…the man is just damn quick on his feet.

John Howard, the Australian PM, slammed Barak Obama by name in a speech on Australian TV.

“If I were running al-Qaida in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.”

I’m really not very thrilled about foreign (ahem-Saudi) nations (like the Saudis) meddling too deeply in our internal politics. I thought Howard stepped cleanly over the line with that remark.

He could have said that he was deeply concerned that US political leadership continue in its role in opposing terror, or something of that ilk which would have made his point without choosing teams.

I stuck that into the ‘to blog’ queue (which is long, BTW) and then pulled it out when I read Obama’s brilliant retort:

“I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400, so if he is … to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq.

“Otherwise it’s just a bunch of empty rhetoric.”

Point to Sen. Obama, I’d have to say…now I have a longer post in the queue about him and the Democrats, and the struggle within my very soul over what to do in ’08. But he gets props for that reply.

Here’s something that bugs me…

…about the current state of left intellectualism (not the Euston folks…). From the L.A. Times review (yes, not the book, and a cautionary note must be inserted) of Barbara Ehrenreich’s new book “Dancing In The Streets”

…[her] rhetoric reaches a fever pitch in her description of France in 1790; she gets caught up in the public celebrations on the first anniversary of the revolution, and her unabashed intellectual enthusiasm electrifies these pages. “With the shared wine and food, the dancing that wound through whole cities and out into the fields, this has to have been one of the great moments, in all of human history, to have been alive.”

Yup. 1790 in Paris. One of the great moments in human history to have been alive. See also ‘Romanticism and Terrorism’…

Deborah Howell, the Post ombudswoman, has a piece up on l’affaire Arkin.

It’s a reasoned, establishment take on blogging, is appropriately critical of Arkin – even though she understates the loathsomeness of what he said – and includes one gem that needs to be held up and examined.

Arkin is unrepentant about two things: He works for The Post. Period. And he said he is “probably one of the best-known and respected anti-military military bloggers.”

I hadn’t seen that before, but it pretty accurately sums him up, doesn’t it? So – two questions fall out from that exposition. How in the world can the LA Times or other news media justify calling him ‘a military analyst’ (as opposed to ‘an anti-military analyst’)? And what an interesting story he himself must be. Someone who has built a career and spent his life closely studying something he seems to hate so much. And what is it that he opposes? Note that his commitment isn’t general – to the issues of appropriate or inappropriate French or Russian military policies or actions. It’s not about demilitarizing the world. It’s aimed squarely at diminishing the role and effectiveness of the U.S. military.

There are two charities that I typically support – the St.Joseph Center in Venice, CA, which does incredible work with low-income families and the homeless (for now, at least…), and the Long Beach Opera, where I serve on the board.

Each charity typically does an annual fundraiser and auctions off random items, and I typically buy random things depending on my enthusiasm, solvency, how closely TG is monitoring me, and how much free wine I’ve had to drink.

Two years ago, I bought a gift certificate at a men’s store in West Hollywood (and yes, I deducted the cash value of the certificate from my donation when I took credit for it year-end). It was for $500, and I figured I could get a couple dress shirts and a tie, or a blazer, or something.

Yesterday, in an effort to broaden my clothing choices from black Gap polo shirts, Royal Robbins pants, and Vans – something TG and others have teased me for quite undeservedly – I went to the store.
And was ushered into quite another world. My $500 certificate would buy me one – that’s one (a single) dress shirt. I went from counter to counter, my level of amusement rising at each stop. They had unremarkable (although finely made) dress shirts for $400.00; sale blazers for $1,100, etc. etc. I wasn’t going to let the certificate go to waste, so bought some fine sport shirts and a tie – and burned a nice little divot in my debit card on top of the gift certificate in doing so.

But I’ll be a well-dressed blogger, for sure.

Anyone who has met me knows I’m the wrong person to talk with about fashion. Someone why buys black Gap polos by the half-dozen every four months isn’t someone with a highly developed fashion sense. Back in the day that I had to wear suits and such, I was lucky that a very good tailor used to come to our offices and basically dress us with custom suits and shirts (made in Hong Kong or India, and actually quite reasonable – I’d love to find another one like him). In current dollars, I used to pay $200.00 for a shirt that was the fashion and quality equivalent of the shirts this store wanted $400 for…made to measure.

