Search Results

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: In The Atlantic, The Debt Crisis At American Colleges.

How do colleges manage it? Kenyon has erected a $70 million sports palace featuring a 20-lane olympic pool. Stanford’s professors now get paid sabbaticals every fourth year, handing them $115,000 for not teaching. Vanderbilt pays its president $2.4 million. Alumni gifts and endowment earnings help with the costs. But a major source is tuition payments, which at private schools are breaking the $40,000 barrier, more than many families earn. Sadly, there’s more to the story. Most students have to take out loans to remit what colleges demand. At colleges lacking rich endowments, budgeting is based on turning a generation of young people into debtors.

As this semester begins, college loans are nearing the $1 trillion mark, more than what all households owe on their credit cards. Fully two-thirds of our undergraduates have gone into debt, many from middle class families, who in the past paid for much of college from savings. The College Board likes to say that the average debt is “only” $27,650. What the Board doesn’t say is that when personal circumstances go wrong, as can happen in a recession, interest, late payment penalties, and other charges can bring the tab up to $100,000. Those going on to graduate school, as upwards of half will, can end up facing twice that.

A fact of academic life is that the tuition-debt nexus keeps most colleges going.

Something that can’t go on forever, won’t. This can’t go on forever.

SOME WILL SEE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY: 1/2 Say Spending Cuts Will Lead To Violence. From the comments: “The half saying there will be violence is probably the same half that has their hand out.”

The threat of such violence is used by bureaucrats and various representatives of the looter/moocher classes to extract payments, of course. But it doesn’t matter. Something that can’t go on forever, won’t, and current expenditures can’t go on forever, so they won’t. If that leads to violence, then there will be violence. But I don’t believe that violence in a broke country with limited financial options and limited political patience will receive the same payoff as violence in a rich country with lots of options and extensive patience.

NEW YORK POST: So Who’s Playing Politics With The Debt?

The president went to great pains yesterday to stress that raising the $14.3 trillion debt limit “is not a vote that allows Congress to spend more money. . . . [It] simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up.”


Washington spends more than it takes in — and that can’t continue.

Indeed, it was reported yesterday that the US Treasury now has an operating cash balance of $73.8 billion — $2.4 billion less than the cash that Apple, the computer giant, has on its books.

The reason is simple: Apple collects more cash than it spends. With Washington, it’s the other way around. And increasing Washington’s revenues via higher taxes does nothing to rein in spending.

Something that can’t go on forever, won’t. Debt that can’t be repaid, won’t.

SHOCKER: Investigation into APS cheating finds unethical behavior across every level. “Across Atlanta Public Schools, staff worked feverishly in secret to transform testing failures into successes. Teachers and principals erased and corrected mistakes on students’ answer sheets. Area superintendents silenced whistle-blowers and rewarded subordinates who met academic goals by any means possible.”

It’s basically Enron with your kids. The cheating is a big deal, but what the cheating was designed to cover up is the broader problem of an education system that’s failing miserably, doing much worse at educating kids than it did decades ago despite a massive increase in resources consumed. Is that a sign of a lower-education bubble? I think it might be. “Steady increases in per-pupil spending without any commensurate increase in learning can’t go on forever. So they won’t. And as state after state faces near-bankruptcy (or, in some cases, actual bankruptcy), we’ve pretty much hit that point now.”

THE ECONOMIST: Higher Education Bubble: Blowing Up Grad School. More here. “The ultimate benefit seems to be a substantial wage premium, and comparisons of that premium to average levels of tuition or incurred debt make college look like an incredibly good deal. The tricky thing is that there may well be an identification problem: it could simply be the case that students who go to college earn more, because the types of students that go to college are the types that have characteristics (intelligence, discipline) that translate into higher earnings. University degrees could simply be expensive signaling mechanisms at best, in this world, and massively wasteful cultural institutions at worst.”

Related: Down To Business: Higher Education Is Ripe For Technology Disruption. “If you think online degrees will remain just a niche, consider the time when Borders and E.F. Hutton were touting their superior in-person experiences.”

Or is it really a student loan bubble?

What can’t go on forever, won’t. The increases in tuition and indebtedness we’ve seen over the past couple of decades can’t go on forever, so they won’t.

OBAMA TO SPEAK: Reader David Wegener writes: “NBC has had two crawls during Celebrity Apprentice that Obama intents to make an important announcement. Is he actually planning on preempting the end of tonight’s show?”

