Liberal Liberation

Michael J. Totten, one of the smartest liberal writers around, points to Christopher Hitchens' recent first-hand account of the liberation of Iraq:

The welcome that I've seen American and British forces get in parts of Iraq is something I want to start - I want to mention first because there are people who say that that never happened. It is commonly said by, umm, political philosophers like Maureen Dowd say that the - where were the sweets and where were the flowers? Well, I saw it happen with my own eyes and no one's going to tell me that I didn't. I saw it with - months after the invasion, people still lining the roads, especially in the south.

I remember seeing flowers on television--no sweets, but I am willing to give some slack on that since I can't imagine where they would buy them in sufficient supply, particularly with Saddam trying to quietly starve his own people--and the more recent cheers (and purple fingers!) with the elections. As one of the comments at Totten's site reads...

Iraq is a country of 24 million, of whom lets say 1/4 are males of military age. That means 6 million or so. Automatic weapons etc. are plentiful in Iraq. No army, even with air supremacy, armor etc. can stand against 50-1 odds on the other guy's turf if the other side desires a fight. The common Iraqi has had two years to decide to wipe us out. They have chosen not to. If they truly wanted us out we wouldn't last a week. Heck, let's go further. If only 1/10th of the military aged males came against us, we'd lose hundreds a week. THAT would be Vietnam.

We remain in Iraq, as we always have, only with the goodwill, or at least tolerance of the general population.

And:

Look: the "insurgents" have as their most effective tactic blowing up Iraqi Security recruiting centers, because there are lots of recruits and not-so-many "insurgents".

It's an effective tactic, of course, trading one man for 10 or 15. Any Civil War general would have jumped at that kind of tradeoff.

But aren't any of the naysayers getting the significance of that ratio? Or understanding the desperation of the side resorting to the tactic?

I think we owe it to all the Iraqis who stood in line, both to vote and to sign up, to stick it out a good while longer. "Cutting bait" in this case would be the same as cutting throats...

This is basically a continuation of an earlier post, but the thought bears repeating.

Update: Looks like the budget cuts have already begun...

Dick "Dick" Durbin Writes Back

Perhaps the Democratic senator from Illinois who drew comparisons between U.S. troops and Nazis/Communists simply has a love of dramatic metaphors?

Darth Tater's Best Spuds

Need two of these to flank Darth while he lets rebels stew...

And We Can Win

Here is proof!

If America Is Worth Fighting For, So Is Iraq

The Iraqis are better off. Our tactics are improving. Heck, a pro-intervention film appeared at Cannes and military rappers are calling for support. There are good things happening in Iraq (as the latest must-read Chrenkoff entry shows), as well as bad.

Yet the insurgents (and their unwitting allies) in Iraq are playing off American fears, which is paying off. Even the "These colors don't run" crowd are deciding that surrender may be a perfectly acceptable alternative after all. (You have to wonder what these characters would write about our occupation of France.) Defeatism is America's greatest home-grown enemy. The disturbing news:

Six in 10 Americans say they think the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, the highest number who have said that in the Gallup poll.

I watched The Patriot again yesterday. It is far from great (though John Williams' score is effective), but it reminded me that America's own fight for freedom relied on the assistance of a foreign power. Iraq's equivalent of Yorktown will be very different, it may not be a battle at all, but it is worth remembering where we might be had the French pulled out before finishing the job. Liberty was the motivation then, and Victor Davis Hanson's classic "Western Cannibalism" article from early last year makes a liberal argument for ensuring success now...

Everything that the world holds dear — the free exchange of ideas, the security of congregating and traveling safely, the long struggle for tolerance of differing ideas and religions, the promise of equality between the sexes and ethnic groups, and the very trust that lies at the heart of all global economic relationships — all this and more Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the adherents of fascism in the Middle East have sought to destroy: some as killers themselves, others providing the money, sanctuary, and spiritual support.

We did not ask for this war, but it came. In our time and according to our station, it is now our duty to end it. And that resolution will not come from recrimination in time of war, nor promises to let fundamentalists and their autocratic sponsors alone, but only through the military defeat and subsequent humiliation of their cause. So let us cease the hysterics, make the needed sacrifices, and allow our military the resources, money, and support with which it most surely will destroy the guilty and give hope at last to the innocent.

The terrorists and insurgents have a losing position, and we need to make them realize that. Liberty enlightening the world is a threat to those who prefer seeing the world in despotism's shadow, and to them alone. We have a choice between principle and negligence in Iraq; a choice between commitment and betrayal; a choice between victory and self-defeat.

