French Fried

Seeing the meltdown in Europe warms the cockles of my heart after being on the receiving end of all the wagging fingers and upturned noses about how deficient we "unsophisticated" Americans "cooperate" with the rest of the world. Don't mind my little "nanna-nanna-naa-naa" dance, there will be some minor substance to this post, but then again, who really cares, as I think this blog is ranked somewhere below "Billy's Fishing Lures Blog" and slightly higher than "Hector's List of Things That Can Fit Into Your Belly Button Blog."

The French rejection of the European constitution doesn't have jack squat to do with America. Jeff Jarvis makes an observation that almost gets there:

It's about trying to turn Europe in to a faux nation. It's about protectionism. It's about Europe thinking it is a world player when it is no longer. And it's about a bad constitution that made up for in bureaucracy what it lacked in vision.

History is repeating itself in France yet again; for all its historical significance, France has never been able to substantively define just what it is that they stand for other than the vague notion of being "French." Unwisely, the French have taken this unsubstantiated abstraction and turned it into an ideology, with former foreign minister Dominique de Villepin as its orator:

After the first globalization dominated by Spain at the time of the Renaissance, and after the second, launched by the Industrial Revolution and dominated by the Anglo-Saxons, cannot one wager that the third globalization, that of identities, of cultures and of symbols, will bring a new spirit to French ambition? For the values that energize our ambition are equally those to which international society aspires--the universal rights of man, faith in solidarity and fraternity, the hope of reuniting all human differences in the single human community, the need to correct the distortions of the market by means of regulation.

De Villepin embodies the French tendancy towards bluster and high hopes instead of pragmatism and vision backed by even a semblance political ability. These feeble roots go all the way back to the French Revolution, as Jacques Barzun, in his masterful book From Dawn to Decadence, pointedly identifies why the the French are unable to seize any lasting initiative:

It is not surporising that the men who filled the three successive French assemblies were not well equipped for their demanding tasks. Many were small-town layers like Robespierre, or memebers of other learned professions; some were artisans, or again small landowners or local officials. A number may have been used to politicking, but not to fashioning a constutution or resolving great national issues under the pressure of emergencies. They were certainly articulate. They wrote and delivered endless speeches and debated ad infinitum. The one statesman in their midst, Mirabeau, vainly kept urging them to take action. What is left of French revolutionary eloquence is enormous in bulk and a model of all future campaign oratory--abstract, diffuse strings of generalities, aimed at applause for vituous attitudes and vague on details except when attacking rivals or denouncing "traitors." Again, one exception to verbosity: the lucid and vigorous Danton.

Reading selected, translated pieces of de Villepin's book, The Shark and the Seagull, I found an elegant, poetic prose that succeeded in nothing but putting window dressing on a shallow and untenable ideology. For all their talk about progressive values, just as with their forefathers, today's Frenchmen remain mired in the quicksand that is their false sense of identity. Progress, to the French, is not a "the universal rights of man, faith in solidarity and fraternity, the hope of reuniting all human differences in the single human community," it is a world where all look up to the French and embrace their higher ways; it is a fantasy that defies the very "Reason" they claim to espouse.

The French, with a few exceptions, still refuse to take a pragmatic look at themselves, as that would be such an unsophisticated and unprogressive "American" thing to do. In the meantime, their unassimmilated Muslim population grows like wildfire to make up for the decreasing demographics supporting its suffocating socialism. If a significant portion of the French population continue to refuse to reject this fantasy, there may not be anything "French" left to save. Not that this would be a bad thing, however the replacement of Islamic Fascism isn't the preferred replacement I'd choose.

Memorial Day

Being that I have never served in the armed forces, it is difficult for me to write a fitting tribute, but it's important for me acknowledge the ultimate sacrifice our men and women have made for us.

A few years ago, I was standing in line at the airport while a soldier in civilian clothes stepped up to the ticketing counter and realized that his flight was canceled. He pleaded for some help and explained that he had to catch a connecting flight that was heading to South Korea or he would have to wait several days for the next one. The ticketing agent gave him a sympathetic look, but could do nothing.

Calmly, but stearnly, the guy turned around and called out, "Is there anyone here that can give an Army guy a seat to Seattle so I can make it to Korea? I can't repay you, but I have to get there."

Before he could even blink, an older lady in front of me standing at about 4'11", looked up at all 6'2" of this man and said, "I will gladly give up my seat, and you have already paid us back a thousand times over," and then told the ticketing agent to put her on the next flight out. The man hugged her and ran off to his gate; on his way to stare at a mined line across the Korean Penninsula with a muderous son-of-a-bitch and his 500,000 man army standing on the other side.