Here’s a report: “House Intelligence committee aide confirms that Osama Bin Laden is dead. U.S. has the body.” Well, good. Better late than never. Alas, since I don’t have working TV, I won’t be able to watch.

More here.

And reader Dan Mason writes: “Usama Bin Laden dead — Obama capitalizes on the continuation of another program started by the Bush administration.” First Gitmo, now this? Well, I approve. But, then, a warmonger like me would, I suppose.

UPDATE: It’ll stream live here.

And Jody Green writes: “We have the body? What now? This will be interesting. What do we do with it. Put it on trial in NY? Send it to the Royal Family? Send it to Gitmo? Just curious.” On Facebook, Dana Loesch was suggesting we exhibit it Mussolini style. Of course, if he was killed by a missile there may not be much to exhibit.

Plus, thoughts from Austin Bay: “Would that we had him in Fall 2001. However, time has worked against Bin Laden. He dies tarnished. A man who hides in a cave for ten years is no martyr. He quickly lost the aura of divine sanction — he was driven out of Afghanistan, and the US stayed. Moreover, the US took its counter-terror war into the heart of the politically dysfunctional Arab Muslim world. What’s the choice between tyrant and terrorist? Iraq provides a choice. Al Qaeda made Iraq a battleground and lost — lost to the Iraqi people and the US.”

Also, thoughts from Pejman Yousefzadeh. “I am more than happy to give the Obama Administration–and the Bush Administration before it–plenty of credit for having designed and implemented the military operations that brought about bin Laden’s demise. Here’s hoping that he didn’t die quickly after the mortal blow landed.”

And a reader emails: “This is why we continue to use drones in Pakistan.” [LATER: Well, it wasn’t a drone, apparently.]

Much more here.

And on Facebook, Rick Torres comments: “(Has) Been Laden.” Plus, Frank Warner emails: “ESPN is running the Mets-Phillies game in Philadelphia. Minutes ago, here in the cradle of liberty, the fans started chanting, ‘USA! USA!’ You know why.”

Meanwhile, reader Shane Boyd cracks: “When do we get to see the long form death certificate?”

And he didn’t preempt Trump, because he still hasn’t come on. Hurry it up, man. I’m going to bed soon.

Plus, from Rick Moore on Facebook: “Reports are Obama’s speech is being delayed because the CIA is still trying to notify bin Laden’s next of goat.” Cheap, but still funny.

And Debbie Eberts emails: “Interesting that Petraeus was tapped for the CIA about the time OBL was actually killed.”

And Bigwig emails: “Not to be a wet blanket, and I’m glad he’s dead…but isn’t it a mistake have the President of the US schedule an unprecedented Sunday night speech just to announce his death? Won’t that just burnish Osama’s status even more as far as the Islamists are concerned?” Meh. His status is Room Temperature. I don’t mind underscoring that.

Jake Tapper tweets: “Sources say OBL killed at a mansion in pakistan, human mission, shot, US has the body.” A mansion in Pakistan? That raises real questions about Pakistani complicity with Osama. Stay tuned for the followups, I guess.

And Prof. Stephen Clark emails: “With Bin Laden dead, on to al-Zawahiri. I hope the President takes the opportunity to make clear – abundantly clear – that regardless of the administration, this country’s policy is now and forever will be to hunt these bastards down, every last one of them; that they will be killed in the field, or brought to justice in this country – and that either outcome is satisfactory.” Well, if he ever comes on, maybe he will. I can’t wait much longer.

Will there be any complaints from the usual lawfare types?

MORE: He’s on now.

Good speech so far. Interesting that Obama referenced Bush in a positive way here, which has not been his pattern of late. And he pretty much picked up on Prof. Clark’s point.

And it was nicely short and to the point. Well done.

And Bill Hobbs tweets: “Dude who nailed bin Laden will never be ‘one-upped’ anytime he’s in a group swapping war stories.”


If you had asked me at a New Year’s Eve party in 2006 what I thought the odds were of the U.S. government taking a controlling interest in the largest bank, the largest car company, and the largest insurance company in America, I would probably have laughed at you. Yet within 36 months, this is exactly what had happened.

My friends who are more liberal than I probably should not make the analogous mistake of imagining that benefit reductions that seem absurd politically right now might come to seem less absurd, and surprisingly quickly.

