Kristin brought to my attention something next to confusing?

“this weekend” vs. “next weekend”

“this exit vs. next exit” (think of verbal directions and highway signs)

Shouldn’t we fix this mess?

because

Read the rest of this entry »

Can anyone tell me what in the partially-declassified National Intelligence Estimate is so newsworthy to warrant such prominent coverage in our newspapers and news shows? Tell me, which of these so-called “key judgments” would strike any sentient adult as new or surprising?

[Al-Qa’ida] has protected or regenerated key elements of its … attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas…

[A]l-Qa’ida will intensify its efforts to put operatives [in the U.S.]

[T]he United States currently is in a heightened threat environment.

[A]l-Qa’ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa’ida in Iraq.

[A]l-Qa’ida’s Homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent
political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the US population. The group is proficient with conventional small arms and improvised explosive devices, and is innovative in creating new capabilities and overcoming security obstacles.

[T]he spread of radical—especially Salafi—Internet sites, increasingly
aggressive anti-US rhetoric and actions, and the growing number of radical, self-generating cells in Western countries indicate that the radical and violent segment of the West’s Muslim population is expanding, including in the United States.

The ability to detect broader and more diverse terrorist plotting in this environment will challenge current US defensive efforts and the tools we use to detect and disrupt plots.

Seriously, the NIE is nothing more than a watered-down CYA measure. So why is it newsworthy? My guess is that in the context of the Bush administration’s disingenuous representation of our ill-conceived “War on Terror”, the NIE is a rare frank assessment of reality by our government.

I was challenged by Boo, like six months ago, to post a defense of Christopher Hitchens. I apologize. It took me a while.

First, what are we talking about here? Boo himself wrote the following: “he is SOO brilliant and SOO entertaining…I like him for all the obvious reasons (sarcastic wit and brutal argumentative style)”. But Boo concluded that he couldn’t “overlook the occasional selective soundness of his reasoning”. I understand. What are we really talking about here? Hitchens, the dauphin, or heir, to Gore Vidal, the longtime Nation correspondent, the ally of Susan Sontag and Edward Said, had the audacity to support the decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003. That’s what we’re talking about here, right? Just to be clear. And not only that. I mean, Andrew Sullivan, Dan Savage, the New Republic, the Economist, the majority of Americans, etc. supported the initial decision to go to war. While this is unforgivable to some, it is OK to most, as long as you decided (typically sometime around late 2005) that the war was a bad idea, you could rejoin the antiwar side (as has, I’m afraid, Sullivan). Hitchens, though, still maintains that the war was at worst unavoidable and at best the right thing to do. And Hitchens was particularly vocal with his support for the war in Iraq, and for his support for GWB in 2004 (though he was then not an American citizen and couldn’t vote, he commented that he was “slightly for Bush” in 2004). Liberals hate this guy, though I would argue that he has been the consistently liberal party in this whole mess. First, a brief biography:

Much is made of Hitchens’ former Trotskyist days. Hitchens was an aggressive left-winger, credentials he showed off in the 1980s as a harsh critic of Ronald Reagan (esp. on foreign policy). He’s also (still) an ardent supporter of the Palestinian cause (he co-edited a volume with Edward Said, released in 2001). Hitchens has always taken positions, though, that didn’t seem in line with his socialist or leftist credentials. He supported Thatcher’s military response to Argentina in the Falklands, became a fierce critic of “fascism with an Islamic face” after his friend Salman Rushdie’s life was threatened by it, and was a constant antagonist of both Clintons during the 1990s (he wrote a slim volume, No One Left to Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family). He was perhaps the only one on the left to call Clinton’s 1998 raid on a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum a war crime (others on the left refused to condemn the attack, at the time anyway, as it may have furthered the impeachment efforts against Clinton).
Read the rest of this entry »

When I saw the title of this post at Reason’s blog, my first thought was that, despite being all conservative and whatnot, they must be pretty hip to be referencing a song from one of my favorite bands. Then I realized that maybe I’m old and boring now, and the music I listen to isn’t hip anymore (if it ever was in the first place).

also, I just got the new spoon album. I think I like it so far, but I haven’t listened enough to say much yet.

From Slate:

A prominent and rich family. A drunk-driving arrest. Serious doubts about intelligence. A misspent youth. Sudden inspiration through the Bible. It’s interesting how two of the most unpopular and divisive figures in America today—George W. Bush and Paris Hilton—have so much in common.