perfidy

In this interview with John Gibson of Fox News, Hitchens discusses his recent trip to Iraq. In general, he belives that things are going well:

The press is still investing itself, it seems to me, in a sort of cynicism. It comes out better for them if they can predict hard times, bogging down, sniping, attrition.

And so if no one is willing to take the gamble, as they see it, of saying actually that it's going a lot better than it is, but it is. It's quite extraordinary to see the way that American soldiers are welcomed. To see the work that they're doing and not just rolling up these filthy networks of Baathists and Jihaddists, but building schools, opening soccer stadiums, helping people connect to the Internet, there is a really intelligent political program as well as a very tough military one...

I felt a sense of annoyance that I had to go there myself to find any of that out.

More balanced mainstream reporting on Iraq and on the democracy movement in Iran would be welcome.

Michael Novak has a thought provoking three part ((#1), (#2), and (#3)) piece on the root of the recent arguments between American and Europe. Me, ahm jus a simple rednek consuhvativ, I uhsly jus say them all You-Ro-Pe-Uns purely suck, and we all kicks ass.

Mr. Novak has a much more thoughtful commentary. His conclusion is worth pondering, "Despite their particular origin, furthermore, our common values have important meaning for all cultures universally, as many in other cultures have long been testifying. Others may not accept these common values wholesale, or in the same way that we do, but nothing in these common values belongs solely to us. Like all things human, they both have a particular historical origin, and also they are part of the common heritage of humankind." 
 

Pythagosaurus has pointed out that correctly, "thingie" is only used as a euphamistic term for the human male wang. Therefore, when referring to events in the wide world, the only correct usage is "thingy."

Don't let people tell you I never admit when I'm wrong.

"thingie" is dead, long live "thingy!"

Ross, over at spiral dive, is the only one who showed any interest in my police state post. (Scroll down to the second entry. Unreconstructed luddite Ross doesn't have permalinks for individual entries.) (Wah. Not that he bothered to tell me. I actually had to go read his blog, the bastard.) While I posted a version of this in his comments, I found it sufficiently interesting to post over here. (And remember, I do this for my amusement, not yours.)

Ross says:

The question is, can the system come apart? In the environment and in our political system I believe we are truly faced with the systemic question. Will the system survive the stresses we place upon it?

He then mentions the environment and the brittleness of our political system, as examples that we are skating on the edge of disaster. He continues:

Do you really believe that we can just muddle along on these issues? Do you really believe that there just can't be a downside, that nothing can and ever will befall this country? After all, nothing ever has.

(Read the whole post to get a sense of where he was coming from.)

Not normally one to kick at long term consequences, I have to say that sticking a knife in our economy now on the chance that we may prevent a 1 degree increase in the average world temperature over a century seems a little too forward looking.

In my post, I was talking about the ultimate collapse of government. But to answer your question, yes, I think we will muddle along. Every issue has its downside, every decision has its consequence. This is the core of conservative thinking - the law of unintended consequences. We need to defend the country, that costs money. The boomers want their entire existence subsidized. That will cost a lot of money. The government decrees that cars must be fuel efficient, so people by minivans and SUVs which are classified as light trucks. You can't have a solution just by wishing it so, or because it would be fair, or just, or whatever.

While political systems are not in general fast reacting - dedicated as they are to the status quo - the US has a government whose reaction times have been reduced to a world record generation or less. If something starts going wrong, we can take advantage of our adaptable system to put in a correction. The openness of the system allows people to organize to achieve this.

Over the last two centuries, history shows us that people have always felt that we were on the brink. Somehow we never went over, or maybe we weren't really on the brink after all.

There are problems. Likely, someone has a solution or at least a start on one. None of these problems are catastophic, at least that I can see. So unless we get hit by an asteroid, I think we'll be alright for the time being.

Unless we go to war with China

In the Pulpit, Cringely comes up with a new model for music sharing. But first, the money quote:

Technology has already changed the economics of music creation and distribution, but the record companies are resisting with every weapon they have. I would too if I was in their position, which is fat, rich, and having everything to lose.

His idea is insidious. Create a company which will buy many cds. Then, sell shares. Each shareholder is a co-owner of the large pool of cds. Under fair use laws, they may copy them. There is even a business model - each shareholder would pay a small fee to the company for each download.

Aside from the business benefits, what this would do to the mental equilibrium of the recording industry is just delicious.

In a move certain to generate sympathy for the embattled recording industry, the RIAA has decided to persecute not only those who download music, but their grandmothers, parents and roommates. As the AP reports:

The president of the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group for the largest music labels, said lawyers will pursue downloaders regardless of personal circumstances because it would deter other Internet users.