I'm so thankful for this man and the hundreds of thousands of others that have left their homes to protect us--those to whom I could never adequately repay. They sit in their trenches, taking great risks that could cause them to either come home missing body parts or in a body bag, so that I can spend my summer watching baseball games with my friends in peace. They eat MRE's and enjoy perks like a rare fresh shower, so that I can stuff my face in the world's greatest restaurants with a bottle of wine. The depths of gratitude that I owe these people is without bottom.

I want to thank all of our troops, for enduring the 120-degree heat in Iraq, or the mountainous terrain in Afghanistan, while dodging car bombs and IEDs, so that an entire generation of people will experience the freedom that none of their forefathers did. That you have exceeded expectations in upholding our country's ideals in the face of the most extreme pressure under the nose of the perfidious ones who want to see them fail. The world is being changed for the better as a direct result of what you have done, and I stand amazed, and completely humbled.

Thank you, thank you and thank you.

Justin King - Another Night in SF

Justin King is making a return trip to San Francisco tonight, so I'll see you tomorrow.

Cheers!

Degrading History

I'm sure that this article, via Glenn Reynolds, is going to make its rounds among bloggers, but I still want to throw myself into the anticipated fray. Robert S. McElvaine, history professor at Millsaps College, wrote an article analyzing a poll taken among historians about the performance of President Bush:

A recent informal, unscientific survey of historians conducted at my suggestion by George Mason University’s History News Network found that eight in ten historians responding rate the current presidency an overall failure.

Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush’s administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success. (Moreover, it seems likely that at least eight of those who said it is a success were being sarcastic, since seven said Bush’s presidency is only the best since Clinton’s and one named Millard Fillmore.) Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rate the current presidency the worst in all of American history, not too far behind the 19 percent who see it at this point as an overall success.

Among the cautions that must be raised about the survey is just what “success” means. Some of the historians rightly pointed out that it would be hard to argue that the Bush presidency has not so far been a political success—or, for that matter that President Bush has not been remarkably successful in achieving his objectives in Congress. But those meanings of success are by no means incompatible with the assessment that the Bush presidency is a disaster. “His presidency has been remarkably successful,” one historian declared, “in its pursuit of disastrous policies.” “I think the Bush administration has been quite successful in achieving its political objectives,” another commented, “which makes it a disaster for us.”

According to these historians, what are some of these disastrous policies? Professor McElvaine provides us with his own lengthy list:

• Presided over the loss of approximately three million American jobs in his first two-and-a-half years in office, the worst record since Herbert Hoover.
• Overseen an economy in which the stock market suffered its worst decline in the first two years of any administration since Hoover’s.
• Taken, in the wake of the terrorist attacks two years ago, the greatest worldwide outpouring of goodwill the United States has enjoyed at least since World War II and squandered it by insisting on pursuing a foolish go-it-almost-alone invasion of Iraq, thereby transforming almost universal support for the United States into worldwide condemnation. (One historian made this point particularly well: “After inadvertently gaining the sympathies of the world's citizens when terrorists attacked New York and Washington, Bush has deliberately turned the country into the most hated in the world by a policy of breaking all major international agreements, declaring it our right to invade any country that we wish, proving that he’ll manipulate facts to justify anything he wishes to do, and bull-headedly charging into a quagmire.”)...

If this list didn't sound like talking points straight out of Fahrenheit 911, verbatum, I think I would have taken it more seriously. Click through to the article for his entire list, and specific retorts to his bullet pointed claims have been argued ad infinitum, so there is no reason for me to sound like a broken record here. However, one of my favorite bloggers, Cobb, explains a truism that applies to this list: "symbolic logic wonks are particularly attuned to the fact that a false premise taken as axiomatically true can logically support any conclusion one wishes."

In making any judgment on another's critiques, determining their presuppositions is paramount to understanding the reasoning behind their conclusions. In this case, if many of the canards passed around about Bush are taken as axiomatically true, it can support his claim as being one of the worst Presidents in history. The hook, line and sinker that is swallowed by McElvaine demonstrates his presuppositions that skew greatly to the left. Seen in this light, Bush is the natural enemy to an historian who made a lengthly condemnation of "disastrous policies." Most of the policies that this President has engaged in have directly attacked the ideals that current leftists hold, such as faith in transnational progressivism, state driven social and economic equality programs, moral relativism, fear and loathing of the military and so-on. Its no wonder they think the world is caving in--it's because, to them, it is!

I've had a passion for history my entire life, and though I would never claim the esteemed title of "an historian", I nonetheless feel comfortable enough to sniff out suspect historical analysis when I see it, and this smells particularly putrid. No where in his analysis has he taken the myriad of variables and events that influenced Bush's leadership decisions in account. Taking those variables into account won't indubitably change his ultimate conclusion, but it does provide the reader with context that doesn't reside in a vaccum. In high school, if I had reasoned against Bush's Presidency using this laundry list without supporting them, it would have earned me a dirty sneer and an F.