If you think about it, any real solution to the federal deficit problem is currently politically impossible; yet we know mathematically that, barring a productivity miracle, the situation cannot persist indefinitely. Therefore, we know that some change that currently seems politically impossible is all-but-certain to happen sooner or later.

Something that can’t go on forever, won’t.

STANDARD & POOR’S TREASURY DOWNGRADE: The rating agencies are always the last to know. “As in the case of Enron, the smart money gets gone long before credit downgrades start hitting the headlines. As noted in this column, PIMCO, the world’s largest bond fund, got clear of U.S. Treasuries some time ago, following the lead of a number of hedge funds. The oil-exporting countries are dumping U.S. debt, too. Perhaps they know something we don’t?”

UPDATE: Inflation-adjusted federal spending per capita. “A hundred years ago, federal spending for each person was the equivalent of $200 in today’s dollars. After FDR, with all of his massive public spending, it was $1,000. This year, it’s over $12,000. How long can this continue?” Not much longer. And if something can’t go on forever, it won’t.


Our business model is built on all kinds of assumptions that don’t hold anymore,” said Richard Holmgren, associate dean and CIO at Allegheny College. “Over the last 40 years of the last century, we built a model based on the assumption that net revenues per student would go up every year.…We have a culture built on that assumption,” Holmgren said. “Over the last 10 years, we’ve been struggling because net revenues have been flat.”

None of the participants in the daylong business-model workshop that followed seemed to dispute the basic premise that liberal arts programs are plagued by twin threats of inertia and economic unsustainability. To make matters even more grim, one self-described envoy of “the corporate world” — Kit Stinson, a vice president at the telecommunication giant Avaya — spoke up early on in the conference to testify against the truism that liberal arts graduates make for more creative and critical-thinking workers, setting off a parallel discussion about whether today’s incarnation of liberal education, sacrosanct to many, actually increases students’ employability outside academe.

Something that can’t go on forever, won’t. Plus, bringing tuition shock home: “Eugene Tobin, a program officer at the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and former president of Hamilton College, agreed that faculty members tend to hold relatively unsophisticated views of the business of higher education until their children begin applying to college.”

INDEED: Normal Interest Rates Would Be A Disaster For U.S. Debt. “And that’s why the Federal Reserve is buying U.S. Treasuries. If they didn’t, the U.S. would have to pay higher interest rates on its debt, and we can’t afford to. None of this can go on forever.” Something that can’t go on forever, won’t.

TYLER COWEN: The Fiscal Illusion: “As we fail to make progress on entitlement reform with each passing year, Professor Buchanan’s essentially moral critique of deficit spending looks more prophetic. We are fooling ourselves most of all. United States government debt in public hands is now more than $9 trillion, but most people still don’t realize what it will take to pay that off. . . . The famous Keynesian rejoinder, ‘In the long run we are all dead,’ is less comforting when that long run comes into sight.”

Something that can’t go on forever, won’t. That’s going to be the theme for this decade, I suspect.


At a time when public school students are being forced into ever more crowded classrooms, and poor families will lose state medical benefits, New York State is paying 10 times more for state employees’ pensions than it did just a decade ago. That huge increase is largely because of Albany’s outsized generosity to the state’s powerful employees’ unions in the early years of the last decade, made worse when the recession pushed down pension fund earnings, forcing the state to make up the difference.

Although taxpayers are on the hook for the recession’s costs, most state employees pay only 3 percent of their salaries to their pensions, half the level of most state employees elsewhere. Their health insurance payments are about half those in the private sector. . . . To point out these alarming facts is not to be anti- union, or anti-worker.

Do tell. If something can’t go on forever, it won’t.

CATO: Obama’s Budget Means the Burden of Government Spending Will be $2 Trillion Higher in Ten Years.

UPDATE: Related thoughts here. Things that can’t go on forever, won’t.

GREG BEATO: The More We Spend On Higher Education, The More We Spend On Higher Education. Things that can’t go on forever, won’t. More: “In the face of the Internet and other technologies that have made information and instruction cheaper and more accessible than ever, you might have predicted that the ever-expanding multiversities of the 1980s and 1990s would suffer the same fate as the music industry and the newspaper business. Instead, scope creep has functioned as an ingenious survival mechanism. . . . It’s true that for-profit institutions are raking in huge profits in large part because of federal subsidies. (The CEO of the holding company behind Strayer University made $41 million in 2009.) But it’s also true that few if any for-profits are using federal money to finance lengthy sabbaticals for high-paid professors who teach a handful of classes a year, or the athletic pursuits of undersized linebackers who should have hung up their cleats after graduating high school. Non-profit institutions of higher learning have been using federal money to make sure American college kids are the tannest, best-fed, most vigorously administrated students in the world for decades now. For a little extra credit, our elected officials should start holding them more accountable too.”