…so how does this boutique stay in business? It’s a puzzlement to me, because I encounter businesses like this all over – but only in the major cities – Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco. Is it only there that there is a large enough body of insecure strivers? Or it is just that the population of fashion obsessives is high enough there?

I’d love to know what you think about that.

So the archives of my old Armed Liberal blog are apparently gone forever. I’d been hosting for free with a friend who neglected to mention that he was stopping payment and shutting the server down. Yes, he should have said something to me – but yes, I should have backed it up. We’ll share the blame once I stop being so irritated.

I’ll see what I can reconstruct from saved files now that I control the domain. If you participated in a comment threat there, my apologies – I owed you more care than that.

Nicole Belle, over at John Amato’s Crooks and Liars has a brief look at l’affaire Arkin, and springboards from there to a look at Internet argumentation and to make a plea for civility.

Not on Arkin’s part, mind you…ad hominem, slander, and dishonesty on his part are summed up as:

A little background: After watching an NBC Nightly News report that had troops bemoaning the lack of support at home Arkin posted that the soldiers should be grateful that we do respect them, even if we don’t support the mission.

and

Apparently the masochist, Arkin responded again

.

and

1500 comments and another closed thread later, Arkin had been insulted in every possible way. Never one to back away from a fight, Arkin takes issue with the ad hominem used in lieu of debate:

Belle says

So what do you think? Arkin’s plea for civility (one I share – you commenters can be brutal and seem to forget that there are real people behind the words you’re reading) suggests that a civilized exchange is a lost art. Is it the anonymity of the internet? Is it that certain topics are just too provocative to discuss calmly? Or have we collectively forgotten our manners?

The problem, of course is that Arkin deliberately used inflammatory language, deception, and slurs to make his original point – that the troops needed to be taken aside and told to STFU – and in my view lost whatever standing he had to complain that the audience “was mean to him”. A better writer and thinker than Arkin could have raised parallel points – which are important ones – about the relationship between troop opinion and public opinion, and the role of each is establishing the other. He could have asked about the cost of a polarizing political dialog that excludes the people spoken about. He could have done a lot of things. But then again, he’s Arkin.

Belle makes a plea for civility, but fails to make an even-handed one. He must not have more than one child.

So commenter Andy X threatened to flatten Rev Sensing’s nose. I gave him a shot at explaining, and he declined, so I went to ban his ip – which, it turns out, was also used by Andy L, Cheshire Cat, j vanderroy, J.G. Paul and Carol Rodriguez.

So either it’s a dynamic IP, or he’s got a lot of friends who comment from his computer. For now, I’m banning the IP. Joe and I will discuss and see what the best course of action may be.

Don’t threaten people on the Winds premises. Period. Full stop. And never comment under a name not readily identifiable by casual readers as you.

Update: There are posts from Andy X on different IP’s,so the charge of sock puppetry – although suggestive – can’t be proved and should be dropped. it’s worth noting, however that everyone posting from AndyX’s IP- Andy, Andy L, Andy X, Carol Rodriguez, Cheshire Dog, Greengrass Liberal, j vanderroy , J.G. Paul , Murrow , Over and out , Palumbo , The Mountaintop , Walter’s Ridge , Wizener – share a certain – point of view and tone.

It’s not terribly relevant, because Andy’s banned regardless for threatening to punch Rev. Sensing. Andy, I’ll unban your IP (since others appear to use it), but will kill any further posts you put up.

So bored and slightly cranky, I surf around and go to Joe Gandleman’s blog – ‘The Moderate Voice.’ Joe is a smart guy and a good writer, even if his definition of moderate is less iconoclastic than mine.

He’s got a post up on the Edwards Bloghorrea thingie, which centers on the notion that bloggers will now be – heaven forfend – closely scrutinized if they are associated with major political campaigns. What next? Urine tests for Tour de France riders? I’m more than a bit baffled at his concern.But then I realize something interesting…part of the issue is that he views the kind of rhetoric at Pandagon and Shakespeare’s Sister as the norm. This is baseline political rhetoric. And that’s just as nuts as a meth-addled preacher announcing that he’s done with gay sex and expecting the mantle of spiritual leadership to fall neatly back on his shoulders.