Conversely, this doesn't make me a shill for the "Bush is Greatest American President" Club either. Many of the effects of his Presidency have yet to be felt, however I think it is safe to assume that McElvaine, and his agreeable collegues, guess that they'll be "disastrous." I somewhat agree. On one hand, they will probably be particularly disastrous to the secular and theocratic fascists that currently rule the Middle East. But, much to my chagrin, they'll be harmful (not disastrous) to small government principles.

The contrasts between us demonstrate where the labels "worst/disastrous/incompetent" breakdown. I hold the presuppositions that big government is generally bad and that the best way to keep September 11th from happening again is to destroy, through physical means, the ideology that fuels it. However, clicking through my archives, I have attempted to place all of my ideas, crticisms and analyses in some kind of historical perspective that are wide-open to interpretation. The "why" is much more important than the adjective that is used to describe it, and I provide no value to a reader if they haven't been given enough background or context to come to their own conclusions.

Anyway, McElvaine's article doesn't infuriate me in the least. I just find it extremely pathetic that making baseless, qualitative claims is what passes for argument among today's academics. Even worse, they have the audacity to wonder why no one listens to them.

Coldplay Still Sucks

Is this serious? U2? I need an official ruling on this from Anthony, as I have a hard time reading the U2 comparison without laughing.

Then again, consider the source, it was run in Newsweek.

Chris Martin, of whom I am a BIG fan, had this to say about his legend in the making:

Martin has never been shy about his belief that he's in "the best band in the world," and "X&Y" is a conscious effort to seize that title by force. "You want to be able to hold your head up high in a room with McCartney and Bono. That's one of the main things that drives me," says the singer, 28. "Are we trying to get to the next level? Yes. We're trying to get to the very highest level. We want to be better than Mozart. That doesn't mean we are, but that's what we're trying for. To me, there's no point in trying for anything less."

I see, you're kind of a cross between McCartney, Bono and Mozart--a McBonzart. Lines intertwining with lines. It's such a fine line between clever and stupid.

Anyway, I found this article via Beautiful Atrocities "Outside Reading List." Thanks Jeff, now I'm steamed...hurrumph..

The Greatest of Leaders

Last week, Penraker dissected an article that Josh Marshall wrote in the New Yorker about George Washington. For some time it has been fashionable within leftist ranks to attack the character of the "white slave-holders" that founded this country (e.g. Thomas Jefferson and his alleged affairs with his slaves or John Adams's cranky brutishness, etc.). The canard that Josh pushes in his article is that the perceived virtues of Washington were all an act (although somewhat admirable):

Washington’s preoccupation with respect went beyond amour propre. Years later, when he became the country’s first President, his abiding aim was to create an America that could command respect from the great nations of the earth—that had, as he put it, a “national character.” This overlap between personhood and nationhood is a constant theme in the second half of Washington’s life, which makes him an apt focus for McCullough, who has long gravitated toward stories that show how individuals can become forces of history. But character, for the man as for the nation, turns out to be something that you make, not something that you discover; Washington, as we learn, was never more completely himself than when he was acting.

Josh analyzes Washington through his own lenses as he sets the stage:

Washington lacked Adams’s intellectual rigor and Jefferson’s curiosity, and, unlike younger members of the founding generation, such as Madison and Hamilton, he contributed no signal writings or ideas to American statecraft. Hamilton, who served under him as an aide-de-camp during the war and understood his iconic power, found him admirable but dull. He could even be a poor general, especially in 1776, when he was still learning how to command an army. Yet men held him in awe. Almost everyone who worked with him or around him or came up against him could see his power, usually from the first moment. It was his stature and gravitas, more than anything else, that held the country together through the dark months that followed the Declaration of Independence.

...As Washington quickly saw, above all else that meant keeping the Continental Army intact—safe from annihilation in the field and from hunger and disease off it. He proved uniquely suited to the task, although just what it was that set him apart is often difficult to grasp at a remove of two centuries. Sometimes we can make it out only as astronomers discern black holes, from its effects on things nearby. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, claimed that Washington had “so much martial dignity in his deportment that . . . there is not a king in Europe that would not look like a valet de chambre by his side.” Shortly after making Washington’s acquaintance, General Greene, a Rhode Islander who became one of his most trusted deputies, told a friend that Washington’s very presence spread “the spirit of conquest . . . through the whole army.” Greene hoped that “we shall be taught to copy his example and to prefer the love of liberty in this time of public danger to all the soft pleasures of domestic life and support ourselves with manly fortitude amidst all the dangers and hardships that attend a state of war.”

