good news?

I should begin this post by admitting that I really cannot envision a satisfactory solution to the situation in Iraq. There have been so many egregious mistakes and miscalculations that any kind of objectively-defined successful outcome to this war seems increasingly unlikely.

In the Sunday NYT, Eric Schmidt reports that:

. . . the top American commander in the Middle East outlined a plan that would gradually reduce American forces in Iraq by perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 troops by next spring.

On the Shields and Brooks segment of the Newshour with Jim Lehrer on Friday, Mark Shields, bar-none the finest and smartest political pundit seen regularly on television, explained the problem in this way:

I think for the first time what we're understanding is there's no narrative to this war; there's no landing at Normandy then taking Paris and then the fall of Berlin. There are no battles. There's no success. And the president has laid down a standard for victory that is the democratization and freedom of Iraq and maybe even the Middle East that is probably un-meetable, unattainable and that the George Bush's presidency and his legacy will be judged not by leave no child behind or anything of the sort. Iraq is going to be the ultimate test.

He's right. On a day-to-day basis, the most the administration can hope for is a stalemate in the "War on Terror," or whatever it is they're calling it these days.

muslims and islam

On Thursday night, the Newshour with Jim Lehrer had a roundtable discussion with "four Muslims of diverse perspectives." In it, Shaker Elsayed, the imam of Dar al Hijrah in Northern Virginia, one of the largest mosques on the East Coast, discussed the problem the media has with regard to distinguishing between Islam and Muslims.

Having an authority would have helped unify the voice, but I see that in the discussion we tend to confuse the name of Islam with Muslims, even in this discussion. We tend to use these words alternatively when we say, for example, "Islam expressing this." Islam is a religion that comes through two primary sources of text: The Koran and the traditions of the prophet. Those are the ones, if we talk about Islam, reforming Islam, for example, we're talking about the text.

But reforming Muslims is something very needed. It is about Muslims not about Islam. Like, you know, when Timothy McVeigh does something, we don't call it Christianity, we don't call it Catholicism, or whatever school of thought he belongs to. We call it Timothy McVeigh. This is Osama bin Laden having a war of ideas. And as Shadi says, a war of ideas is not going to be defeated by, you know, a tank and a weapon and airplane. A war of ideas needs engagement, and this is what we need to encourage our leadership to engage; not with terrorists, but at least with moderate Muslims. But this is not happening. . . . .

When you talk about reforming Islam, Islam is the text, not the interpretation. But if you go through text and religious books and scriptures before that, you will find the talk about the gentiles in the Old Testament. You will find the talk about sell your garment and get me a sword if you can. You will find a lot of things. Religious texts have also carried the stuff that could not really be sorted out in a brief discussion like this.

While I agree with the broader point that radical Christians who break laws are rarely identified by their religions, I disagree with the specific example of Timothy McVeigh. I may be mistaken, but I don't believe that he professed to act in the name of his religion.

While it is certainly not right to condemn Islam for the acts of individual Muslims, it remains incredibly significant that many of those who commit terrorism are able to cloak it so successfully in the rhetoric of this specific religion. To ignore that fact is a fundamental mistake if we ever hope to craft effective policies to counter the tactics of would-be terrorists.

not so happy anniversary

60 years ago today, the Harry S. Truman administration decided to drop an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima. This was a momentous event in the course of history, both American and human. Yet, for some reason, it is not the primary image remembered by most Americans when they think of WWII.

At the History News Network, an article from Ascribe has been posted that looks at this issue of what we remember about WWII and why. In a different article at the same site, Leo Maley III and Uday Mohan make the case that the time has come for Americans in general and conservative Americans in particular to confront the reality and enormity of the decision that was made 60 years ago.

Some Americans recall the event with shame and express their fervent hope that nuclear weapons never be used again. Others firmly believe that the use of atomic bombs saved American lives by ending the war prior to a bloody American invasion of Japan. More challenging to consider is whether it was an unjustifiable act in a fully justified war. . . .

Our failure to grapple fully with the ethical questions stemming from our use of mass violence against civilians has meant that we unwittingly endorse an act that some would consider state terror. We rightly expect Germany and Japan to confront painful episodes from their participation in World War II. Now it's our turn.

At the L.A. Times,' Max Boot points out the practical unanimity of agreement among Americans at the time that this was a wise decision. He also questions the lethality of the atom bomb when compared to other measures used by the military during WWII. In a similar fashion, Yuki Tanaka compares the destruction wrought by the atom bomb with that of the firebombs and the vigorous aerial campaigns conducted with them.