WORRIES ABOUT THE GROWTH IN “populist resentment of public employees.” Now where could that come from? Something that can’t go on forever, won’t. The current system of public finance can’t go on forever.

POINTS AND FIGURES: Is There An Education Bubble? Things that can’t go on forever, won’t.

DIRE STATES: Deep in debt, most governors will have to either raise taxes or cut spending— exactly what not to do when recovering from a recession. For most, the spending cuts are going to have to take priority. “Neither taxpayers nor bondholders will fund ever-increasing spending. It can’t go on forever; it will stop.” Yes, that rule from Herb Stein — things that can’t go on forever, won’t — is the defining rule of this age.

AN END TO THE EURO? “I hear all the reasons that this has to muddle through. But I remain worried. Already, I am not hearing great things about the German economic team; the economists are having a harder and harder time persuading the politicians that this is a good idea and the voters are getting madder and madder. Angela Merkel is fiercely resisting expanding Europe’s emergency fund. Meanwhile, so are voters in Ireland who don’t see why they should have to pay through the nose to bail out foreign banks. As Herb Stein said, if something can’t go on forever, it won’t. And this can’t go on forever.”

DO YOU THINK? “The ongoing increases in college tuition and fees make the housing price bubble seem pretty tame by comparison, and we should therefore be very concerned about the possibility that we might now be facing an unsustainable higher education bubble.” If something can’t go on forever, it won’t.


I have a small HP wireless laser printer (1022nw) which has been great, but I think the low priced Samsung wireless printers (I have one at home) are impossible to beat. The prices are so low they are hard to believe. Just try “Samsung laser printer” at Amazon.

You mean like this? Reader Tom Armstrong emails:

Epson R series. I bought an R300 a couple of years ago on eBay for $40 (newer model R340 is available for <$75 on eBay). It prints directly on CD’s which is handy on occasion and does a decent job printing photos. But most of all, there are vendors selling generic ink (again on eBay), for less than $2 per cartridge. It has separate cartridges for each color so you don’t throw away the whole color cartridge because you’re out of blue. I buy a case of 24 (6 of each color), for $35, free shipping. And the ink quality is as good or better than Epson ink. It’s a really good “throwaway” printer.

Reader Martin Pease writes:

I am in charge of supporting a remote sales force. The single biggest technical problem I encounter is printers, and the main culprit is HP. Drivers that don’t work right, tons of crapware installed from the CD, dozens of services installed in Windows… For my own personal printer, I bought a Brother MFC-J630W multifunction printer. It has wired, wireless and USB for connectivity, it installs a minimal set of software, and it just works. I am recommending Brother printers to all the people I support over HP models. They tend to be a bit cheaper, too.

I’ve had good luck with HP in the past — my early-1990s LaserJet 4L still works — but they seem to have cut quality lately. And there’s an InstaPundit bonus. A reader emails: “Good news! You recommended Brother wireless laser printer has been reduced on Amazon to $99! Can’t beat that!”

Meanwhile, William Stoddard is bucking the HP-haters: “For Michelle Dornath-Mohr’s benefit, I’d like to say that I’ve been buying and using Hewlett-Packard printers and multifunctions for years. I traded in my previous HP printer for a multifunction early this year, not because it had stopped working, but because it was no longer possible to download a printer driver compatible with my current operating system; they seem to last forever, and at least for inexpensive models, the output quality is pretty good. My new multifunction has full wireless capability, which is handy. So I recommend looking at HP.”

And Jonathan Bailey writes:

I just delivered my oldest daughter to UofA in Tucson and I bought her a Canon Pixma MP560 that cost about $150 ($50 after Apple rebate). It’s an all-in-one unit that prints, scans, copies and faxes. Canon has one tank of ink per color, so using up one color doesn’t require you to by a whole new cartridge, just the color you are out of at roughly $12.00. Also, the scan feature of Canon printers and scanners create multi-page PDF files, unlike HP all-in-ones that create a separate TIF file for each page. I use an HP for work (at home) but find I need to use the Canon on the family computer to scan documents (frequently), meaning I do a lot of running back and forth between computers with a thumb drive. Can’t speak for the other printer
brands out there but I’m happy with the Canon.

