Category: Old Dish

You help make this website’s letters page one of the most erudite and provocative on the web. Here’s a couple of simple, powerful emails that proves the point that readers out there know as much as anyone paid to pontificate for a living. Here’s one about blogging:

The folks at the NYT and any other major news periodical or network don’t see the change that is happening. It is gradual change, but change. I’m 36, Andrew, and haven’t watched a nightly news on a network in I don’t know how long. I rarely even pick up a newspaper anymore. All my news comes from the cable news and the Internet. Blogging, what you and others are doing so well, is liberating to both the author and the reader. That idea of liberation would scare the hell out of the high and mighty if they were able to recognize it. They won’t. But over time, how and where we get information will continue to evolve. We aren’t going back to the elitist old way. I know I’m brighter and more thoughtful than most of the columnists out there. And there are many others like me. We are starting to patch together the news the way we want it. Not the way it is delivered to us.

I think he’s right, and that the blogging revolution is in its mere infancy. Here’s another simple point contra-Bob Wright. Again, I think it speaks for itself:

The thesis of the arguments from the left appears to be that American policy is the reason for Islamic hatred of the US. However, to the more balanced observer, the reasons for Islamic hatred of the US is fueled more by the unrelenting and clearly unbalanced information being fed to the Arab masses by their governments, media and mosques. To the Arab observer restricted to Arab news sources including Al Jazeera, all they see is apparent Israeli killing of largely Palestinian operatives committing, in the process of committing, planning or ordering terrorist attacks. However, the targets in these attacks are referred to as martyrs or worse, civilians by the Arab reporters. Israeli civilians killed in pizza parlours, wedding receptions and bat mitzvahs are ignored in the Arab media which instead glorifies the “heroism” of the martyrs who committed the terrorist deed. When you have populations who largely disbelieve that Arabs committed the WTC bombing and believe that Jews were advised to stay home that day, what kind of rational policies can you implement that would satisfy them. Should not the left be concentrating more on seeking reform in the Arab countries that rule with an iron fist and channel their populations anger by creating the images of a barbaric US and Israel. Furthermore, does the left not see that this incitement is the root cause for the hatred against Israel and the US. Would not Syrians be happier not living under the despotic rule of Assad or Iraqis happier not living under the tyranny of Hussein? Similarly, what is to gain by having the Saudis remain in power? Moreover, how can the left overlook the intolerance and hatred being preached in the mosques, particularly in countries where Islam is the dominant religion? To me, the problem is intolerance and hatred from the Moslem world, not US policy or Israel’s policy of self-defence.

Another exercise in the bleeding obvious that you won’t find represented too exhaustively on many op-ed pages. Keep those emails coming.

Forget those early stories declaring the Oscars viewership up on last year. That was extrapolating from the major media markets. When all the country was factored in, the ratings turned out to be the lowest ever. More red-state disaffection? Can’t possibly see why, can you?

Hilarious little story here from the Detroit Free-Press. Maxim magazine – boobs and cars for people of testosterone – just named Detroit as the best city on the earth. Detroit was flattered, if a little stunned, until they found out that Maxim had also named Miami, Philly, San Francisco, Dallas, and several others for the honor. Apparently the prize was changed according to where the magazine was distributed. Midwesterners got Detroit. Floridians got Miami. It’s called catering to your readers. Well at least we now know what kind of magazine Bill Clinton would produce if he went into journalism. Boobs, cars, golf, and pathological pandering. Who could resist it?

“I am 38 years old, drank my way through college, come from a relatively well to do family, was never really sure what to do with my life, have been very happily together with one and the same woman, have two daughters and am terrible at speaking in public. If someone would put me through the horrors of what passes for a political campaign, I am not sure how I would look to the outside world.” Thus says a reader in the Book Club today. Frank Bruni also weighs in again: “My goal wasn’t — and isn’t — to provide some sort of final verdict, to bolster or to bash Bush.” For more debate, check out the Book Club today.

By and large, Nick Lemann’s series of interviews with various Bush administration muckety-mucks is reassuring. They all seem to get it. Alas, Lemann doesn’t. Lemann points to an old document, fathered by the nexus around Cheney, that almost a decade ago argued that the United States has an interest in preventing any rival super-power from emerging. He then links that to this administration’s robust post-Afghanistan extension of its war against terror to Iraq. It’s not a crazy link. It’s just an unnecessary one. There’s no need to find some buried or arcane reason for the administration’s recent policy. September 11 was a reason. Lemann still thinks of this event as some sort of context for the new war, or as a rationale. Sure, he notices that it precipitated big re-thinks among many of the people he interviewed. But he still doesn’t seem to absorb what that day revealed. It showed that a small but highly organized group was capable of anything against the citizens of the United States, including the deployment of weapons of mass destruction. That made continued toleration of Iraq’s menace simply unacceptable to the American people and untenable for any responsible president of the United States. What Bush has done is simply react to a seismic event – with common sense and determination. It was far from some “great doctrinal shift.” It was the least any president can or should do.

THEY STILL DON’T GET IT II: Then there’s Bob Wright, writing in the somewhat listless post-Kinsley Slate. Bob gives a report-card on the war on terror and finds much to be leery of. His basic argument seems to be: if you don’t want more terror, suck up to the prejudices of the terrorists. What he means by this is rendered quite clear by his opening paragraph:

Good news: The Bush administration has finally “thrown the prestige of the White House behind addressing Middle East violence,” according to the New York Times. This should be welcomed by Americans who get the picture-who see that, because hatred of America will translate into American deaths with growing efficiency as technology advances, the festering Palestinian issue is a long-term security threat to the United States.

