The Dish

Dear OBL,

Just like yours, my beard has been getting a little gray on the chin and sides recently. And it really does age one. I’m not sure those 72 virgins have much of a choice in the matter but unless they have a grand-daddy fetish, you’re probably not looking too hot these days. I know how you feel. I guess I grew resigned to it as I entered my 40s. Graying bear-dom or aging twink? Not a tough call – and my husband actually has a thing for salt-and-pepper types. And when I’d seen guys with dyed beards, I’d concluded it was useless trying to resist anyway. They all looked like someone had stuck a paint-brush on their chin. Which, I’m sorry to say, is a little close to your latest vlog-cast.

But all is not lost, your Mullahship. A little experimentation at the local CVS can work wonders. Or click here for help. Pick a color close to your own – dark brown or black, I’d say, in your case (95 – 100 on the JFM scale) – and dab just a little, just to take the edge off, no more. If in doubt, use less. If you fade it in slowly and gently over time, most people won’t notice. But be careful or one lazy dye-job will be with you for weeks. Leave Just For Mullahs on for three minutes max and then rush to the shower or waterfall or whatever you’re using at the moment. Presto. Your next video can blend back toward the whole 2004 look. It’s a shame you blew it, of course, with the latest disaster. But image is reparable. Look at Hillary. With time, there’s hope.

The alternative theory, of course, is that you’re actually working a clean-shaven look, and wearing a false beard for security reasons. Sorry, but no excuse, Bin darling. There are plenty of good false wigs and beards available. They’re not all uniform black – and even if that’s all you can find, you can finagle something a little subtler than the toilet brush you’ve got stuck on your face right now. If you can’t find someone to help in Kandahar, try Ptown. But come during bear week. If you put on a few pounds, you’ll blend right in.

(Photo: Brian from Plunderbund.)

From a comment on Matt’s blog:

Considering the state of flux in the GOP Presidential field, it’s really not too late for OBL to get in and have a serious shot at winning the Republican nomination.

He’d be able to espouse a more conservative foreign policy than anyone but McCain, and with his "Fair Alms" tax proposal, he’d have a more conservative economic plan than any of them.

And, of course, given his views on social issues, I think GOP voters could rely on his judicial appointments.

Heh.

"No matter how strained a reading Josh Marshall can conjure up, bin Laden thought the Democrats were to be his partners in creating the world he wants to live in," – Hugh Hewitt, never disappointing.

The latest diatribe from the Just-For-Men Taliban Department is either hilarious or just cracked, whichever way you look at it. Did OBL actually use the term "neoconservative"? Is he really echoing Daily Kos on the wimpiness of the Democrats? Does he really think Richard Perle is that powerful? Or is Terry Jones hiding under that silly hat? I love this Chomskyesque digression:

According to the transcript, bin Laden says there are two ways to end the war:

"The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you."

The second is to do away with the American democratic system of government. 

"It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations."

No Blood For Oil!

The Hewitt-Weimar crowd will doubtless be eager to point out that OBL wants us out of Iraq. Or so he says. So? Do we take our marching orders from al Qaeda? Do we really want our objectives and priorities and judgment to be in any way affected by this religious kook? You could well argue that OBL has every interest in headfaking the US into staying in Iraq’s quicksand. But it seems to me that both sides in the argument over the surge would be best to leave OBL’s rant alone. It’s just a helpful reminder that behind all the smoke and mirrors, there is an Islamic Ted Kazcinski still ranting. He should be laughed at or brought to justice. Bush, alas, has been able to do neither.

That sounds about right to me if we are actually serious about what the president allegedly believes, i.e. rebuilding a non-country from scratch through the brushfire of a bitter religious civil war. One pro-surge advocate has actually said so. Good for him. Fred Kaplan’s piece is well worth a read. It would require a massive increase in global troop levels to maintain security across the world at anything like the current levels – an investment project of enorm ous proportions. This is the intellectually honest version of the current view that with minimal security gains in the patchwork of a disaggregated Iraq, we can and should hang in indefinitely. It’s important, I think, to force the surge-promoters to acknowledge this. We appear to be heading toward a decision just to stay. Just because we can’t accept a loss.

A reader writes:

I’m a few days late on this, but I noticed your post on the art of the cocktail, and this chap sprang to mind.  If you’ve never been to the Hemingway Bar at the Ritz Paris, you really must go when this chap is on duty.  You’ll never have a cocktail experience quite like it!

One can walk into his bar, tell him EXACTLY how you feel, and he’ll make a drink that matches that mood without fail. It’s an amazing talent. I’m never in Paris for more than 24 hours without finding my way to the Hemingway.

He’s English, to boot.

Here’s one directed at Susan Collins:

A reader writes:

I’m fine with a modestly increasing carbon tax over time, if it’s well-structured.  Simply keeping up with gas and oil productivity gains in tax form is long overdue.  However, I think it’s worth exploring what the unintended consequences of a carbon tax would be, and to try and take them into account.  For example … coal – which is still our largest source of electricity – has a much higher carbon footprint than oil does. Therefore, a carbon tax that doesn’t take this into account would move us towards more oil, not less.  If "defund[ing] some of our enemies" is a primary goal, then a flat carbon tax is a terrible idea.

I’d phase it in gradually and place the bulk of it on oil for long-term national security reasons. But coal needs to be priced upward too. Look: I’m not a technical expert on these matters. The point is to begin to use taxation to help advance our energy and national security needs. I’m not a fan usually of using the tax code to get preferred results. But this is close to a global emergency; and the only way to get beyond carbon is to give the market real incentives to create new energy technologies.

Jim Fallows contra Tom Friedman.

Maybe not. Danny Finkelstein dreams on.

(Photo: Alex Wong/Getty.)