In part, these rapturous assessments simply expressed the excitability of men putting their lives on the line for what seemed a hopeless cause. They needed to see greatness, and so they saw it. But the accounts are too specific and too consistent for that to be the only reason. Soon after Washington’s appointment as commander-in-chief, that dour critic of men John Adams told his wife that the Virginian was destined to become “one of the most important characters in the world.” Again and again, Washington struck men of his day as an exemplar of ancient republican ideals, almost as though he had stepped from the pedestal of the ages. (emphasis mine)

I've read through Marshall's article several times and am convinced that he has a true admiration for Washington. Yet, the more I read Josh's article, the more confused I became in just what he was trying to say about him. He sets the stage and very truthfully points out that Washington, in spite of defeating a B-squad of British colonialists and not being the original source of any documents from which this country is founded, had copious amounts of admirers, whether they be his soldiers or the statesmen that would eventually form our country's first government.

After about the third read, I finally understood that Marshall simply didn't have a clue what it was about Washington that led his contemporaries to gush over him and, in the fashion of one who lacks fundamental understanding, displays the tendancy to nitpick. So, nitpick he does, and in such a 21st Century way:

Yet here is the crook in the path, something that McCullough reveals but never quite explains: it was all a put-on, an act. For us today, character is bound up with authenticity; someone with “character” doesn’t put on airs, doesn’t tailor his actions to impress others. Those weren’t the standards of Washington’s era.

Washington's problem wasn't that he was loved, it was that he was loved for all the wrong reasons according to the "virtues of today". Washington wasn't "keepin it real" and was so 18th century with his insistence upon respect, proper public appearance, and the cultivation of personal discipline. Josh tries to bring Washington back to earth in his article, and in his attempts to do so, reveals his lack of understanding of a key ability that very few people have: leadership.

Speculating as to why Josh, in particular, doesn't understand this endangers me of creating a strawman, or engaging in unsupported hyperbole, so I won't direct my criticsm beyond what I read have read in the article. Josh specifically asked the question, "what it was that set him apart," and I think it's only fair to try and answer it, since in the proceding 1,500 words past this question, the only insight Josh gives us into Washington is how, despite his deliberately stoic and cold behavior, men remained endeared to his leadership for ages. In this article, the mystery of Washington's leadership remains.

Leadership is one of those intangibles in life that if, to quote a great line in Meet Joe Black, "multiplied by infinity and taken to the depth of forever, you will still have barely a glimpse of what I'm talking about." From college essays to interview questions, most adults in their life have had to put on paper their experiences and theories as to just what exactly leadership is and when it is effective. All though it is instructive to discuss these things in a controlled environment (like we are doing here), leadership is something that is demonstrated, and not talked about.

Washington was an effective leader precisely because he didn't display his humanity and 21st century authenticity in front of those he led. He understood a few characteristics in leadership that are nonnegotiable: "the perfect is the enemy of the good," "the potential of a team or group's strength is greater than sum of its parts", and "acheiving defined objectives with real and measurable results". These axioms are much easier said than done, so how do they look in practice?

Mountaineering provides me with one of the greatest testing environments for any ideas that I have on leadership because it immediately forces you to accept that your environment owns you. Mother nature can sweep in and pelt you with snow, ice, rain or even scortch you with unbearable heat. There are objective hazards everywhere: falling rock, ice, snow, cravasses, varying levels of exposure, freezing cold rivers and wild animals. Any lapses in judgment, which are exaserbated at higher altitude, can cause the team to fail in its objectives, or ever worse, result in severe injury or death.

Now add to these elements the ultimate of all problems--people. People with varying skill levels, personalities, egos and physical stamina. All of these elements combine with the objective hazards in the mountains to create an unbelievable tension.

On a perfect trip, the group leaves the parking lot on a seventy-five degree day with packs on and, after using flawless route-finding, reaches the base of the mountain at 4:00. The camping stove fires up and dinner is hot and delicious, while everyone sings each other's praises until bedtime. After sleeping under the stars, the team awakes at 5 am and is standing on the top of the summit at 11 with no equipment failures. The team heads down the mountain, packs up and is slapping each other on the back in the parking lot after this trip to end all trips.

Unfortunately, this never happens; I facetiously set up this strawman to point out that the actually fun and challenge of mountaineering is demonstrated in how individuals, acting as a team, overcome all of these problems in reaching their goal. It takes a lot of cunning and understanding on the part of a person, or group of people, to be the glue to hold it all together.

