I don't mean to sound all Andy Rooney like when I say, "do you know what really bugs me?" but in the recent debate on torture, and to some extent in Bill Clinton's purple face meltdown on Fox News Sunday, something bugged me; when people substitute credentials for argument.

Case in point, the torture debate; from the McLaughlin Group to Meet the Press to Fox News Sunday, every single proponent of detainee protections, without exception, trumpeted the war experience of John McCain. “Well, if John McCain, given his experience, blah blah blah”. . . almost as though that alone settles the matter. I swear I actually heard Elanor Clift say nyah nyah nyah but it was just her usual condescending sneer.

In his defense on accusations of terrorist inaction, President Clinton's leaned very heavily on Richard Clark as the ultimate authority. He made a prolonged and elaborate effort to build up Clark's credentials; paraphrasing here… "Ask Richard Clark, who had served faithfully under Ronald Reagan, served faithfully under George H W Bush, served faithfully under me, and served faithfully under George Bush". The point being that we don’t have to believe him (gee, it’s almost as though he’s aware of his own reputation) but the word of Richard Clark is beyond reproach.

These are just the latest examples of the debate tactic Ann Coulter got into trouble describing when she used the 9/11 widows as her example. Her point, tactlessness notwithstanding, stands, and it is this; when the left can't win an argument on its merits they hide behind surrogates whose credentials we dare not challenge. It’s really nothing more than a diversionary tactic to change the subject. In a formal debate it would be the same as weighting certain team members more heavily than others before the debate even begins.

It all boils down to patriotic one-upmanship or what I call patriotism envy. Whether it’s the oft-used chickenhawk slur or Cindy Sheehan’s assumed higher authority due to her loss, it’s all bourn of the adolescent “mine is bigger than yours” mindset. This locker room mentality demeans the debate.

John McCain's war experience should be given all the respect it rightfully deserves but it should certainly never give him an extra vote in the Senate. Likewise, Richard Clark’s unique position at a certain time in history doesn't make his the only opinion that counts.

I am not sure I agree with Ms Coulter’s implication that this tactic is exclusive to the left but it is definitely, much like Clinton himself, a well-worn tool.

The more I read about the leaks of the classified NIE report, followed shortly by White House declassification, the more I am convinced government intelligence is an oxymoron. 
There are, as always, more questions than answers in this case, some obvious others, not so much.

First the obvious; isn't it odd how this administration can be accused of being the most tight-lipped and secretive ever when the main stock in trade of the mainstream press, The New York Times in particular, is the coverage of leaks?

Second; given their history, the NSA phone monitoring and Swift banking revelations to name a couple, and the fact this report was not only completed but distributed to congressional leadership in APRIL, how stupid must the NYT believe we are not to recognize this as anything but a political hatchet job perfectly timed for the fall election? 

Third and more troubling; if the White House thinks leaks are so terrible why do they allow such a steady stream?  Neither answer is very comforting but it's either A) they have very little control of their own agencies or B) they find them useful.

I think in this case it's the latter because the release of the entire document soundly and thoroughly contradicts the agendized slant of the original context-neutered snippet.  Yet again it is clear that the New York Times purposefully distorted good news into bad news for the sole purpose, it's only mission in life these days it seems, to reflect poorly on President Bush.  Why am I not surprised?

The fact is they have become so reliable in seizing on any and every opportunity to destroy this President that they actually lend credence to the theory that the White House leaks on purpose.  As plausible as that may seem it gives way too much credit to the White House and not enough to the New York Times.  (just because their agenda is stupid doesn't mean they are)  The more likely scenario is that the leaks are genuine but the White House is simply a lot better at handling them than the New York Times is at reporting them.  Lord knows they've sure had enough practice.    
 
It is sad that in a time of war the players in this gamesmanship need to concern themselves with such nonsensical political distraction.  It makes it hard to remember they are both, presumably, on the same side.

The other comments I've found of interest are on the actual quality of the entire report.  Powerline comments that the President should send it back with a note that reads, yeah, now tell me something I don't already know.  Instapundit is even harsher when he says not only should the leaker, but the writer, be fired, adding that if this is the quality of our intelligence it's no wonder we are losing.  Come to think of it, poor intelligence has been the most consistent subplot in this entire five year long story.  When are we going to start getting our moneys worth from that community? 