The premise here is that hatred of America – or at least the hatred that leads directly to Islamo-fascist terrorism – is rational, that America can prevent it, and that one way of doing that is to cater to the demands of the haters. As is often the case with this kind of argument, Wright doesn’t specify exactly how one can deter the al-Aqsa brigades, for example, or Iranian-financed Hezbollah or the PLO. His message seems to be: ‘Just calm everything down and they’ll hate you less. And whatever you do, don’t fight back. It will only make them madder.’ Of course, Wright won’t come out and say he doesn’t want a regime change in Baghdad. He’s happy to see a war against Iraq – but only as a last resort. Apparently, one massive war started by Iraq, Iraq’s use of weapons of mass destruction, its avoidance of U.N. inspections, and violations of umpteen clauses of the Gulf War settlement doesn’t mean we’re yet at the last resort. Besides, Wright is skeptical of the whole idea, regardless of timing:

Of course, that invasion [of Iraq] could itself in some ways increase American security, but it would also have the downside of increasing the amount of Islamic hatred of America. So, one way to summarize the Bush Middle East policy is this: Let’s stop the carnage that is making America more enemies every day-at least, let’s stop it for long enough so that America can make some more enemies.

I think that means Bob thinks that an invasion of Iraq is a net loss, and would increase Islamist hatred for the U.S. He seems utterly blind to the fact that our victory in Afghanistan does not seem to have invited a wave of Islamic anger, or a ramping up of terrorism. For some reason, the terrorists reacted to a massive assault by running away. Who woulda thunk it? And ordinary Iranians reacted to the “axis of evil” speech by increasing their resistance to their evil regime. Go figure. I know the word ‘appeasement’ is thrown around a lot – but what other word is there for a policy that argues that confrontation of evil can only, in the long run, exacerbate it?

Two sites that recently caught my eye and are well worth visiting. The first is by one Father Shawn O’Neal, a parish priest in North Carolina. He’s smart, he’s sincere, and not a knee-jerker in any direction. His perspective is particularly welcome during the current crisis in the American Catholic church. The second is a more fully-fledged news and opinion blog by one Pejman Yousefzadeh, a first-generation Iranian-American, who’s as pro-war as any other war-blogger, but again, from a unique vantage point. Yes, he defended me rather devastatingly against Eric Alterman, but this is not mere gratitude. His account of his own love for America, written a couple of weeks ago, is stirring and beautiful, and reminds me what we should be far more impatient with the excuse-makers for Iran’s corrupt elite than we have been. Here’s a passage worth reading (scroll down to the last part of his entries for March 21) from Pejman’s blog:

The day after they were married, in Tehran, Iran, my mother and father went to the American embassy to initiate and complete the paperwork necessary to let them emigrate to the United States. That was 31 years ago this May. Some newlyweds embark on a honeymoon. My parents embarked on a new life. And they forged that new life here. It never fails to amaze me that I won the greatest lottery in the history of the world; I was born and raised in America, as a lifelong American citizen. No Roman emperor, no Persian Shah, no Mongol Khan, no Russian Czar ever enjoyed the kind of freedom and good fortune that I have been privileged to enjoy all of my life, all thanks to my geographic location, and to the fact that I have for a lifetime been the proud owner of an American passport, and American citizenship. All of my life, and especially since September 11th, I have humbled and prostrated myself before my God in gratitude for the favor He has shown me in this regard.

.

On the increasing success of terrorism, as evidenced by the Bush administration’s being yanked around on a string by Arafat and his Islamo-fascist allies:

Here is a brief comparison for you: Like the negative campaigning in US politics which is so often referred to as “the politics of personal destruction”, terrorism works. Every year, politicians launch low brow and even slanderous attacks on the character of their opponent, every year the public acts disgusted, and every year they go to the polls on election day and cast their ballot for the candidate who slung the dirt. Its a time honored tradition. The fact is that as much as the public complains about such tactics, mud-slinging politics works.

The terrorism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no different. Leaders from around the world can give some truly powerful lip service to the idea that terrorism is a scourge which should not be accepted. But terrorism creates and escalates violence, and violence gets attention. Attention gets results. That is why terrorism will continue to be a prominant tactic in the future of international politics.
I hope President Bush can prove me wrong.

So do I, brother. So do I.

“[T]he weblog phenomenon does not represent anything fundamentally new in the news media: The New York Times has been publishing individual points of view on the OP ED page for 100 years.” – Martin Niesenholtz of nytimes.com. You think the Times op-ed page would publish most of what’s being written on blogs? Ahem. Niesenholtz is betting Dave Winer $2000 on the proposition that “[i]n a Google search of five keywords or phrases representing the top five news stories of 2007, weblogs will rank higher than the New York Times’ Web site.” Check out the discussion. By the way, I think an opinion site that actually gets writers to put their money where their mouth is makes a lot of sense. Drama + hackery = readable journalism.

Michael Ledeen has a typically astute column on Iran today. My favorite line: “Iran and the PLO have been cooperating intimately since 1972, but the truth is always welcome, and one probably shouldn’t quibble over a mere thirty years.”

Could Bush-Rice be the potential Republican ticket in 2004? The attractions are obvious. Rice does several things for Bush. She helps eradicate the gender gap, the biggest liability for Republican candidates. She could also help Bush to achieve his dream of winning more than the paltry ten percent of black votes he did in 2000, a demographic group Democrats desperately need to keep locked up to keep an edge in presidential politics. Rice – coming from the South and Mountain West, but also provost of one of California’s greatest universities – makes geographic sense as well. And, best of all, she’s a trusted conservative. Her instincts are Bush’s: realist, uncompromising but flexible in a pinch. And he trusts her deeply. When you think about it, it’s hard to think of any rival in the cabinet with the same credentials for a future vice-presidential nomination. And what it would do for the image of the Republican party as a whole would be momentous… (For more, see the full piece, just posted, here.)