If and when adversity strikes, a leader must not crack, as his or her team depends on it. This entails the individual going against his or her first instincts to remain calm, while properly engaging the given problem. Most times, a leader will have to console and rally their teammates in order to overcome their fears. I've yet to see an individual who has vented an "authentic" display of emotion in a tight spot win anyone over.

This is specifically at odds with Marshall's critique of Washington: an effective leader must tailor one's actions to "impress" others. It isn't something to feed personal ego, it is the discipline to avoid reverting into a fight or flight response, and stay the course. People loved Washington because they knew that all these things he did was for the benefit of those that he led. He had the depth of character to know where George Washington stopped and where his young nation began.

He was willing to bear any burdern, or pay any price to see this through. The discipline that he so thoroughly applied to himself rallied a bunch of roughnecks into believing that they could beat the British. They were far from perfect, or pretty, but they did just enough to win and Washington was chiefly responsible for it. Napoleon Bonaparte was one of the greatest military minds to have ever lived, while Washington's military skill has been questioned--but I do know this, one put his ego away and became the founder of one of the greatest countries in the world, while the other ended his brilliant, but egomaniacal life in exile.

That, Josh, is true character.

Revolution in the Middle East is Truly History in the Making

Michael Totten, who was on hand witnessing the Cedar Revolution first hand, sees some significant developments in Syria that may be pointing the way to another toppled domino. Towards the end of the article, Michael puts the forces in play behind these Middle Eastern vissitudes in their rightful place:

Whatever connection exists between a rising imperfect democracy in Iraq and a renascent democratic movement in Lebanon is debatable and indirect at best. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad didn’t trigger the upheaval in Beirut. The assasination of Rafik Hariri did. Still, when the U.S. ordered Bashar Assad to withdraw Syrian troops he said “I am not Saddam Hussein. I want to cooperate.” He did. Now he’s screwed.

Very rarely in history can one point to a sole cause for a particular effect. What caused Germany to adopt Fascism on the eve of the biggest war the world had ever seen? What caused the Southern States to secede and ultimately take up arms against their own countrymen in the Civil War? What was the cause of U.S. military intervention in Vietnam, Korea or the Gulf War?

These are all questions in history that have answers which are far more complex than any bumper sticker slogans. To a generation raised on multiple choice questions and sound bytes, it is rare occurrence to find well reasoned answers to historical events that are often muddled, grey, confusing and often contradictory. It takes a lot of critical thought and a stomach for the imperfect to accept these this at the expense of a comforting talking point.

One absolute statement I can make is this: history is dynamic. It is a constantly shifting paradigm where the players, rules and commonly held axioms are constantly being tested moment by moment. If one is a major decision maker in this playing field, they must constantly make decisions and create policies that, in a Hobbesian fashion, best ensure their chances for success. The difficulty of leadership is having the discernment and wisdom to envision how this enormous multi-factored model will play out, and how to get others to believe that you are right in pursuing your given course of action. This is true for Presidents, religious figures, business leaders, football coaches, and even those who are parents.

So, revolution is now churning in the Middle East. Five short years ago, there was wasn't a single shred of democratic hope anywhere to be found. Then three major events occurred that changed events there forever: September 11th, Successful U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan and Liberation from the Taliban, and the Successful U.S. Invasion and Liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein.

I completely agree with Michael Totten's well thought out statement that there is a lot of mud between the recent successes in Iraq and the eventual pullout of Syrian troops from occupied Lebanon. I must ask my bedfollows who supported this invasion to resist the tempting, but well intentioned, conclusive triumphalism that could paint our better reasoned argument into a corner.

My views and arguments in favor of the war in Iraq were and are thus: The Middle East was a festering pool of anti-American and anti-westernism that needed a radical change with years of diplomacy and carrot dangling proving flacid on the morning of September 11th. President Bush, as the leader of our wounded nation, was faced with the most daunting task facing an American President since the Civil War; history was previously unprecedented in combating ideologically driven enemies trying to achieve their goals through terrorism. There would be no single option available to him that would provide the United States with an immediate remidiation against this determined foe.

The next moves the United States would take during the coming years could only, at best, put it in a more beneficial position to achieve eventual victory; stepping stones, if you will. Afghanistan proved a slam dunk in the midst of premature quagmire predictions, and an elected government would take power almost three years after the Taliban ran for the hills. Bin Laden and Mullah Omar would remain elusive, however their base of operations was destroyed and our T.V. screens were filled with men shaving their beards, women shedding their burqas and children dancing to previously banned music.

Yet, there was still a stranglehold of tyranny on the Middle East, which, I'm convinced, was the primary food feeding the anti-Americanism monster. The "purified" and dangerously fundamentalist brand of Islam was just the medium exploited by these tyrants to retain and gain power. Some of these strong men such as Mullah Omar, the Iranian Mullahs and members of the Saudi Royal family were ardent followers, while the more secular-at-heart rulers such as Bashir Assad and Saddam Hussein were more interested in using fundamentalist Islam's "unifying" benefits for personal gain.