I watched in amazement as former President Clinton took Chris Wallace to the woodshed on Sunday morning.  I am not sure which impression stands out more, the narcissism run amok or the sheer pettiness.  Here was an opportunity to engender a little domestic unity, show humility, or actually demonstrate genuine statesmanship but not our Bill, he reverts to form and uses it to attack his critics.  Pantload.

I'm no psychologist, armchair or otherwise, but this dude has one guilty conscience.  Guilty and paranoid both, as he steadfastly refused to except responsibility while blaming all his problems on the old vast right wing conspiracy bogeyman.  His obsession with burnishing his leagcy now almost matches his obsession with being liked while in office.  Unfortunately, every decision during his entire term was based on two criteria alone: which would make him look the best or which would be the least damaging.  This modus operandi is what wrought the path to 9/11.        

One of his biggest tirades was against being accused of wagging the dog when he ordered the bombing of the chemical plant in Sudan.  Naturally his harshest critics would do so but an honest review of the days following that event doesn't square with his interpretation of the story, surprise, surprise.  The fact is most GOP leadership stood behind the action and applauded his tough stance on terror.  The main stream media, on the other hand, was less generous.  Jake Tapper of ABC news does a good roundup up reaction at the time here http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/6162370  

One irrefutable fact remains about that whole sordid episode; nothing gave more weight to the plausibility of the wag dog theory than his own behavior.  I mean think about it, even his water carriers in the main stream press didn't put it passed him.  There's your legacy Bill. 

Wow, this is rich.  From my Congressperson, Gwen Moore (D) Milwaukee, in the congressional  debate on why we shouldn't require ID's to vote...

"It would disenfranchise the elderly, disabled, poor, students and ethnic minorities."

Forget the reality that each of these potential problems is addresed in the legislation. What really gauls me is that Moore happens to be the mother of one of the Democrat operatives currently serving time for slashing the tires on GOP get-out-the-vote vans in 2004.  Well I guess there's no arguing her credentials on disenfranchising voters are impeccable, I mean with all that up close and personal experience and all.  And she's pretty specific about selective disenfranchisement cause it sure seems she's perfectly OK with disenfranchising us conservative white crackers.  You can't make this stuff up.  

It begs the obvious question no reproter has the guts to posit directly: Why are Democrats so willing to look so desperate and depraved in keeping elections dirty if they didn't have something to gain by doing so?  The question answers itself.
 

The debate of the week is torture.  And much to the cowardly delight of Democrats, it is taking place entirely within the GOP tent.  Mara Laiasin summed it up perfectly on NPR with this gem " Democrats are perfectly happy to sit this one out and hide behind the military credentials of John McCain".  Precious.

After much thought I feel like a non-pig on Orwell's Animal Farm at election time; "many fine speeches were made but in the end most animals agreed with whoever spoke last".  I expect that when push comes to shove the differences between Bush and McCain on how detainees are treated is razor thin and compromise will be reached.  In this debate, like so many inside the beltway, I would like to say the worst victim of torture is logic but it appears to me the positions of the parties involved are sincere.  That is not to say that rank politics plays no role but only that its role is secondary rather than primary - - for a change. 

On one hand the President's request for specificity to prevent potential war crime charges is perfectly reasonable.  In any policy, matters of law, or rules of engagement, clarity should trump ambiguity.  No reasonable person could disagree with that and I assume McCain, Graham, Warner etc. are reasonable.

Likewise, it is also reasonable to take McCain's concern about world opinion and the sanctity of the Geneva Conventions at face value - - to a point.  Considering the constant chorus of condemnation and general lack of support we get from most of the world it's opinion is given way too much weight.  That being said, I will grant that yielding to world oppinion may be a legitimate show of leadership insofar as it gives us a boost to the moral high ground.  However, where torture is concerned, when you compare even our harshest interrogation methods to beheadings, assuming the moral high ground is pretty easy.          

In this debate, as is so often the case in D.C., the real intrigue is more about the motivations of the players than the actual debate itself.  And, invariably, who has what to gain by their stance can be reduced to politics.  To that end I contend the following: President Bush wins because it keeps the larger debate focused on his strong suit, the war on terror.  John McCain wins because the interparty squabble, along with the media's crush, keeps the cameras focused on him.  Clearly he has determined the Presidential race is far enough into the future to worry about what the base thinks on this issue.  The GOP wins leadership points by default because it is the only place where a debate of this importance is taking place.  The Democrats, amazingly, managed to both exacerbate a weakness and diminish a strength all at the same time.  By sitting this one out they blew chances to look tough on terror and reinforce their priority on world opinion.