"The idea really is not to be selective, to let people know that if they're offering a substantial number of files for others to copy, they are at risk," Cary Sherman said. "It doesn't matter who they are."

This kind of judiciousness has always won the RIAA praise. "pour l'encouragement des autres." What a great idea.

In this article, Charles Krauthammer offers a good prespective on what we've accomplished so far in the war on terror. The part I found most interesting was this, on the recent hooforah over the uranium thingie. (Thingie!):

The fact that the Democrats and the media can't seem to let go of it, however, is testimony to their need (and ability) to change the subject. From what? From the moral and strategic realities of Iraq. The moral reality finally burst through the yellowcake fog with the death of the Hussein brothers, psychopathic torturers who would be running Iraq if not for the policy enunciated by President Bush in that very same State of the Union address.

That moral reality is a little hard for the left to explain, considering the fact that it parades as the guardian of human rights and all-around general decency, and rallied millions to prevent the policy that liberated Iraq from Uday and Qusay's reign of terror.

This has amazed me for some time. The left is the champion of the downtrodden masses, the oppressed and suffering. Why did they try so hard to keep these particularly downtrodden, oppressed and suffering masses from being helped? Even if they believe that Bush is satan incarnate, an alliance of convenience to help the oppressed might have been a good idea, then go back to trying to overthrow the evil republicans.

Many people have been whining lately about how the US is a Police State. This cry has come from several quarters - libertarians worried about privacy and surveillance, leftists worried about whatever they worry about, and fundamentalists trying to immanentize the eschaton. 

Somehow, I have failed to notice that I live in a Police State(tm). Certainly, liberty must be defended. I oppose parts of the Patriot acts, and worry about things like face recognition software and Poindexter's evil laboratory. (A well argued counterpoint to those worries can be found here.)

But what chance, really, is there that the freest nation in the world would come to resemble the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Cuba or even Great Britain?

I was pondering today, "Under what circumstances could there be a coup or totalitarian takeover in the US?" This may seem an odd thing to ponder, but this is how I spend my days.

I came up with several groups that would have at least the desire, if not necessarily the ability to rule the American people with an iron fist.

• Fundamentalists
• the Far left
• Environmentalists
• Charismatic Personality Cult

Another group has the ability, but in all likelihood will never have the desire: The US Military.

The problem with fundamentalists on one side, and with the leftists/greens on the other is that their positions are completely unacceptable to huge numbers of people on the opposite end of the political spectrum. It is unlikely that they could ever get close to the levers of power and pull a Hitler. If they have to get in legitimately, they never will, because the American people are naturally centrist, and because our political structures encourage that.

The only other way that we could have a takeover would for there to be some sort of monumental catastrophe that created a collapse in the existing government, creating a power vacuum that some small group could exploit.

The German Weimar government, weak as it was, was able to resist many attempts on its life - communist, the beer hall and other putsches, and so on. It was only when Hitler gained a significant popular following that we was able to take power - after being legally elected.

The Communists under Lenin were able to take power largely because of the total collapse of almost every cultural and political institution in Russia. And even then, they almost collapsed on several occasions.

The chance, short of massive asteroid strike, of the US government collapsing is very close to nil. Which rules out the shortcut to power.

I have ignored two options. One I mentioned above, and the other is creeping fascism. Libertarians talk about the ratchet effect, where once an invasion of our liberty is in place, it never goes away. In this manner, we slowly stagger towards totalitarian oblivion. I don't think this is really true. In many cases, repressive laws have been removed - especially after both world wars. The experience of the civil rights movement flies in the face of this. For every patriot act, there is a EFF and a hundred other organizations fighting against it. In the society we have, it is so easy to organize to oppose the actions of our government. These two forces will oppose each other, and I think in the end will cancel each other out.

The only chance of creeping fascism actually happening is if the government gets its hands on technology that allows it to suppress the people. David Brin talks about this in his book, The Transparent Society. But the flip side of that argument is that the government is notoriously slow to adopt technology. I work in the government, I should know.

In this era of amazing technological change, it is people in general who will be getting the cool stuff first. For all that the government might spend, there are hundreds of thousands of engineers designing for the consumer market. The military is slowly realizing this, and has begun in the last decade to gear its procurement toward the civilian market. Technology can be abused by governments (see A Deepness in the Sky, by Vernor Vinge) but if it is also in the hands of the far more numerous public, that cancels out as well.