Hope this helps. The Canon is showing at just $79.99 at the moment, so that’s pretty cheap.

TIM CAVANAUGH: “Bernanke is now entering the second of two hot dog-eating competitions, but in this round buns and condiments are included. Much as I’d like to say this is going to be the hot dog-eating competition where somebody actually explodes, I think Bernanke will pull it off. The world hasn’t lost its taste for American debt, and America hasn’t lost its taste for running it up. Yes, yes, it can’t go on forever, but for the Fed’s purposes it only needs to go on until they can claim the Great Repression is over and have somebody believe them.”

A MILLENNIAL CRI DE COEUR: InstaPundit reader McKean Evans emails in response to this Michael Barone post:

I’ve read your blog nearly every day since I was in high school (class of ’04), when the 2000 election disputes and 9/11 really woke me up to the world of politics, and while I haven’t always agreed with you about everything, this is the first time I’ve felt compelled to write to you. So let me say in advance that for about ten years now I’ve been an avid reader and for the most part, very much appreciated what you’ve had to say. I’ve done my very best to avoid ranting and to produce a courteous and reasonably concise statement of why, longtime reader that I am, I’m frankly quite angry with some of your recent postings. Of course, you’re the one with the blog, you’ve got the right to your opinion, and it’s an opinion that I’ve had a great deal of respect for for a long time, so all I ask is that you think about what I have to say in the future.

There’s been a real trend in the blogosphere lately, among people with a variety of different views, to make arguments which run something along the lines of: “the Millennials are lazy, they had everything handed to them on a silver platter, they’re the byproducts of the cult of self-esteem and they’ve never had to work for anything before now, so why should we care if they have trouble finding work right out of school?” Now don’t get me wrong, I’ve always found a lot of what seems to characterize my generation as fairly repellent (Exhibit 1: /Jersey Shore/), and I think that there are a lot of very valid, very important criticisms to level at the the way in which our society has extended adolescence into (apparently) perpetuity, not to mention the wisdom of borrowing yourself into six figures of college debt. However, this new trend of shamelessly and self-righteously laying into 20-30 year olds who, for example, are forced to move back home after graduation because they can’t get a job, or who are forced to remain on their parents’ health insurance, is just counterproductive. Moreover, it’s incredibly insulting. New college graduates are among those most impacted by the recession, and they’re in the worst position to handle unemployment. We don’t have savings, or CD’s, or a 401(k), or home equity to fall back on. What we have is our parents. And make no mistake, nobody, but nobody, is excited to move back home with the folks.

Now of course it’s tempting to make the point that most of us wouldn’t be in this position if we hadn’t borrowed so heavily for school, and that’s absolutely a valid point. That’s a discussion that absolutely has to happen in our society. But it’s completely unjust and inappropriate to simply tell everybody who graduated in the past two years, who still can’t find steady work, that it’s their own damn fault. We weren’t of voting age when Congress decided it was a great idea to undermine the housing and financial sectors, by giving huge home equity loans to persons with no capacity to ever repay them. You wouldn’t have found us among those who blindly followed the financial gurus of the late 90’s and early aughts, who just /knew/ that you could buy a house and that its value would increase forever. You definitely wouldn’t have found us working for the UAW, while the unions bled the heart of the manufacturing sector dry over the past thirty years.

But I’ll tell you where you would have found us over the past ten years, while the stage was being set for everything to go to hell. We were at school, in the library, doing exactly what we were supposed to be doing. And if there’s one great sin of my generation, it’s that we blindly listened to everything that our parents and teachers told us about the value of a college education, of a “liberal arts” degree, and the risks of heavy student loan debt. To grow up in the late 1990’s and in the aughts was to be constantly inundated with the importance, the absolute necessity of Almighty Higher Education. I started hearing about planning for college when I was around 13, and my parents were comparatively very laid back. For the vast majority of people who are now in their 20’s, adolescence wasn’t about anything at all but getting in to college. Our teachers talked about College the way that Churchill talked about Victory. I’ve long argued that the reason why popular culture among young adults today is so obnoxiously, insufferably adolescent is at least partly due to the fact that we were never /allowed/ to be adolescents. You didn’t play sports or write for the school newspaper or volunteer at the soup kitchen because you wanted to, you did it to pad that college application. I can’t tell you how many times I was told, point blank, that the way to success was to get into the best college you could, and borrow as much money as you could to pay for it. Of /course/ college was worth six figures in debt. To even ask the question was unthinkable for most of us, because we had never been allowed to consider the possibility that it might be otherwise.