If current polling trends hold or continue don't be surprised when lefty conspiracy theorists look to this debate as both the turning point and a Rovian plot when the excuse making commences in November.  
  

 From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

An arbitration panel [Friday] reinstated Cedarburg High School science teacher Robert Zellner, who was fired by the school district after it discovered he had viewed pornographic material on his school computer.

School Board President John Pendergast said the arbitrator determined that the firing was improper because the school district had only reprimanded another teacher who had viewed stock quotes from a school computer.


You read it right folks.  In post post-modern America viewing pornography on a school computer is no worse than using a school computer to check stock quotes.  I'll go out on a limb and give the guy the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't child porn, but can't help believing  that would have changed the results.
hat tip to Best of the Web

My father-in-law, whom I dearly love and respect, sent the following column, probably by accident since we agreed to abstain from political dialogue following 911.  Let's just say it got to the point where peace in the family was at risk.  Both wives got involved and civility for its own sake continues to rule the day.   It's a pity though, because he's one smart, scholarly, author and poet, and I always appreciate and welcome well-informed views from any direction.  What better way to test your own beliefs than against others?  I used to enjoy the give and take of our lively debates and in truth it was probably an early inspiration to blog.  

Anyway, I offer the following as a glimpse of what those debates were like by printing the entire column followed by my refutation.  I miss those days but the civility thing seems to be working out.

 

Five Years After 9/11: Drop the War Metaphor
___________________________________________________________
by George Lakoff and Evan Frisch

Published on Monday, September 11, 2006 by CommonDreams.org


Language matters, because it can determine how we think and act.

For a few hours after the towers fell on 9/11, administration spokesmen referred to the event as a "crime." Indeed, Colin Powell argued within the administration that it be treated as a crime. This would have involved international crime-fighting techniques: checking banks accounts, wire-tapping, recruiting spies and informants, engaging in diplomacy, cooperating with intelligence agencies in other governments, and if necessary, engaging in limited "police actions" with military force. Indeed, such methods have been the most successful so far in dealing with terrorism.

But the crime frame did not prevail in the Bush administration. Instead, a war metaphor was chosen: the "War on Terror." Literal ­not metaphorical ­ wars are conducted against armies of other nations. They end when the armies are defeated militarily and a peace treaty is signed. Terror is an emotional state. It is in us. It is not an army. And you can't defeat it militarily and you can't sign a peace treaty with it.

The war metaphor was chosen for political reasons. First and foremost, it was chosen for the domestic political reasons. The war metaphor defined war as the only way to defend the nation. From within the war metaphor, being against war as a response was to be unpatriotic, to be against defending the nation. The war metaphor put progressives on the defensive. Once the war metaphor took hold, any refusal to grant the president full authority to conduct the war would open progressives in Congress to the charge of being unpatriotic, unwilling to defend America, defeatist. And once the military went into battle, the war metaphor created a new reality that reinforced the metaphor.

Once adopted, the war metaphor allowed the president to assume war powers, which made him politically immune from serious criticism and gave him extraordinary domestic power to carry the agenda of the radical right: Power to shift money and resources away from social needs and to the military and related industries. Power to override environmental safeguards on the grounds of military need. Power to set up a domestic surveillance system to spy on our citizens and to intimidate political enemies. Power over political discussion, since war trumps all other topics. In short, power to reshape America to the vision of the radical right ­ with no end date.

In addition, the war metaphor was used as justification for the invasion of Iraq, which Bush had planned for since his first week in office. Frank Luntz, the right-wing language expert, recommended referring to the Iraq war as part of the "War on Terror" ­ even when it was known that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and indeed saw Osama bin Laden as an enemy. Fox News used "War on Terror" as a headline when showing film clips from Iraq. Remember "Weapons of Mass Destruction?" They were invented by the Bush administration to strike terror into the hearts of Americans and to justify the invasion. Remember that the Iraq War was advocated before 9/11 and promoted as early as 1997 by the members of the Project for the New American Century, who later came to dominate in the Bush administration. Why?