Update: Hanson now:

Rather, the American public is tiring of the Middle East, its hypocrisy and whiny logic — and to such a degree that it sometimes unfortunately doesn't make distinctions for the Iraqi democratic government or other Arab reformers, but rather is slowly coming to believe the entire region is ungracious, hopeless, and not worth another American soldier or dollar.

This is a dangerous trend. Despite murderous Syrian terrorists, dictatorial Saudis, crazy Pakistanis, and triangulating European allies, and after so many tragic setbacks, we are close to creating lasting democratic states in Afghanistan and Iraq — states that are influencing the entire region and ending the old calculus of Middle Eastern terror. We are winning even as we are told we are losing.

Movie Star Favorites

In response to Prof. Geras' plea regarding his film stars poll...

Lauren Bacall
Christian Bale
Angela Bassett
Glenn Close
Cary Grant
Tom Hanks
Nicole Kidman
Angela Lansbury
Peter O'Toole
James Stewart

Such lists always drive me bonkers. A point comes where ranking art, ranking people turns from an effort to understand the subject and becomes something crude. There are a lot of great performers, so I ended up simply going with ones as they popped into my head. As good a method as any, I suppose. But it is not like they are cattle.

Or So The Germans Would Have Us Believe

Davids Medienkritik is on top of Germany's Tatort storyline that pandered to "Bush planned 9/11" conspiracy theorists.

Many picked on America for having "Saddam planned 9/11" conspiracies, but at least the target of that paranoia was a fascist with terrorist connections. (Yale didn't exactly produce a criminal mastermind.) Portraying a legitimately elected official as a de facto dictator is a dangerous game, and I find the proliferation of such nonsense very frightening indeed... Though I confess some amusement at how, as Prof. Reynolds wrote, "Bush's ability to drive his opponents stark, raving bonkers is almost supernatural."

The article also mentions the "Moon Hoax", which reminds us that even a peaceful entity like NASA is not immune to anti-Americanism.

Hey Baby, Wanna See My Titan Arum?

Watch out, it's gonna bloom!

General Sherman's Legacy

Citizen Grim of the blasphemously-named Right Hand of God blog confronts the problem of taking appropriate action...

For example, just last week, I was walking through the park and I come around some trees to see this huge demon on horseback on the other side of the pond, swinging a saber around, lighting fires, and generally making mischief. This one blind dude wandered out into the fracas, obviously having no clue what was going on, and the demon, with a fiery glee, turned and charged him. In that moment of indecision, I had to ask myself: What Would Jesus Do?

I decided that Jesus would most likely dash across the surface of the pond, smite the demon with divine justice, put out the fires with a glance from his eyes, and then heal the blind dude, just for good measure.

That didn't help me much, as my superpowers are relatively underdeveloped, so I had to ask myself the second question: What Would General Sherman Do? Well, I reasoned, General Sherman would probably raze the city and leave a swath of destruction all the way to the sea.

Which was significantly easier to accomplish, once I enlisted the demon's aid.

The lesson drawn from this is every bit as educational.

The Defense Spending Myth

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put forward some unhappy remarks about the Chinese boosting their military, and that made China upset:

"Since the U.S. is spending a lot more money than China is doing on defense, the U.S. should understand that every country has its own security concerns and every country is entitled to spend money necessary for its own defense," Cui told The Associated Press after Rumsfeld's remarks.

China's right to self-defense is a given, and Rumsfeld surely would have kept his mouth shut if he knew who is such a serious threat China. Or maybe he does know and is concerned about China's present response? If China is preparing an attack on Taiwan, Rumsfeld's remarks make a great deal of sense: Protecting Taiwan is not only a good deed, it is a U.S. security policy.

No, what annoys me is Cui repeating the view of U.S. military expenditures that results from using absolute dollars. At first glance, he is correct. The U.S. spent $370,700,000,000 on defense at last report, while China spent $67,490,000,000 for a distant second place. However, much of America's cost is purely by virtue of the United States being more active on the humanitarian scene, demanding more advanced equipment, and spending more on disarmament. Any comparison between military expenditures would do well to consider how much goes toward actual defense, as opposed to humanitarian, development, or support functions. Barring that, the percentage of gross domestic product represents how much a nation pulls from what they have in their wallet...

Suppose we apply that last thought to charity. If a person with $10 in his pocket passes by a collection tin and donates $5, he sacrifices 50% of his available funds. If a person with $100 also donates $5, is he equally charitable?

Out of the respective nations' GDP, the United States stands a full percent below China's 4.30% on defense expenditures... China uses more of its wealth on military.

