The Dish

An interesting part of his debate in the 2004 Senate race against Alan Keyes:

There would be even more dissertation topics, I guess:

"If the plays had been written with a word processor on a computer that had somehow survived, we still might not know anything definitive about Shakespeare’s original or final intentions — these are human, not technological, questions — but we might be able to know some rather different things… We might discover the play had originally been called GreatDane.doc instead of Hamlet.doc. We might also be able to know what else he had been working on that same day, or what Internet content he had browsed the night before (since we’ll assume Shakespeare had Web access too). While he was online, he might have updated his blog or tagged some images in his Flickr account, or perhaps edited a Wikipedia entry or two. He might even have spent some time interacting with others by performing with an avatar in Second Life, an online place where all the world is truly a shared virtual stage.
…
We may no longer have the equivalent of Shakespeare’s hard drive, but we do know that we wish we did, and it is therefore not too late — or too early — to begin taking steps to make sure we save the born-digital records of the literature of today."

Matt Yglesias explains to Senator Lieberman who the insurgents are in Iraq.

Things have changed over the years:

Cats were not discussed in America’s first general pet reference guide, the 1866 Book of Household Pets, even though almost every household had one. But cats weren’t pets; they were seen, according to pet historian Katherine Grier, as “independent contractors,” housed in exchange for controlling vermin. Today, pets rarely have practical functions. According to the APPMA, the most frequently cited benefit of pet ownership—listed by 93 percent of dog and cat owners alike—is “companionship, love, company, affection.” The second-most-cited benefit is “fun to watch/have in household,” and the third is “like a child/family member.” Seventy-one percent of dog owners consider their pet a member of the family, as do 64 percent of cat owners, 48 percent of bird owners, 40 percent of small animal owners, and 17 percent of reptile owners. Even the scaly and cold-blooded, once brought into the home, can inspire parental affection.

I wonder if there’s a book about the evolving meaning of pet-ownership as a parallel to the evolving meaning of marriage. Snoop-Dogg puts clothes on his, by the way.

“I coulda had class… I coulda been a contender, I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am – let’s face it.”

But a cool one:

A reader writes:

Your "Quote for the Day" from Roger Cohen caused me to do a double take. I am for Obama at the moment, but this quote made me think that one of the great advantages with Clinton is that the whole world LOVES Bill Clinton. Restoration of the House of Clinton would be a signal to the world that the Americans have finally come to their senses. Obama will have a lot of work to do to rebuild trust. He will have a honeymoon, but he will also have misteps. There will be a time when the international community will be wondering if he has what it takes.

With Clinton, America regains it credibility in the international arena virtually instantly. The world knows this dynasty, and the evidence is that they like it. I doubt that any foreign government will spend more than two minutes worrying about what Cohen refers to as "stripping the regal". They’ll be so relieved that we’ve stripped the arrogant neoconservative war mongering machine.

It is a fact, I think, that Bill Clinton is a huge asset to the Clinton candidacy. To deny that is to deny reality. He brings to the Middle East, especially, real star power. For some reason, they love the guy, probably because they are as addicted to lying and bullshit as he is. But, hey, he nearly got an agreement at Taba. Maybe the burbling, beaming bubba is what Iraq needs.

I had another illicit thought about Hillary the other night. Yes, I was the worse for wear, so take this for what it’s worth. I was thinking: however awful it would be to have Hillary as president, wouldn’t the fact of a woman running the most powerful country on earth piss off the Islamists in all the right ways? Her appointing her own husband – an ex-president no less – to a lesser position would also tick the mullahs off. How better to tell those sexist pigs what we stand for? That’s where my thoughts were. Maybe I should have left them where I found them. But what else is a blog for?

In two parts:

The riposte is a little sad, really. Hanson clearly favored an aggressive strategy that concentrated on shoot-to-kill aggression and opposed any increase in troops back in 2004; Petraeus, in contrast, was a stern critic of past efforts, wanted many more troops and emphasized classic counter-insurgency tactics – patrolling and living with Iraqi civilians to win their trust, while cordoning off terror hubs and attacking them. Hanson is now in favor of the troop increase (surprise!), but still doesn’t say how this squares with his previous position that 138,000 was plenty. He simply says that 160,000 is closer to 138,000 than to 200,000. Sure, but if 138,000 and more aggression had been enough in 2005 and 2006, why did we need the surge at all? If Hanson realizes he was wrong back then, why not say so? It seems to me he has a choice between jettisoning some (but not all) of his past arguments and taking his current position or admitting he was wrong, explaining why, and moving on. But he’s on the neocon right; and they simply cannot admit they’re ever wrong. Like cardinals defending orthodoxy rather than politicians defending policies, they keep repeating themselves. So we’re left with the contortions of this morning.

Hanson tries to square the circle by saying that our recent "success" is due to more aggressive tactics, not the troop increases. If you believe Petraeus has instituted more shoot-to-kill operations in civilian areas, less outreach to the public and more lethality, then he may have a point. But I’m guessing you read the papers as well as I can. Certainly Petraeus believes more troops made a difference. (Of course, almost the entire difference is a function of Shiite militias pulling back and waiting for us to leave, and the Sunni tribes in Anbar realizing al Qaeda is a bunch of barbarian fanatics.)

Hanson’s peroration is a recitation of a creed. This creed endures like all creeds, irrespective of reality. The last five years have told us a lot, and there’s plenty to disagree on and think about. If it has entrenched your view that the Arab world is just itching for normal democratic development, that it’s another post-war Germany or Japan on the verge of a miracle, then fair enough. But surely it behooves you to say why any sane person would draw such a conclusion. Hanson doesn’t. He simply darkly accuses me thus:

I am not sure that Sullivan can read the English language.

I used to think Sullivan was perhaps unstable, but not necessarily dense. But I fear that he is increasingly both – or more still.

More still? More than unstable and stupid? You mean I’m Al Gore now?

He hasn’t changed; he’s just defending a very convoluted position on abortion. Ambers explains. On marriage, however, he favors the full monty, states’ rights be damned.