The right-wing strategy was to use the American military to achieve economic and strategic goals in the Middle East: to gain control of the second largest oil reserve in the world; to place military bases right in the heart of the Middle East for the sake of economic and political intimidation; to open up Middle East markets and economic opportunities for American corporations; and to place American culture and a controllable government in the heart of the Middle East. The justification was 9/11 ­ to identify the Iraq invasion as part of the "War on Terror" and claim that it is necessary in order to protect America and spread democracy.

What has been the result?

Domestically, the "War on Terror" has been a major success for the radical right. Bush has been returned to office and the radical right controls all branches of our government. They are realizing their goals. Social programs are being gutted. Deregulation and privatization are thriving. Even highways are being privatized. Taxpayers' money is being transferred to the ultra-rich making them richer. Two right-wing justices have been appointed to the Supreme Court and right-wing judges are taking over courts all over America. The environment continues to be plundered. Domestic surveillance is in place. Corporate profits have doubled while wage levels have declined. Oil profits are astronomical. And the radical rights social agenda is taking hold. The "culture war" is being won on many fronts. And it is still widely accepted that we are fighting a "War on Terror." The metaphor is still in place. We are still taking off our shoes at the airports, and now we cannot take bottled water on the planes. Terror is being propped up.

But while the radical right has done well on the domestic front, America and Americans have fared less well both at home and abroad.

What was the moral of 9/11?

To Osama bin Laden, the moral was simple: American power can be used against America itself. This moral has defined the post 9/11 world: the more America uses military force in the Middle East, the more damage is done to America and Americans.

The more Americans kill and terrorize Muslims, the more we recruit Muslims to become terrorists and fight against us.

The war in Iraq was over in 2003 when the US forces defeated Saddam's army. Then the American occupation began ­ an occupation by insufficient troops ill-suited to be occupiers, especially in a country on the brink of a civil war, where neither side wants us there.

The number of lives lost on 9/11 is currently listed as 2973. As of this writing 2662 Americans have been sent to their deaths in Iraq, a Muslim country that did not attack us. At the current rate, within months more Americans will have been sent to their deaths by Bush than were murdered at the hands of bin Laden.

9/11 was a crime ­ a crime against humanity ­ and terrorism is best dealt with as crime on an international level.

It is time to toss the war metaphor into the garbage can.

The war metaphor is still intimidating progressives. To come out against "staying the course" is to be called unpatriotic, weak, and defeatist. To say, "no, we're just as strong, but we're smarter" is to keep and reinforce the war metaphor, which the conservatives have a patent on.

It is time for progressives to jettison the war metaphor itself. It is time to tell some truths that progressives have been holding back on. What has worked in stopping terrorism is just what has worked in stopping international crime ­ like the recent police work in England. What has failed is the war approach, which just recruits more terrorists. In Iraq, the war was over when we defeated Saddam's army. Then the occupation began. Our troops are dying because they are not trained be occupiers in hostile territory on the cusp of a civil war.

Bush is an occupation president, not a war president, and his war powers should be immediately rescinded. Rep. Lynn Woolsey's resolution to do just that (H.R. 5875) should be taken seriously and made the subject of national debate.

I am suggesting a conscious discussion of the war metaphor as a metaphor. The very discussion would require the nation to think of it as a metaphor, and allow the nation to take seriously the truth of our presence in Iraq as an occupation that must be ended. You don't win or lose an occupation; you just exit as gracefully as possible.

Openly discussing the war metaphor as a metaphor would allow the case to be made that terrorism is most effectively treated as a crime ­ like wiping out a crime syndicate ­ not as an occasion for sending over a hundred thousand troops and doing massive bombing that only recruits more terrorists.

Finally, openly discussing the war metaphor as a metaphor would raise the question of the domestic effect of giving the president war powers, and the fact that the Bush administration has shamelessly exploited 9/11 to achieve the political goals of the radical right ­ with all the disasters that has brought to our country. It would allow us to name right-wing ideology, to spell it out, look at its effects, and to see what awful things it has done, is doing, and threatens to keep on doing. The blame for what has gone wrong in Iraq, in New Orleans, in our economy, and throughout the country at large should be placed squarely where it belongs ­ on right-wing ideology that calls itself "conservative" but mocks real American values.

Metaphors cannot be seen or touched, but they create massive effects, and political intimidation is one such effect. It is time for political courage and political realism. It is time to end the political intimidation of the war metaphor and the terror it has loosed on America.

*George Lakoff and Evan Frisch are with The Rockridge Institute

Thanks for the column.  There's so much it's hard to know where to start but just off the top of my head here's a list.  And btw, this is from someone who has actually read Lakoff.