But where to start? Donald Rumsfeld knew this answer even before hostilities in Afghanistan commenced when he ordered General Tommy Franks to dust off the military plans for invading and occupying Iraq. The amount of political capital available at the time necessitated diplomatic first steps, but the urgency and fervency with which America's enemies and other misguided souls opposed any of these efforts demonstrated that military options were almost inevitable. There was no greater adherent to these intentions than Saddam Hussein himself as he made preperations to drag the United States into a prolonged insurgent/guerilla war (read the Belmont Club's "War Plan Orange" for details).

Years of defying sanctions, breaking cease-fires and ambigious intentions over the procurement and production of weapons of mass destructions put fat targets on his chest and forehead. The world knew deep in its heart that it wasn't a matter of "if" it was a matter of "when" Saddam was going to get a swift smack in the mouth.

Attempts at diplomacy within the U.N. collapsed and the floodgates opened with an attempted decapitation strike in the heart of Bagdad. Three weeks later, U.S. troops were tearing down Saddam's statue and setting up headquarters in his palace, while supportive Arabs who hoped Allah would strike down the infidel, were confronted by a strong dose of reality with another humiliating beating.

Unfortunately, this would not be V-ME (Victory in the Middle East) Day, but yet another stepping stone that would be met with a hard dose of reality. The hornets' nest was stirred as the rag-tagged Islamic fundamentalists and punch-drunk Baathist fascists joined forces operationally to expel the foreign invaders. Their combined military capabilities would never do the job, but a prolonged game of cat-and-mouse, or hit-and-run, would force popular opinion in America to abandon the high ground they gained in Afghanistan and, now in Iraq.

Michael Moore, John Kerry, Richard Clarke, Dan Rather, Moveon.org and a terrorist attack in Spain in combination with car-bombs and RPG attacks against coalition troops and civilians came close, but ultimately unable to break American resolve. Bush won re-election and committed to staying the course. Soon the terrorist haven of Fallujah would be under American and British control paving the way to the historic day where Iraqis voted for their very own government.

These events in-and-of themselves did not singularly lead to the pushing of any further democratic movements. However, they shook the ground significantly enough so that the natural ebbs and flows in history would have a better chance of breaking in our favor. This was the very essence of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and, ultimately, in Iraq.

Democratic rumblings are now growing in the Middle East. A lot has happened absent the U.S. lead invasion of Iraq to stimulate and stoke these embers, but as Totten points out, even though the solid link fades, the overall influence of invasion was so enormous that nothing in the Middle East can be seen without looking through the lenses of Iraq.

There are many events that can happen that will adversely affect America's goals (Iran remains intransigent and defiant in feverishly developing their nuclear program), but it is getting harder and harder argue against the imperfect but enormously positive influence that America has had on the region. For this, the price paid in blood by coalition troops and, by an even greater amount, Iraqi and Afghani citizens, was well worth it.

Another Artist Delivers Some Insight into the World

I've frequently lamented about the success of Coldplay on this site and in case I haven't been absolutely clear, I seriously hate this band. Their songs are forumlaic, trite, and show the intricacy and dynamism of an amoeba sitting in the waiting room of the DMV. Today Chris Martin, the brains of this operation, has added to his band's reputation that barely escapes the dirtiest of scatalogical references, that he's a complete retard:

Coldplay lead singer Chris Martin today launched an attack on his record label EMI and the company's shareholders.

It came after EMI, the world's third-largest music company, warned that profits would be lower because the band took longer than expected to finish their first studio album in three years.

But as Coldplay prepared for a concert in New York to promote their new album, called X&Y, Martin said: "I don't really care about EMI. I'm not really concerned about that.

I kind of agree with Chris here, as I'm not the biggest fan of record companies. I think they're lazy, boring, unimaginative and have played a huge roll in setting music back to an intelligence quotient equal to that of a jellyfish. Unfortunately, Coldplay is one the prime examples of this result. Anyway, Chris's next delivery is predictable:

Martin told reporters at Manhattan's Beacon Theatre that the band was uncomfortable that they sell so many albums they can affect a major corporation's stock price.

"It's very strange for us that we spent 18 months in the studio just trying to make songs that make us feel a certain way and then suddenly become part of this corporate machine," Martin said backstage.

He criticised what he called "the slavery that we are all under to shareholders". However, having sold 20 million albums worldwide to date, their album release on 7 June and subsequent two-month tour of America in August and September will play a large role in determining EMI's profits.