While I agree with both authors that in terms of the human death toll, dropping the atom bomb may not have been considerably more devastating than many of the other horrifying tactics used during the "Great War," I also think that it is very convenient to look at the results and compare what occurred with what came before. (I refuse to use a cliche about hindsight here)

The main thing about the atom bomb though is that no one knew what would happen. For all intents and purposes, it was a science experiment conducted on a civilian population. So, sure, numerically there may have been fewer deaths, but aren't we really just lucky that it worked out that way?

anonymous lies

Following up on the SCTTWH and Novak posts, I wanted to make sure that I linked to this Nation article by Frances Cerra Whittelsey. In it, she writes:

A major argument used by supporters of the status quo of White House news coverage is that providing anonymity guarantees access. Access to informed sources is important, but for what purpose? For phony stories about yellowcake in Niger? For tragically wrong stories about weapons of mass destruction that did not exist? Spare us that kind of access and the war it helped foment.

It's no wonder George W. Bush has such contempt for the media. His cronies must laugh regularly about how easily they manipulate reporters. Driven by ego and competitive pressure, they are willing carriers of the Administration's propaganda, blinded by feelings of false power because they are close to the people actually pulling their strings.

novakula's conspirators

Over at TPM cafe, there is an interesting thread about the bizarre outburst by Novak yesterday. A lot of the material on the thread is subjective speculation, but I can't help but feel enormous glee about this mean-spirited partisan hack's breakdown and the subsequent public parsing of the incident.

The one thing that I regret about this whole episode is that it seems like, by all accounts, the next topic on the program was going to be Novak's role in the whole Rove-Plame/Wilson scandal.

After two years of obfuscating and declining to comment on an "ongoing investigation" in which he played a major role, Novak wrote a column this week "defending" himself against ex-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow's contention that he had advised that Novak should not publish Plame's name. Of course, Josh Micah Marshall explained how Novak was desperately throwing out a red herring with his contentions.

However, the main point is that by commenting on this "ongoing investigation" in his column, Novak could no longer position himself above the fray. Henceforth, "no comment" would not be an acceptable answer.

It was great to see Novak explode, but it would have been nice to see him squirm a little too.

the godfather of intelligent design

Paul Krugman has a characteristically excellent column out today. It's about how Irving Kristol, the godfather of the neo-conservative movement, can be considered the symbolic godfather of intelligent design as well.

Although intelligent design was not necessarily one of his "issues," Kristol developed the tactics and strategies that have been used by the proponents of this pseudoscientific concept. His main message was: If you don't like what the "experts" (scientists, economists, journalists, etc.) are saying, hire your own "experts."

As an aside, it should also be noted that this tactic is quite similar to the strategy used by the Bush administration when the overwhelming majority of CIA reports seemed to indicate that Iraq did NOT have a nuclear weapons program.

strength in numbers?

Whenever the MSM comments on blogs, they do so with a certain amount of disdain. I believe that those who go to school and work in a "professional" journalistic atmosphere are jealous of the seemingly unearned level of interest and respect that is paid to many of these individuals who they see as the equivalent of armchair quarterbacks.

When compared to the previous coverage of blogs though, this scenario reminds me of that Gandhi quote: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

Anyway, this editorial from the NYT contains the requisite skepticism. However, it also acknowledges both the immediacy and individuality of the medium, allowing for the potential of both new forms of communication and expression. Without question, the biggest problem is that the swiftly growing number of blogs dillutes and limits the potential for any one particular blog to make a difference.

count novakula suspended

I was done posting for the day until I ran into this tasty nugget from, of all places, newsmax.com.

Apparently, CNN finally got the guts to suspend Robert Novak, the prince of darkness, douchebag of liberty, and partisan hack extraordinare. Too bad it wasn't for his roll in the initial leaking and cover-up of the Rove-Plame scandal.

Instead, things got a little heated on the set of Inside Politics when James Carville referenced the investigation over the course of a different story and Novak let loose with some vulgarity and stomped off the stage.

If you like your news from somewhere more reputable than Newsmax though (I certainly do), Atrios has the run-down, bleeped video links and all. Also, Think Progress has some wonderful examples of Novak's hypocrisy with regard to foul language.

intelligent design

On the face of it, the notion of teaching intelligent design as or alongside regular science is ridiculous. Mind you, I fully understand how a totally rational person could believe in this concept as a legitimate description of how life began. However, teaching it at public schools as a system of thought or theory comparable to that of evolution is ludicrous and potentially damaging to students' comprehension of science and the scientific method.

That being said, it is no surprise that President Bush is out on the stump advocating for intelligent design during his working vacation.

Frankly, I can't believe either the President or his policy advisers really believe that this is truly a good idea. Hell, six months ago, his own science adviser John H. Marburger III stated that "intelligent design is not a scientific theory." (Maybe he'll "retire" soon too.)