1) All well and good, for those stuck in the paradigm preceding 911, the one requiring the definition of enemy as being state sponsored.  Things have changed. 

2) Refusal to update definitions for modern application, of which Lakoff and Frisch are guilty, is also a form a rhetorical abuse.  Post 911, the definition of enemy has taken on a different meaning so it only follows that the definition of war would take on new meaning.  

3) I'm not all that keen on the war metaphor either, seriously, it's meaning was readily embraced, and subsequently diminished, with the "war" on poverty and the "war" on drugs.  No serious, i.e. non-agendized, linguist could argue those were more appropriate applications of the term.  I'll join the criticism of the White House for it's word choice, but mostly for it's lack of originality.  

4) Liberals sure are sensitive about having their patriotism questioned.  One would almost be lead to believe it has actually happened.  For all this sensitivity I have never, ever, heard anyone from the White House question anyone's patriotism outright.  Admittedly, some things said may have been construed that way, but that's usually just the product of the construers guilty conscience.  This knee jerk defensiveness brings more attention to their lack of patriotism than any actual charges I have ever heard, from the White House that is.  Print and blog journalism is another story.  But even then, it all brings to mind the question posed by the brilliant Mark Steyn who asked " if we are not allowed to question your patriotism when you root against your own country in a war, when can we?"   Paraphrased, but you get the point.   

5) Honestly, I think they give way too much credit to how the White House chooses its words.  And, by the way, doesn't this contradict the Bush-is-an-idiot narrative?   

6) Lakoff plays faster and looser with the definition of occupation than George Bush ever did with war. No occupier would allow, let alone facilitate, a conquered nation having 3 elections (where, incidently, the "occupiers" preferred candidate was defeated) writing it's own constitution, and forming its own government, security, and militia.  By that definition Germany is even more "occupied".

7) Tellingly enough these Democrat consultants reserve their criticism of word abuse exclusively for the right.  (My hunch is book sales have hit a slump or there is a new one coming out shortly).   I can't recall their outrage when Senator Durbin compared Gitmo to a gulag, and our soldiers on guard there to Pol Pot and Nazis.  Also, tellingly, I don't recall any White House officials questioning the Senators patriotism.  (But truthfully, in this case, how could anyone do a better job of it than Durbin did himself?)

8) As usual, the tired litany of damaging consequence goes entirely unsupported.  First, the worst thing you can say about the economy is that it could grow faster.  Second, on what basis, after more than five years without a subsequent attack, something virtually none of us would have predicted, can anyone put forth the argument that we are creating more terrorists?   And the right winning the cultural "war"?, oops that darned word again.  Please.  Just curious, how can the right be winning the cultural war while the left celebrates a new movie depicting the assassination of our President?  But don't question their patriotism! 

9) Praising London for thwarting airliner bombings while condemning this President for using substantially weaker techniques just doesn't wash.  English methods are far more invasive than anything George Bush ever proposed, but then so were those of FDR and Lincoln.  Not to name-drop but I'm just saying..... perspective too, is often a casualty of sloppy language.    

10)Given above points the call for "truth and realism" rings hollow.  When the opening paragraph posits that language matters is then followed by a body so filled with contradictory and unsupported text the whole argument falls flat.  But I'll still grant that war may well be a poor word choice. 

The larger failure is the seeming lack of recognition that this sort of anti-authority screed in Islam would get you beheaded, the Islamofascist method of questioning someone's patriotism.  Here we have the luxury of quibbling about language and word choice, a luxury worth fighting for I might add.  This entire column completely avoids any discussion about the nature of this enemy while focusing solely on the devastation caused by mislabeling.  Huh?  And the left wonders where we get off accusing them of being out of touch? 

I am all for throwing out the metaphor in favor of a more technically accurate term.  The problem is that when you call it an "international crime against humanity" you're really just relegating the solution to the UN - - the author's and left's real agenda. 

If that were to happen, and if we were to allow history as our guide, the UN would commence to placate, appease, and perpetuate the problem.  Then, eventually, when the appeasment chickens come home to roost and the UN finally decides it's time to tackle the problem head on, who do they call on for actual enforcement?  You guessed it - - the guys with the hammer that see every problem as a nail.  Now there's a nice steaming hot cup of "truth and realism" for you.     

