rural areas which shows that the distribution of fighters was planned to focus on important areas only, and this ensures more media coverage which in my mind is one of the main goals of such movement, as it’s clearly supported and planned by outside parties which are dying to show Iraq as an unstable and hopeless place. Besides we all saw how the people of Najaf were delighted to see the IP control the city again in the previous revolt after many days of fighting. Also an uprising is a reaction rather than a planned action and here the percentage of the fighters from outside the city show clearly that this is closer to a planned revolt.

Note that Quiggin’s criticism was centered on the notion that we were fighting the residents of the community who were engaged in a spontaneous uprising based on the poor conditions and aimed at ousting the foreign occupiers.

Assuming Omar’s claim is true – and he’s closer to the action than John or I – my only comment must be that facts can be such annoying things.