However, it does serve two purposes: it can be seen as 1) some symbolic red meat for the true believers who voted so overwhelmingly for him on the basis of "social issues" and 2) an attempt to push Karl Rove further down in the list of daily news stories.

Meanwhile, the editors at the National Review actually believe that "Whatever the outcome of the debate over evolution, it should be conducted at the local level." I can't believe that anyone really believes that we should have different standards for what constitutes science based on what state or county one lives, but, what do you expect, it is the National Review.

scttwh

Ryan Lizza at the New Republic tries to get to the bottom of identifying SCTTWH. Don't know who SCTTWH is/are? You're not the only one.

However, if you pay attention to the news at all, I'm sure that you've read or heard a news story from which SCTTWH has provided information (or, depending upon the needs and motives of SCTTWH, misinformation). Apparently, this administration has no problem with anonymous sources if they come from the right places and say the right things.

republocrats

Over at Alternet, David Morris wrote a fascinating article about the similarities between the current two parties in American politics. According to Morris, although their rhetoric may be substantially different, the voting patterns of Democratic and Republican legislators are remarkably similar, especially on controversial issues.

However, the main partisan divide appears to occur when legislators vote on amendments, which are often strict party-line votes. I think that this says some very interesting things about the manner in which policy is crafted. On the one hand, this unanimity can provide hope that nothing too radical is likely to come out of Congress. However, it also indicates a uniformity of thought that may be very disconcerting to anyone who still holds a Jeffersonian notion of two differing parties duking it out in the marketplace of ideas.

Regardless of your interpretation of the meaning of this information, it should be understood and accepted that knowledge of congressional voting records is incredibly important in order to maintain an informed electorate. This is something that the media, both partisan and non, does a very poor job of providing.

Perhaps sometime I will sit down to write a long post describing my feelings about Howard Dean and his perceived persona. Today is not that day. Suffice to say that Morris' characterization of Dean's interview with Jon Stewart is very similar to the way that I feel about it as well.

However, if you want to hear a potential presidential candidate who is willing to speak his mind, check out Stewart's recent interview with the current '08 candidate of choice of your's truly Senator Joe Biden from Delaware.

cellphone savvy

Around my house, we're usually slow to pick up on the latest technology or popular trends. In the last 10 years, I'd have to say that the only things that my wife and I have been quick to adopt have been Tivo and Netflix (They're both the bomb. Trust me.)

Other than that, we (probably mostly me) have a tendency to decide that we don't need any of that silly equipment. We get along just fine without it, thank you very much.

Then, once the market has been thoroughly saturated, we take the plunge and decide how great X is, spending the next few months telling everybody we know how amazing our new device is or this new program that we just "got onto." Regardless of the fact that most of the civilized world has already acquired said device or knows more about the show than we.

This has been the case with everything from portable phones, to Internet access, to satellite television, to high-speed Internet access as well as television programs like "The Sopranos" and "Desperate Housewives." (If you don't already, watch them)

Anyway, we just recently got dual cellphones and we are beside ourselves over being able to talk to each other at any time for free. Did you know about this cool technology? I'm sure you did.

Coincidentally, while we've been basking in our new found technological liberation, the New York Times has been of two minds on the subject. On the one hand, Tom Friedman wrote yesterday about the dire state of American wi-fi and cellular services as compared to that of other developed nations. In it, Friedman is upset that the Japanese are able to receive service while riding on their underground bullet trains while Americans struggle with cellphone signals in many open air areas. Personally, given the choice, I'd take having underground bullet trains over having cellphone service on under ground bullet trains any day of the week, but that's not Friedman's point.

Then today, in the Technology section, Matt Richtel and Ken Belson wrote about the growing prevalence of these products in some of the most unlikely of places. Although I'm impressed with the notion of a widening of access to this very helpful technology, I can't help but be reminded of "Cash 'n' Go" style business practices with regard to the way these cellphones are being marketed and sold.

btw, reading NY Times articles on-line requires a one-time, free registration. Regardless of whether or not you want to read the articles I've linked to, I highly recommend that you register for your own reading pleasure.

this second is mine

I read yesterday that every second a new blog is created, so I declare this my second.

As of right now, we are still in prototypical mode, but, in the future, look for my opinions on music, movies, politics, and literature.

While I'm trying to figure out how I'll use this new tool, I recommend you check out mediamatters.org and atrios.blogspot.com for interesting news and political commentary.

Feel free to leave comments.

Peace!

Josh

p.s. If you are familiar with RSS feeds, hook yourself up with this sweet one.

http://unjoymsf.blogspot.com/atom.xml.

You won't regret it.