So really, in the end the war metaphor is just a time saver.   Maybe they did choose it carefully.

Just wondering.  Think there's any correlation between the consistent sustained stream of President Bush finally responding to critics over the last week and a half and his rising poll numbers? (Rassmussen shows 47% approval today.  Sure nothing to brag about but if memory serves he's within single digits of doubling numbers from earlier this year) 

Maybe that old bully pulpit thingy actually works.  Of course plummeting gas prices may have something to do with it too.  I don't follow polls all that much.  It's sort of like watching a tennis match by watching the scoreboard.  The action is way to liquid for snap shots to have any significant meaning.   The only poll of actual consequence is on November 7.   

Anyone who knows me knows I am no Bush apologist and my biggest beef has been his inability, or is it unwillingness?, to explain his policies.   The thing is, if he doesn't the media will, and we all know a debate framed by opponents is debate already lost. 

If anything else, this week shows that doing it well matters a lot less than doing it at all.

This comment on detainees from a press conference today is good:   

"It's unacceptable to think there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective".

Simple, to the point and delivered with a passion he seldom musters.  Good show.

And here is a thinly veiled indictment of political opponents, for a change:

"Maybe it's not the politically expedient thing to do. But you can't make decisions based on politics about how to win a war."

A subliminal reference to critics who claim he is politicizing the war.  You know, the ones who have done nothing but politicize the war since they voted its approval. 

So bully to you Mr. President.  Seeing this through to a positive conclusion will require your permanent presence on the political battlefield.  Besides, it is perfectly in keeping with your credo of taking it to the enemy.  Carry on.    

This top ten comes from the Dept. of Defense.  And still, our reputation around the world suffers. 

I can't help but believe that only when we stop basing foreign policy on the adolescent mentality of doing what it takes to be liked will begin to make actual progress in the war on terror.  We know 2 things: 1) our reputation sucks no matter what we do and 2) everybody loves a winner (or if they don't at least they fear and/or respect them).  So why not just do what it takes to expedite the victory and get it over with?

Our own restraint is the biggest factor prolonging this conflict.  And we see just how well that's impacting our reputation. 

UPDATED Sept. 14, 2006

1. The detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility include bin Laden’s bodyguards, bomb makers, terrorist trainers and facilitators, and other suspected terrorists.

2. More money is spent on meals for detainees than on the U.S. troops stationed there. Detainees are offered up to 4,200 calories a day. The average weight gain per detainee is 20 pounds.

3. The Muslim call to prayer sounds five times a day. Arrows point detainees toward the holy city of Mecca.

4. Detainees receive medical, dental, psychiatric, and optometric care at U.S. taxpayers’ expense. In 2005, there were 35 teeth cleanings, 91 cavities filled, and 174 pairs of glasses issued.

5. The International Committee of the Red Cross visits detainees at the facility every few months. More than 20,000 messages between detainees and their families have been exchanged.

6. Recreation activities include basketball, volleyball, soccer, pingpong, and board games. High-top sneakers are provided.

7. Departing detainees receive a Koran, a jean jacket, a white T-shirt, a pair of blue jeans, high-top sneakers, a gym bag of toiletries, and a pillow and blanket for the flight home.

8. Entertainment includes Arabic language TV shows, including World Cup soccer games. The library has 3,500 volumes available in 13 languages — the most requested book is “Harry Potter.”

9. Guantanamo is the most transparent detention facility in the history of warfare. The Joint Task Force has hosted more than 1,000 journalists from more than 40 countries.

10. In 2005, Amnesty International stated that “the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has become the gulag of our times.”

From the Department of Defense

Office of Public Affairs – OSD Writers’ Group

Perhaps the most unfortunate, and definitely the most insidious, result of Post Modern enlightenment is its ugly and deformed offspring, moral relativism.  This tool of mushmindedness brings forth brilliant analogies from geniuses like Rosie O'Donnell on yesterdays airing of The View.  I quote:

"Fundamental Christianity is just as threatening as fundamental Islamism in a country like America today."

I may not have every syllable verbatim but it's close.  Besides, concepts this galactically stupid are pretty easy to grasp.  The only thing as troubling as the comment was the raucous applause immediately following but, to be charitable, we might be able to write some of that off to Pavlovian response to applause signs in the studio.  I wouldn't put it by a talentless hack like her to have the applause sign "utterance-activated" written into her contract.  Almost as disturbing was the other hosts letting it go unchallenged, implying agreement in their silence. 
 