E.T. Phone Earth

National Geographic's latest poll on aliens found that most Americans believe extraterrestrial life is possible. Interesting stuff, but what stood out for me was the next-to-last paragraph:

The poll also reported that belief in alien life did not split across political lines, but did vary depending on religious practices. Democrats and Republicans were equally likely to believe in life on other planets, while regular churchgoers were less likely to believe in extraterrestrial life (about 46 percent) than non-churchgoers (about 70 percent), the poll stated.

Kinda undermines the stereotypes of Democrats as godless Modernists and Republicans as unthinking Puritans, doesn't it?

(Of course, it is no secret that aliens cause global warming.)

Quote Of The Day

From the comments section at Beautiful Atrocities:

Hitler - sexually ambiguous vegetarian, failed artist, coffeehouse philosopher. Likes: funny facial hair, snappy clothes, over-the-top opera. Dislikes: big business, the bourgeoise, Americans and Jews.

If Hitler exists today, he's a copy editor at the Village Voice.

Be sure to click the link for a Hitler roundup. (James Lileks takes note.)

Bush Goes Blogging

The circle is now complete:

Part I

Part II

Part III

In Local News

Memphis politics are mostly uncultured petty squabbling with occasional bursts of cultured petty squabbling, but the indictment of several Tennessee politicians, including four from Memphis, is too big for me to ignore.

Of particular note on the list is Memphis' most controversial figure, state Sen. John Ford. He is the uncle of the far more credible Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (who announced a bid to replace Sen. Bill Frist yesterday and would probably like voters to forget some family ties). In addition to being the target of the FBI investigation into his financial deals, John Ford's troubled past includes apparently creating a child support bill for himself concerning at least six children he's had with three different women in two different homes, related questions about his residency, and really too many conflicts to enumerate here.

So, yes, it looks like they are finally going to catch the dirty rotten scoundrel.

Update: Bill Hobbs has the goods.

Update: The John Ford indictment (pdf file).

Filly Buster

Mickey Kaus points out that the judicial filibuster deal may simply be a way to keep Congress corrupt:

The filibuster's infrastructural role has powerful multiplier effect: It means not only that obscure minority Senators attract millions in campaign contributions. while the aides of obscure minority Senators aides find pleasant $250,000 jobs as influencers with vital "access." It means that those Senators can afford to hire well-paid fundraisers to funnel those contributions, while interest groups need direct mail experts to raise the money to make their own "access" producing contributions, and all these people need restaurants like The Palm to feed them and brokers to swap their houses and mechanics to service their Acuras and Audis. Thanks to the Senate's precious right of unlimited debate, a wave of prosperity sweeps over the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area! Funded by the rest of the country.

Probably true. Still, while Kaus' admitted cynicism cuts through the high rhetoric, the filibuster (on judicial nominees or other matters) is worth defending, and ought to appeal to both parties. Democrats should appreciate this deal because it favors them (as Kaus noted 12 hours earlier) and largely guarantees them a seat at the table, and Republicans should appreciate it as upholding the values of Republicanism that hold the United States as a democratic but constitutional republic where minority rights are equal to those of the majority, as opposed to the majority autocracy of direct democracy. The ad hoc coalition kept mob rule away from the most powerful branch of government. That is cause for celebration.

I do support the calls for a supermajority vote on judges that have some folks upset, although America's Founding Fathers considered one version of such a vote (from The Founder's Constitution, via Althouse):

Mr. Madison, suggested that the Judges might be appointed by the Executives with the concurrence of 1/3 at least of the 2d. branch. This would unite the advantage of responsibility in the Executive with the security afforded in the 2d. branch agst. any incautious or corrupt nomination by the Executive.

My own observation is that, unlike staff appointments and general legislation, judicial appointments last for life and are supposedly non-partisan. I care very little about whether the "2d. branch" and the Executive are working well together compared to whether we see fair & effective judges on the bench. We need justices more than half the country can respect, otherwise "Judicial activism!" becomes the rallying cry whenever a decision proves unpopular and appointees become little more than political pawns. Supermajorities force the government to either get along or get distracted. Either option works for me. A supermajority requirement for judicial nominees seems like a good, easy way to restore some lost faith in the system.

If I am wrong? Interest groups are paying off senators anyway (they do that everywhere; it is one of those international traditions you're always hearing about), so we might as well make it cost them.

They're Russian To Judgment

First, Russian President Vladimir Putin puffed himself up as a truer democrat than American President George W. Bush...

In the United States, you first elect the electors and then they vote for the presidential candidates. In Russia, the president is elected through the direct vote of the whole population. That might be even more democratic.