Ah, the typical Populist canard. Selling 20 million records while touring the world playing to tens of thousands of people every night (at $80 a head) do tend to make one feel a little distant from the average person. Chris just wants everyone to know that he, you know, is with us in our battles against "the man" (read: capitalism), not in deed, but in his heart. Last time I checked, Chris wasn't exactly redistributing Coldplay's profits among the other "slaves" in the world.

My friend needs to realize that someone like me, who works for a living, has a hard time finding any sympathy for someone's alleged "slavery" who is actually making millions. I react to these claims the same way I do when smelling my rubber climbing shoes after climbing in bare feet all day. Actually it's worse, because he is making millions and his band is utter shite.

A little advice to Chris: you should take some business classes, because shareholders aren't just guys in suits named Gordon Gecko; they're everyday people like you and me. I can't verify this, but there's probably a good chance that you even own some stock in EMI. At the very least, a large portion of your fans are shareholders in some kind of company, and I'm sure that most of them wouldn't like the allegation that they are holding people in slavery.

Also, stop writing music and go live in a hole, because you are complete crap.

Lastly, if the guilt of making so much money is keeping you up at night, please feel free to donate to Ten Fingers 6 Strings. I'm sure you wouldn't want to pile heeping amounts of cash on someone you like, because it's so horrible and would make them feel bad. So, why not give it to a big mouth critic like me who hates you so much? Imagine the guilt I'll have to live through for the rest of my life. It could kill me...slowly. Like in seventy years.

Be Back Tonight

I'll be back tonight. It's pissing rain here (in freaking May!) and I am considering moving to Seattle to get more sun. Well, at least that gives me the opportunity to write versus being outside playing in my sandbox with Tonka trucks.

Do kids still play with Tonka trucks?

See you tonight.

Newsweek Troubles

So, I'm not exactly breaking news when I speak of the Newsweek scandle that has broken out in the past few days, but I do want to "sound off" because, quite frankly, this is way more than just a f*&# up.

Blogfather Glenn Reynolds, doing what he does best, has a rather conclusive roundup of reactions surrounding the developments. It's been hard to find anyone to defend their boo-boo (hyperbole-hysteria boy not withstanding), and the facts remain clear: Newsweek chose to run a story based on dubious information that turned out to be objectively false. The end result inflamed a large amount of Muslims and has even led to people being killed. Despite their early reluctance, Newsweek has fessed up, realizing that they cannot back up their story.

To me, the subjective analysis is also clear; it looks like American troops, who have been doing the tough, slog of slowly winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim population, have been set back as their enemies have been given propoganda to fuel further hatred towards America. These soldiers will literally be standing on the frontlines, dealing with these repercussions in the forms of bombs and bullets.

Media bias is something I don't spend a whole lot of energy on as I know it's there, and I filter everything I read through my B.S. detector. I'm afraid if I let my blood boil everytime I read an editorialized piece of news, I'd have a heart attack and a stroke, while shooting sulfur flames out of top of my skull before I hit 30. Anyway, aside from my biological issues, I highly recommend you read Ian Wood's post on this subject as it is the best articulation on the responsibility of handling media bias that I have read. He says:

One of the key components of a classical education in 5th-century Athens was rhetoric. The study of the verbal bow, the accompanying shield and quiver of arrows, and the techniques of their proper use allowed an educated person to spot the aforementioned bovine fecal matter when it issued forth from the mouth of a politician, an orator, a philosopher, or the local loudmouth at the baths. Such study served as a defense against infection by bad ideas and allowed for escape from poorly-constructed logical traps. In short, it equipped the student with much of the intellectual arsenal that he required to think for himself.

Those who argue today for a reduction or elimination of media bias, to be somehow carried out by the media itself so as to maintain its illusory independence, are the equivalent of a 5th-century Athenian arguing that anyone who made a speech had a duty to present only the undisguised truth and make no attempt to sway his audience with any rhetorical tricks.

However, this Newsweek story, which birthed itself out of bias against the current President and his policies, goes beyond mere slant. They are accusations that have led to the deaths of many, and will only prolong this fight. This is akin to someone yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre where, regardless of the intentions and shady nature of the big-mouth involved, the damage has been done. The question at this point isn't whether or not Newsweek ran a false story, it's whether they intentionally tried to produce a chaotic event with their false narrative. If this is the case, I agree with Wretchard, that this should be grounds for serious punishment, beyond loss of employment, against culprits involved in cooking up this scheme.

Happy Hour

Work commitments have pretty much put this blog on the edge of oblivion. Don't laugh, its true.

Actually, while I was on vacation in Cabo, my blog increased in traffic. So, I have deduced that I'm more interesting when there is no new content being spewed from my fingertips.