I only happened across The View once, by accident, and figured it was designed to keep men from watching daytime TV.  It worked on me.  I have always said listening to celebrities on politics is as dumb as listening to politicians for entertainment. It might be temporarily satisfying but all it really shows is their lack of talent in both disciplines.    

As for moral equivalence, it's the one offspring that should have been killed at birth.

Caught an interview with Fox reporter Major Garrett on Laura Ingrham's radio show yesterday and it was also discussed on The O'Reilly Factor last night.  I don't recall all the details but Mr. Garrett recently visited Guantanamo and had some very troubling information about the treatment of detainees there. 
A few ket points stood out:

• the average weight gain of detainees is 20 pounds.
• maimed prisoners get prostetics, free.
• detainees over fifty get free colonsocopys, free.
• the ratio of health care workers to detainees is 4 to 1.  4 to 1!

This is almost enough to get me to join the chorus clamoring for its closure - - but for the opposite reasons.  Unless we use this coddling in a massive PR campaign to prove how much better we are than our enemies I say either finish them off or let the bastatrds bleed to death on the battle field.  My fiscal conservatism demands it because you know full well it ain't Amnesty International, the ACLU, or the Red Cross picking up the tab here folks.  It's us. 

I've made my dislike of El Russell Bin Feingold known plenty.  In spite of his surrender proposals in Iraq my biggest problem with this cut and run libtard is his abridgement of free speech.  Do I overstate?  Read the following editorial from the Washington Examiner and decide for yourself. (all emphasis mine)

My perspective is mere common sense but Bradley Smith is a former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission.  I gladly defer to his expertise and welcome the validation.

UPDATE: great related commentary at Captain's Quarters
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008051.php
be sure to scroll down to the comments.

I did manage to stay awake but if the substance wasn't so darn important the style certainly would have ushered me off to the land of nod.  Typical of his past performances this one is graded as follows: Style: C- Substance: A

On style it seemed, as it often does, that he is bothered by the idea that he needs to spend time explaining himself.  Like the harried CEO he would rather just get on with the solution and show us without wasting time telling us how that might be accomplished. 

On the other hand, he does have some gifted wordsmiths working for him.  Best line of the night:

Years of pursuing stability to promote peace had left us with neither. 

Although I might have written has instead of had, or used neither, but I won't quibble on a minor point.  The idea is that is he mentioned, in a statesmanlike manner, our past policies haven't worked and this is at least part of the reason for leading us in this direction.

Followed by:

So we changed our policies, and committed America's influence in the world to advancing freedom and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism.

Even the most rabid Bush Hater might, just might, agree this a reasonable alternative to propping up tin-pot dictators or maintaining a status quo for the sake of "stability".

And for those who accuse Bush of quashing the sense of hope America is known and loved for this should help calm them down a bit:

At the start of this young century, America looks to the day when the people of the Middle East leave the desert of despotism for the fertile gardens of liberty, and resume their rightful place in a world of peace and prosperity. We look to the day when the nations of that region recognize their greatest resource is not the oil in the ground, but the talent and creativity of their people. We look to the day when moms and dads throughout the Middle East see a future of hope and opportunity for their children. And when that good day comes, the clouds of war will part, the appeal of radicalism will decline, and we will leave our children with a better and safer world.

A lovely, inspired, and noble, sentiment and probably intended as much for war weary Americans as nonradical Muslims.  But in the end, I doubt he created any converts.  

Let's face it, branding works.  He has been branded everything from liar, to idiot, to Hitler, to warmonger, to terrorist and worse.  After more than 6 years of a steady barrrage of negativity even the perfect words, even perfectly delivered, will have little effect.  I can only hope voters give more credence to doing the right thing than to saying the right thing come November.      

UPDATE:
Michael Medved 
 http://rss.townhall.com/trackback/www/eb1fe6d4-88d1-417b-a3d0-6d9437a4eccb/
had this validating point to make:
No one would claim that Bush's eloquence comes close to Lincoln's--- no one, not even Churchill, or Reagan, could approach the prose mastery of the sixteenth President. But Lincoln and Bush faced the same dilemma in addressing the nation at a solemn occasion for honoring the dead: they couldn't defend and refocus the ongoing struggle without offending some of the war's most dedicated, implacable, radical opponents (Senator Kennedy called last night's speech "shameful.")