If you define democracy as strict majority rule with fewer checks & balances against fraud, yes. Following up on Putin's ignorance of America, I must remind him that the United States is a democratic republic, which means the heart of the election (and government as a whole) is supposed to be Constitutional law, not mob rule. Which leads us to...

Four years ago, your presidential election was decided by the court.

The Supreme Court ruled that the pivotal Florida vote was unfair to everyone, but that there was not enough time to sufficiently study and legally correct the voting process in Florida. A joint Miami Herald/USA Today study later found that only one scenario could allow a Gore win: a state-wide recount using the loosest standards possible. The biggest study, by the National Opinion Research Center, confirmed that only the most fraud-friendly standards would have provided a Gore victory. The problem is America's lack of uniformity on voting, but that clearly can't be worse than in Russia. Given the legal concerns regarding democratic failure in three counties of one state, the parties made the logical step of advancing to those who know the law. This beats going to the chief executive and/or his cronies for arbitration, as seems to occur in certain backsliding democracies. Which then leads us to...

Democracy cannot be exported to some other place.

Yeah, it would be like dropping bombs on (and then occupying!) Japan and Germany in order to foster democracy in places that, at best, hadn't had it in awhile. Or like an international organization meddling to such an extent that it can impose borders, send people to keep the peace against the wishes of the local government, issue mandates against sovereign nations, and commit gross acts of interventionism. But what if there is already a democratic movement in a country, and it needs help from outside in order to rise to the occasion?

The day that Putin's silliness made headlines, a Russian astrologer received the all-clear to sue the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for $300 million over a plan to crush a probe into a comet:

In a 279-million-dollar (215-million-euro) project, NASA in January launched the Deep Impact spacecraft which will travel to the comet and release an "impactor" -- a 370-kilogram (820-pound) self-guided mass -- on US Independence Day (July 4) which is expected to create a crater that could be as large as a football stadium.

Scientists believe that the exposed material from the resulting crater will yield clues to the formation of the solar system and provide important information on altering the course of comets or asteroids on a collision course with earth.

In other words, they are looking for data that could save our lives in the event that a giant rock is about to slam into Earth. So how does she justify potentially sending humanity to an early grave?

"My client believes that the NASA project infringes upon her spiritual and life values as well as the natural life of the cosmos and would disrupt the natural balance of forces in the universe," Molokhova was quoted as saying.

The lawyer said Tempel 1 had sentimental value to Bai because her grandparents met when her grandfather pointed the comet out to his future wife.

So 1) the big ball of ice gives her warm fuzzies, and 2) she predicts that the universe will go wobbly if the rocket roadsters make a comet crater. See what too much vodka does to people?

But wait! America is the root of all that is tragic, as a Russian community now knows!

A Russian village was left baffled Thursday after its lake disappeared overnight.

Officials in Nizhegorodskaya region, on the Volga river east of Moscow, said water in the lake might have been sucked down into an underground water-course or cave system, but some villagers had more sinister explanations.

"I am thinking, well, America has finally got to us,” said one old woman, as she sat on the ground outside her house.

Exactly, and this man helped us do it.

Aww Star Wars, Give Me Those Star Wars

Saw Star War: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith Thursday evening...

Yes, there are quite a few lousy (if not outright contradictory) lines. But I am pretty forgiving on this. As Yoda might say, In my attempts at writing fiction, better my dialogue is not. Regarding the content of the speeches, the storyline is George Lucas' Hamlet--tragic, hard-hitting, but with grace.

Some see the latest entry as liberal propaganda, others as conservative propaganda, but Star Wars is a striking piece of popular art, welcoming to individual interpretation. The series is a starting point for discussions, not a resource to use toward ending them. So I offer this theory: Lucas makes clear in the prequels (particularly Attack of the Clones) that the Jedi are increasingly arrogant, manipulative, and reckless (what does it say about the good guys that one of their tenets seems to be "Don't think"?); the Emperor doesn't so much lie as maneuver the truth to create more truths that he can finagle. Lucas may be deliberately embracing contradictions as a libertarian argument for limited government--power can corrupt any mortal, particularly since to be mortal already means to be fallible--and the opening scroll appears to bear this out ("There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere"). Or maybe this is just a friggin' good fantasy thrillride.

