Better Get Some Plastic Covers on the Couch

Phil is the co-worker who asked this question about aliens and double entry accounting. He just told me that he’s planning on calling in sick tonight.

I asked what was up. Family coming into town and he wants to catch up? Birthday and he wants to celebrate? Does he have a problem with his eyesight ’cause he just can’t see himself coming in to work?

No, he really expects to be as sick as a dog tomorrow. Kerry’s going to give his acceptance speech and Phil’s going to down a shot every time he mentions Vietnam.

I told Phil that he shouldn’t do that. Alcohol poisoning kills people every so often, and I’d hate to lose him.

Not to worry, he said. He had already thought of that. Instead of hard spirits he was going to be downing shot glasses full of beer.

Smart guy, Phil.

Whatever Happened to “Laugh and the World Laughs With You”?

I was just reading this post on Strategypage.com. (Scroll down to the post dated July 28, 2004.) Fantastic news from Afghanistan!

The country is improving, with new construction all over the place and new schools for the children. The crushing oppression of women found under the Taliban has been greatly reduced, with many of them trading in their burkas for a simple headscarf. The 3.5 million Afghanis who fled the country have returned, trade with Pakistan has increased to 50 times it’s previous volume, and only 11 percent of the citizens still support the remnants of the Taliban.

Not only that, but 2/3rds of the population support both the new government and the US!

It’s only been 2 years since our invasion, and this is amazing progress. It couldn’t be going better by any reasonable criteria. Heck, it’s already exceeded just about any reasonable expectation I had.

So let’s ask a rhetorical question. Why aren’t we hearing more of this in the press? (Heh. Like we don’t already know.)

Blow Hard and Hope it Sounds Like Music

Go out and find someone who was politically active in the 1960’s. Ask them if the political landscape has ever been as polarized as it is now.

They’ll probably say that it was much worse in the 1960’s, but it’s worse now than it’s been since. After all, we have all those big protests and people are emotional and passionate, but we don’t have riots and violence.

Not yet, anyway. (I doubt that we will, either.)

So we have this Michael Moore guy making documentaries that are full of what professional journalists and movie critics call “misleading statements” and “intriguing polemics”. Being a simple self-defense instructor and college student I call them “lies”.

This sort of thing plays well with people who want their opinions to be justified, but it’s not something that will last in the long run. Those that continue to use Moore’s work as a reference will come off sounding like idiots.

In fact, that’s pretty much the opinion I have when someone refers to any of his books or films in a debate. It’s like that old adage about debates on the Internet lasting until someone calls their opponent a Nazi. Might as well pack it in, it’s not worth wasting your time talking to this ninny.

So Moore is riding a wave of emotion. He’s rallying fellow travellers to the flag, getting people all fired up. But I wonder how long he’ll last once events evolve and he’s no longer needed.

If Kerry wins I figure the Dems will distance themselves pretty quick from good ol’ Michael. If Bush is re-elected then Moore might have a chance to stay in the limelight for awhile longer as the Dems get even more shrill.

But I could be wrong about this. As H.L. Mencken once said, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”

Moore’s living proof that you can make a tidy sum of cash as well as avoiding bankruptcy court.

The Next Unavoidable Problem

Lex pointed out this recent essay, on Iran, by Walter Russel Mead.

The Bush administration, for its part, has treated Iran the way many of its critics wanted it to treat Iraq: It has supported a European Union initiative to resolve the nuclear issue in a peaceful way.

So there’s a widespread U.S. consensus to engage Iran in peaceful negotiations in partnership with Europe. This strategy has one small flaw: So far, it isn’t working.

Mead is more optimistic than I am about the possibility of defusing Iran without using force. I think we emboldened the mullahs by appeasing them, in our efforts to avoid having to open a new front in the war, and that confrontation is now inevitable unless we prepare seriously to attack. (And we should make our intentions clear; this enemy interprets subtlety and nuance as weakness.) Even then I think it may be too late to avoid confrontation.

We need also to consider that Israel has long considered a nuclear Iran to be one of the main threats, if not the main threat that it faces, and is at more immediate risk than we are. I don’t think Israel will stand by indefinitely if we are indecisive.

We may do better to force the situation. The mullahs are either bluffing, in which case we should call their bluff, or they are serious, in which case we should confront them on our own timetable rather than wait for them to get nukes and precipitate a crisis. Our current policy, consisting of a combination of appeasement and hoping that the Iranian government gets overthrown before we have to act, isn’t working.