Anyway, I'll post some stuff this weekend about the extra-marital affairs of cockroaches after you spray them with PAM. The results of the experiment is an instructive illustration into the manishness of man.

Also, I'll show you how to spew from your fingertips.

Musings of a Bronzed Guy

:::tap tap:::

Hi everyone. Thanks for coming back. In response to my gratitude, I'd appreciate if everyone help pay for my bandwith this month by donating some of their pocket change to keep this site alive. However, my bandwidth is unconventionally powered by guitars, climbing equipment, loose women and premium whiskey. Really. Without these items, in fresh and copious amounts, this site may die on the vine.

Ok, I know that Sullivan bashing is too easy to be considered interesting anymore, but like the bully that can't help beating people's milk money out of the weak, I find an irresistable urge to rip through him everytime I get the chance. However, that may be a bad analogy, as Sullivan isn't actually "the little guy." He is big, writes for big media outlets, lives in a hammock and administers extacy to his begal to watch how it interacts with the neighbors ferret. I don't actually call that being the weak, little guy, do you?

Speaking of the little guy, when in the hell are the Giants and A's going to start hitting. Geeze, even I've managed to get passed first base this week. At this rate, the A's and the Giants combined are on pace to equal Barry Bonds' output from a year ago. However, I'm going to see the A's play the Yankees this weekend. I hope Giambi doesn't get sent to the minor league before then, because that may be the only chance to see any fireworks on the field.

Anyway, back to the Sullivan beatings. While I was on hiatus, Penraker, who has been writing up a storm about the developments with the death of the old Pope and election of the new Pope, wrote an interesting response to Sullivan's latest hysterical outrage--the election of Ratzinger as Pope. I've always been amazed at how some people yell until their blue in the face, in this day and age, about the decision of the Catholic Church to stick to fundamental beliefs that they've held for almost 2,000 years. Make no mistake, even though I have a few sympathies for the Catholic church, I am not a Catholic; mostly because I am agnostic towards organized religion (not agnostic about God though). However, you won't find me jumping up and down wondering why the Catholic Church actually chooses someone to lead them that, well, actually is the best embodiment of their fundamental tenents. There seem to be a large amount of people that are Catholic precisely because the church isn't interested in bending its values to conform to 21st Century thought.

This isn't a priori a good thing, but at least guys like Martin Luther were smart enough to say, "Screw you guys, I'm going home," when fundamentally disagreeing with the Church. If Sullivan doesn't like the Catholic Church's attitude towards the tolerance of gays, he should find a place that is more accommodating. Afterall, it isn't the Middle Ages in America; we can make decisions about these things. Maybe he should start his own religion? It wouldn't be that much of a stretch, as from my understanding of his views, much of the universe is already orbiting around that fatty, fat-head of his.

In the meantime, remember: guitars, climbing stuff, chicks and booze. I'll take email, or comment, donations as well.

Whew

Coming back from Cabo with a tan makes one's superiors a little edgy. I just got back from work, its 9:20 pm and, sorry to be so lame, but I am not blogging anything tonight...but this post. Which, if you are still reading, makes my love for you even stronger.

So, go and do something fun...

Suggestion: go tease Kyle, if you may.

Back in Black

After the tumultuous torture of spending 3 days in Coachella with 50,000 people watching great music, enjoying the company of friends from near and far away, followed by 5 days in Cabo San Lucas climbing to the top of Lands End, snorkeling with parrot fish, hitting on women, dancing with crazy new friends, practicing really bad Spanish, and learning how to surf with a tequila hangover, I am back...I am bronzed...and I am moderately insane.

With all the Job-like pain that I endured, I hoped I would come back to this blog, with my sombero and no pants, to find Kyle's wisdom overflowing this blog. Instead, I found this (not really work safe for work) lying in my alley.

I kept hearing my neighbors complain about a man running around our building with a Santa suit, but I thought it was one of those Christmas in July May parties.

Anyway, it's good to be back. I'm refreshed, relaxed, browner, a little hazy and still medium-sized. Let the fun resume.

Just don't let Ian bring his tools. ::shivers:::

You could poke an eye out with that thing...Ian, I mean.

Unruly Housesitter

The kegs of beer and cases of whiskey have been moved into position. If TF6S can party, so can I.

As you know, he is in Cabo to shoot his new music video. The song is a rocked out cover of Tommy Alverson's "Una Mas Cerveza". He will be dressed in a mariachi outfit while on stage at Cabo Wabo. Salma Hayek and Penelope Cruz have cameos. Horny little bugger.

I have to thank TF6S for his earlier thoughts and, of course, his friendship. Hopefully I can contribute a few meaningful sentences while he is away. Talk to you soon!