The last option, now that is the only one that at all worries me. Imagine a combination of a Huey Long's political skills, a Lincoln or Martin Luther King's oratory, the charisma of Washington, set in a Kennedy like charm and vigor (viga), and guided by a ruthless and amoral mind with power as its only goal. Imagine that he is a democrat, but a professed Christian - he is a hard core environmentalist, but calls it "stewardship." He calls for every kind of social program, but uses biblical imagery and Christian charity instead of neo Marxist and class warfare rhetoric. He satisfies the fundamentalists by calling for bans on pornography, but does not offend the left by castigating gays and lesbians. He is a foriegn policy hawk.

Someone like this could convince enough people, and get a big enough following to win an election. If enough of his followers got into congress, he could conceivably pull a Hitler, or at least a Hitler lite, and push through some sort of totalitarian agenda. Every policy could be justified in some part of American society's desire to control other people.

Other than that, I don't think it's possible.

Fox News* has a singularly moronic piece up about "Spike TV," the First! Network! For! Men! Beware my awesome fisking power!

"There wasn't that one place where [men] could go," explained Kevin Kay, TNN's vice president of programming and production. "I'm hopeful that TNN is the first place guys will check out, and they'll make it a favorite on their remote."

Right. Except for ESPN/ESPN2/FoxSports/FX/TBS, every network on weekend afternoons, and Shark Week.

Other men in the target audience haven't caught onto the new TNN yet, but are intrigued. Jim Smith, 41, of Indianapolis, said he'd check out the channel's car shows -- which will start airing in August -- and sports, like the full-contact basketball game, Slamball.

Slamball!! Alllll RIGHT!! Personally, I've been dying for a sport that combines the nonstop action of American Gladiators with the spectacle of the XFL, and is as compulsively watchable as BasEketball. Sometimes ferret-legging just isn't enough.

After "Lifetime: Television for Women" was introduced in 1984, other female-oriented channels like Oxygen and WE followed suit. But until TNN reinvented itself, there was no cable channel for guys.

Right. Except for HBO (pre Sex/City), Showtime, Spice!, the Playboy Channel, and the History Network. Dark days, yea verily.

Early Spike skeptics say some of its animated shows like Stripperella and Ren & Stimpy are clichés of what entertains men: sex and toilet jokes. But Lifetime, one of the most successful -- and criticized -- channels has weathered accusations that it stereotypes women.

"We listen to our viewers, not our critics," said Tim Brooks, Lifetime's executive vice president of research. "And what they're telling us loud and clear is that they find the kinds of programming we put on empowering."

<snark> Yeah, empowered to fix me a damn sandwich! </snark> Seriously... are we supposed to believe that women find Judith Light empowering?

"When we talked to guys in focus groups, one thing they said is, 'Don't stereotype us. We don't just want T & A. We're better than that,'" Kay said. "We have to be smarter, deeper and appeal to guys with interests across the board."

Which is why we get Stripperella, Ren & Stimpy, and Crazy Japanese People Hurting Themselves In Costume. Sounds about right. Except I don't see any show dedicated to the care and feeding of Apache servers, or anything about footwear. I love shoe shopping. There should be a show about shoes. I'm also really into the history of public transportation, and architecture. I'm a guy. Where's my show?

So far, Spike's lineup is all over the map, ranging from shows for frat-boy types to those for 30-something yuppies with families. In addition to programs like Stripperella (a cartoon about a stripper/crimefighter with Pamela Anderson's voice) and Slamball, the network airs a slew of James Bond and "guy" movies and male-oriented shows like Baywatch.

Translation: "We've got tits AND ass! Plus full-contact fake sports!"

Uhhhh... what happens if I fantasize about doing drivebys on frat houses, and loathe yuppies and children? Uh-oh... looks like the E! network for me.

If it goes the way of Lifetime, which despite its sometimes-schmaltzy reputation routinely scores top ratings, Spike TV will be a hit.

Wilson, for one, is already a convert.

"Women had like three different channels they could pick," he said. "Men had none. I got tired of watching Golden Girls reruns on Lifetime."

Dude, I didn't even know Golden Girls was still on! What the hell have you been watching? Take off the skirt, Sheila, and come watch the Brickyard 300 on my bigscreen. There's a whole world out there for you to discover, slugger.

* There was a "John Birch" reference here I have since removed. I put it in for fun, but upon reflection, decided it was too stupid to live. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that every well-written piece needs to be balanced by a jarringly incorrect statement. It's entertainment!!

As a follow-up to yesterday's post on Harold Bloom, here is a memo.

Dear Mr. Bloom:

You may be the only man in the English-speaking world qualified to write a book called "How To Read." That is a remarkable accomplishment. Unfortunately, this doesn't necessarily mean you should do so. Most of us learned how to read in elementary school, and Oprah is helping the rest along nicely. Nice of you to try though.

Thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely,
Pythagosaurus.