Emphasis mine.  The first line might be the understatement of the year, the last although belaboring the obvious a bit, still a necessary reminder that Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.  He hasn't gotten a fair shake yet so, like Lincoln, we will have to rely on history to set the record straight. 

As promised here is the post of my essay following the attacks of 9/11/2001.  The purpose here is to revisit and see how, or if, it holds.  I will do just that, with commentary, over the next few days and certainly encourage and appreciate your help.

Oh That it Could Be So Simple

Recent poles show a groundswell of support for a military response to the recent atrocities in New York and Washington DC. Oh that it could be so simple. If only this could be handled like swatting an annoying bug. Unfortunately, this particular bug is viral and if there is a cure it will be eventual rather than swift. I am afraid my four-year old son will reach recruitment age before this is over.

In Madison and other liberal strongholds they're organizing peace rallies. We can’t blame the students. Society has traditionally afforded them this time for enlightenment and to ponder various ideologies to form their worldview. If the events of September 11 didn’t do it, perhaps the body bags of their non-student contemporaries will help them see the difference between the world we have and the world we want. Rally to your bleeding hearts content but ignoring reality will not help. Our soft underbelly is those without the stomach to respond with force. If that mentality prevails we might as well replace Old Glory with a white flag.

They are in school to learn so let’s urge them to study the lessons of contemporary history. The original World Trade Center bombing was our wake up call and the attack on the USS Cole was a shot across the bow, though deliberately low. The tepid responses to those events brought us the events of September 11. The painfully clear lesson is that our unwillingness to render harsh consequences escalates terrorism. Given this lesson it is easy to see why this enemy considers us a paper tiger. If, like many believe, this is an attack on our national psyche, it is not paranoid but practical to believe that this enemy is relying on the pacifist movement as an unwitting collaborator. It is also prudent to note that both targets may well have been chosen because they were icons of conservatism, capitalism and military might.

At the very least, a deepened political chasm works to their advantage because divisive rhetoric compromises our unity and diffuses our focus. Right wing nut Jerry Falwell’s claim that we deserved this because of God’s displeasure is no less damaging than left wing nut Michael Moore’s open question, “why bomb the blue states, they didn’t vote for Bush”? For the good of the country this brand of rhetorical rubbish should be shelved until we regain the luxury of debating relatively petty concerns like social security. For the time being we have bigger fish to fry. Liberals should note that their fear of reckless retaliation decreases with each passing day and new coalition ally. Conservatives should not confuse patience with a lack of resolve.

We have no quarrel with the majority of Afghanistan, or Iraq for that matter, but at what point do we hold the citizenry of a country accountable for the actions of their government? Oh that it could be so simple to carpet bomb terrorism out of existence. We need the maturity to accept that difficult problems do not have easy solutions and keep our obsession with instant gratification from justifying excessive force. It was the killing of innocent people that awakened this country from the dreamy slumber of complacency and to respond in kind would make matters worse. More of the same would help the recruitment of brainwashed zealots and alienate more countries. Conversely, we cannot let the fear of a tarnished reputation compromise our resolve. Our response must be fierce but measured, lethal but precise. Anything less would be tantamount to surrender and an invitation for more. Terrorism unanswered makes it perpetual and allowing it to continue is equally immoral.

Here is a short video http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/06/0906/911intro.html
compiled by James Lileks, who in my opinion is among the best in the blogging business along with Hugh Hewitt, Victor Davis Hansen, Christopher Hitchens (my favorite liberal) Powerline, Jeff Goldstein (Protein Wisdom).  They all have the gift of word compression to the point, ironically, where you sometimes stop and reread because it's just that good.  Once I figure out how to develop a blogroll these and others will be linkable from this site.

There are so many gifted writers out there that trying to be a voice in an arena so saturated with talent is fruitless.  But then I realize that while the talent is hardly comparable, in my wildest dreams perhaps, it is the need to express we have in common.  So I write.    

Lileks is a special case since we have so much in common, both native upper midwesterners, same age, with daughters the same age.  We both had 30 year class reunions this year.  I did not have a blog this time but did pen a toast at www.cchs76.com that people seemed to like.  Much to my delight a month or so after that Lileks blogged about his reunion and arrived at some of the same conclusions.  The Heartland Wife claimed he said the same thing.  Well, she is too kind and generous but that is no faint praise, even from an obviously bias source.