So now we’ve just graduated, and the fact is that there are simply no jobs. I myself graduated in May from a very competent, middle-of-the-road law school, and probably around 75% of my class is unemployed. And I can tell you first hand that none of them are happy about moving back in with the folks. They’re not doing it because they’re too lazy to support themselves, they’re doing it because they’re looking at 150-200k in student loans and no employment. When I say “no employment” I don’t mean a lack of big-law, 100k associate employment. I don’t even mean that we’re having trouble getting the clerkships and government jobs that the ivy league law schools so despise. I mean nothing–there are simply no jobs.

Did my generation grow up with unreasonable expectations about life, employment, and the value of a degree? Absolutely. But before you’re so quick to judge us, please remember that for the vast, vast majority of our admittedly short lives, we worked intensely hard to do what we were told was the right thing to do, the only thing to do, by absolutely everybody in authority. The worst you can really say about us is that we did what we were told when we were children.

Yeah, it’s a really tough jobs environment out there right now. And Barone’s comments, while correctly observing a trend, are somewhat at odds with his book Hard America, Soft America, which says that America has the worst 18-year-olds and the best 30-year-olds in the industrialized world.

UPDATE: Reader James Ruhland emails: “The best reply a Boomer can give to McKean Evans comes from Animal House: ‘You f’d up. You trusted us.'”

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Douglas Landrum writes:

My heart goes out to McKean Evans. My son just graduated from college – a very tony private school and his Mom and I footed the bill. Our son is still on the payroll – to our chagrin. The rap that Millennials are lazy or had everything handed to them just isn’t so. I think they will be the next greatest generation. They see the ultimate greed of the Boomers (of which I am ashamed to be one). We are the greediest generation. We expect to have our Social Security and Medicare too. We expect to benefit from Obamacare – or so the predominant liberal core of the Boomers do – all at the expense of younger generations. My son has degrees – business marketing major and studio arts minor. He has no job in his field. My son is an ocean lifeguard and delivers pizzas. I am sure he would work as third job if he could find it. These kids will mature up tough and savvy. They will also allow us to be death paneled out of their lives. Don’t under estimate their grit.

Well, the death-paneled-out thing doesn’t sound so great. Meanwhile, Charles Austin writes:

He has it down pat, the whole it’s somebody else’s fault but mine. But as their expectations of the high paying career they are entitled to are smashed between the Scylla of debt as far as the eye can see and the Charybdis of progressive nanny-statism and they are forced to move back home to stretch their adolescence out just a little farther, is it fair to say the chicks are coming home to roost?

I graduated in 1981. That too was a tough job market. If anything really does annoy me about this kind of commentary it is that they think it has never happened before and that they are a special case worthy of special treatment.

The Carter generation vs. the Obama generation. I think the latter has it worse, personally. At this point, a Carter rerun would be an improvement.

MORE: Reader Steve Poling writes:

Your post is one of those rare, long ones that always pique my interest. I don’t think the millenials are lazy, but they may have been misled, victims of educational malpractice. If you have an entire country in which nobody learns how to create value, you should not be surprised if nobody has a job. There will be work for lawyers as long as human nature is as it is. Plumbers, electricians, mechanics, cooks and barbers will also be needed as long as people use such things, get hungry or have hair that grows.

However, a sizable portion of the academy has been diverted into useless endeavors. How many religion and gender studies majors does this nation need to keep America strong and prosperous? How many fill-in-the-blank studies departments exist to provide sinecures to politically connected fellows whose core competency is railing at cops and drinking beer with the President? If your college major teaches you how to create trouble for others, I’m happy when you can’t find work. Conversely, if you can make something besides trouble, then I hope you’ll create value for yourself and for society.

My daughter graduated from Michigan’s Engineering school last year and turned down a job offer in lieu of graduate study. When she finishes her Masters next month, she’ll be able to find work at several places worldwide because she picked a useful major.

Well, creating value is less rewarded than it used to be. And people tend to flock to things that are rewarded. And reader Robin Tillings writes:

I think the themes of your posts yesterday are at a confluence. McKean Evans’s email was a convincing argument for teaching critical thinking skills, which might seem to be in the realm of school curriculum, but really falls into parental responsibility.