Acting is another weak spot, but the realization that performances in Star Wars films relied more on charm than skill, lowered expectations due to the worst moments in the prequels, and the inherent drama of the story combined to make the acting seem rather serviceable. Damning with faint praise, perhaps, but I think Hayden Christensen does fine considering the material, and that Natalie Portman turns in her best performance in the series (they receive bonus points for looking so attractive!). Samuel L. Jackson unfortunately seems a bit lost, Jimmy Smits makes an impression with a key role in the final act, R2-D2 is a stellar comedian in the introductory battle, but the real stars of the show are the swashbuckling Ewan McGregor and the Machiavellian Ian McDiarmid, who exude the perfect amount of Original Trilogy finesse, and the all-digital Yoda (voiced by Frank Oz), whose no-nonsense encounter with a pair of Imperial guards provides the climax's only moment of frivolity.

Where the film becomes a masterpiece is in its music and technical execution. The designs and effects are superb. The sound is immersive, the landscapes real, the imagery compelling enough to make you want to know more about the cultures onscreen. John Williams' score, while still evidencing a few bizarrely edited moments, feels less tainted by post-production meddling than in the other prequels, and is tremendously handsome and effective. The film's lengthy opening shot, a fly-through of an epic space battle, pulls you into the cinematic universe with sights and sounds little like anything you've encountered before. Raiders of the Lost Ark comes closest to predicting the editorial structure of this film that starts on a high and rarely sinks. It is visionary. You simply have to see it.

Revenge of the Sith is easily the darkest and most violent of the Star Wars films. You leave smiling because the ending is a bit hopeful, ties nicely into the original film, and, hey, it's truly Star Wars; not because it is happy. The moviegoing experience is very beautiful, and very intense.

Update: Further evidence that, like in the cave on Dagobah, what's in Star Wars is only what you take with you:

Protectionism and collectivism are only the first steps toward communism. With economic globalization so demonized, the only remaining solution lies in market control and state monopoly. Will today's France be Europe's future? Sadly enough, this future seems probable owing to popular support that can be seen in France, paving the way for a process that is opposed to the building of free and open societies.

The political class - and even its most economically liberal leaders -- now raves about this social economy for the market, the first step of collectivism. Some really believe it, others support it for political opportunities, all join in the same rhetoric. Oddly enough, it could be related to the new Star Wars movie, in which Padme declares after a vote giving executive power to Chancellor Palpatine: "So this is how liberty dies -- to thunderous applause."

Can You Read My Mind?

Can you picture the things I'm thinking of?

Quote For The Day

P.J. O'Rourke, Republican Party Reptile:
America was founded on danger. How many lifeboat drills were held on the Mayflower? Where were the smoke detectors in the Lincoln family cabin? Who checked to see whether Indian war paint was made with Red Dye No. 2? It was the thrilling, vast, wonderful danger of America which drew people here from all over the world--spacious skies filled with blizzards and tornadoes, purpled mountain majesties to fall off, and fruited plains full of snarling animals and armed aborigines. America is a dangerous country. Safety has no place here. In fact, safety has no place anywhere. Everything that's fun in life is dangerous. Horse races, for instance, are very dangerous. But attempt to design a safe horse and the result is a cow (an appalling animal to watch at the trotters).

NewsTweak

Blogs everywhere seem to be tackling Newsweek's non-apology for their coverage of the non-story involving an alleged and, it turns out, very much unsubstantiated Koran desecration. The Blogfather has three (count 'em: one, two, three) separate posts on it in less than 24 hours. But while the main thrust of discussion seems to be about American journalists continuing to fall into the same [self-]destructive trap as their overseas counterparts, what stands out for me is the excessive reaction to the story, whether true or false.

One cannot be much of a believer if his beliefs are shaken because somebody spoiled his literature. No-one died because a dung-splattered Virgin Mary upset Catholics. If the heart of your spiritual life is a stack of paper, losing the pages is the least of your worries.

There are also questions of civil, governmental, and cultural rights here. Is blasphemy against international law? Should it be? Why? Can we say flushing a book has passed from the realm of brute ignorance into that of torture? What if the book was supplied by the same people who took it away--in other words, does an entity have the right to destroy the books it loans? Does the destruction of any book, even with the intention of "rattling" the recipient, justify death and mass hatred?

By all means protest blasphemy. Everyone has the right to be offended, and to express their feelings through civil means. But I disagree with the judge in this case that blasphemy is a "gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs", when the real oppression comes in acts of fascism, either mandating religious practice or restricting the free & fair practice of individuals, or terminating people's ability to have innermost beliefs (usually by terminating the people). Anything else is not an intrusion, it is an insult. As I covered earlier, the right to be offended precludes a right not to be offended.

Update: Professor Reynolds now says that "heads should roll at the Pentagon for this." But what he means is probably not what you think.

Update II: Flushed with failure.