Haggert needs a job in fast food or tech support, and Gandleman needs to stop reading Oliver Willis and considering him normal. There are a shedload of bloggers – right and left – who would not disgrace a political campaign. Kevin Drum? Phil Carter? Steve Smith? What have they written to compare with “Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit…”?? Powerline, Volokh, Patterico? There’s nothing in their oeuvre that shows the level of contempt – for anyone – shown by the Edwards duo. Heck, go look in my blogroll – who (other than Defamer) does? And there are a lot of blogs in there.

So yeah, if you’re bilious, you’ll get attention and if you get attention you might get a job…but you’ll immediately be on thin ice because of what you’ve written in the past, and you won’t be free to be tough-minded and take real risks – you know, the Sam Brown “Don’t offend them with style when you can offend them with substance” kind.

And I’m genuinely puzzled that Gandleman doesn’t see that.

And as an addendum, Joe – if you read this – go police your comments section, will you? This does your site no credit:

ChuckPrez said:
February 8, 2007 at 10:20 am

In an unrelated note, I would so do Michelle Malkin.

Yup, that’s what modern political dialog is supposed to be all about, isn’t it…we’re in a war facing a bigger one and we get this crap.

From the Edwards 08 website…

John Edwards:

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

Amanda Marcotte:

My writings on my personal blog Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.

Melissa McEwan:

Shakespeare’s Sister is my personal blog, and I certainly don’t expect Senator Edwards to agree with everything I’ve posted. We do, however, share many views – including an unwavering support of religious freedom and a deep respect for diverse beliefs. It has never been my intention to disparage people’s individual faith, and I’m sorry if my words were taken in that way.

Boy, those are just weak. I’ll let Iowahawk do the fun versions, but as a free service to a leading Democratic candidate, let me offer the versions that would have passed muster with me – and which I think would have been better for the Edwards campaign.

Channeling John Edwards:

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else, and there will be no second chances for people speaking on my behalf. But I also believe in giving everyone a chance to learn and grow, and I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that they understand why sensible people could have been offended at what they wrote, and that they can and will commit to accepting the responsibilities of their new roles. I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we have to reach out across the barriers that we have let grow to divide us, and include people whose words or beliefs may be challenging. It will take tolerance, discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in, and those values will have to start with me and my campaign team. I personally commit to you all that they will.

Channeling Amanda Marcotte:

My writings on my personal blog Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention was to stir up debate and cheerlead for the policies and political groups whose values I share. In moving to blog for the campaign, I understand that I have moved from a personal stage to a public one, and that I no longer can speak in the voice that I have used up until now. My commitment is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by my writings and I understand how it is that many people who may otherwise share my goals could have been offended. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and as someone who is moving from a factional cheerleader closer to the centers of power, defending those freedoms is becoming one of my highest priorities.

Channeling Melissa McEwan:

Shakespeare’s Sister is my personal blog, and I certainly don’t expect Senator Edwards to agree with everything I’ve posted. We do, however, share many views – including an unwavering support of religious freedom and a deep respect for diverse beliefs. I’m sorry that I wrote things that certainly read as challenging that support. I’m aware of the responsibility I have in speaking for the Senator and for the values he embodies, and I’ll ask everyone to watch my words and actions in the next months and let me prove my commitment with deeds.

Notice a core difference? I hate I’m-sorry-if-you-were-offended apologies. Don’t apologize for people’s reactions to what you did, apologize for what you did, and accept and acknowledge that people’s reactions may well have been legitimate.

Two years ago, Jonah Goldberg offered to bet Juan Cole $1,000 that the Iraqi and American people would – in two years’ time – feel strongly that the war was worth it (and that there would be no civil war, and some other related points).

Now I’ll yield to very few people in my low opinion of Professor Cole and his views.

But a bet’s a bet. And Goldberg is now skirting dangerously close to the man-law violation of welching.

Here’s my take. Jonah, write a check for $1K to Soldier’s Angels. They can use it, and it will improve your karma. Cole may not have accepted the bet, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t make it.

And monkyboy, wherever you are – that goes for you, too. Pay up, dude. Your soul will be lighter for it.