Evans is correct that our society emphasizes the roll of higher education as a gateway to a better living. But, as you pointed out in that link to the WP article about college grads going into the trades for a more secure future and readily available jobs, reality intrudes when parents offer their kids the sink or swim choice. Somehow, I don’t think young Mr. Evans is envisioning a future of plumbing despite his dismay at living at home post-college, but that might change if Mom and Dad were asking for rent and utilities money.

My husband and I both hold degrees in liberal arts from good schools and graduated into the 1990 recession. My parents wisely counseled graduating without debt ( Dad a conservative after all), which was the best advice they ever gave me as we had to work a lot of unpleasant jobs to pay the rent post-graduation, a turnip farm one summer being the most memorable and unpleasant. My husband learned the trade of fine cabinetry and construction, which has been extremely lucrative and allowed me to be a stay at home mom and homeschool our eldest. Every valuable skill my husband has in his proverbial toolbox, he learned himself or on the job, and even in this deplorable job market, he landed a wonderful job when his own business went sour with the housing market.

While it’s nice to tell acquaintances in our Ivy League town that we have college degrees (fits the snob appeal), the truth is I’m not sure I’ll counsel my children that college is the single path to success, despite cultural pressure. Self education is a wonderful journey and what we’ve learned on our own stumbling path is that demonstrable skill sets and a strong work ethic trump degrees for most careers. These days it seems that college degrees are paying for a title and a Rolodex of contacts, which can’t be dismissed as unimportant, but should be placed in context of the big picture. Would you pay $100K for a list of names?

Well, I suppose it depends on the names. But point taken. Another reader emails:

I’m a member of Gen-X and have found that the baby boomers seem to claim that any subsequent generation to theirs is lazy and shiftless. I’m firmly of the belief that the boomers project their own vices upon subsequent generations without any true understanding of the wreckage that they’ve left in their wake. Our generations have been starting the career ladder facing higher college debt, higher rent/housing prices, and older employees who have benefited from improvements in health care and don’t intend upon retiring from their well paid perches. From a Gen-X perspective, we have been judged by how much less our generation has produced despite the fact that *per*capita* we’ve outperformed the baby boomers, there are just fewer of us. I’ll bet that the millenials will be at least as productive as we, and there are more of them. The baby boomers should be singing our praises in the streets, for without our industry *and*tax*dollars* that is where they’ll be in their twilight years.

Stay tuned.

A BLU-RAY PLAYER THAT CONSUMER REPORTS RATED “BEST BUY” for well under 200 bucks. Lots cheaper than the one I bought. And this check-rated model from Sylvania is just $119.15. They’ve become commodity items, I guess.

UPDATE: Reader Matthew Moss writes:

For $127.99, you are buying yourself a lot of headaches. Firmware updates have to be done by CD. Load times are forever, quality is at best Okay. And not to state the obvious but look at the price, it is the equivalent of less than four Blue Ray discs. If you can only afford that, you can’t afford to go Blue Ray.

At $220.00 you can get something with LAN connectivity and Netflix online, plus Youtube and few other features you’ll probably never use. If you want a Netflix hub, this the way to go.

But if that isn’t important to you, then why jip yourself? Get a Sony PS3, top of the line Blu Ray player and the best gaming console currently out there. Price? Same as the Magnavox.

Wow, those have gotten cheaper.

WORRIED ABOUT DEBT? This chart won’t make you feel better. But remember — if something can’t go on forever, it won’t.

RICH KARLGAARD: The Coming Blue-State Collapse. “Collapse” may be too strong a term — though with the pension and health-care overhang maybe not — but the rule is that things that can’t go on forever, won’t. And what’s going on in a number of these states can’t.

NICE WORDS: A reader emails: “Your coverage of the post election period is almost making things fun which would otherwise have been depressing. Wonderful.”

Well, we have to take our fun where we can find it — or make it. And while I favored McCain as the lesser evil, since the election his camp has been working overtime to make sure I don’t feel too bad about his loss. Thanks, guys!

Meanwhile, instead of moping that “we blew it,” I’d encourage Republicans and others on the right to look to the future and figure out how to advance the cause of small government and liberty. As a first order of business, I’d suggest focusing on Congress. Unlike Obama, the Democratic leadership is already serving, and already screwing up. Chris Dodd alone should provide endless entertainment, and opportunities to point out dishonesty, hypocrisy, and malfeasance. Can we see just how low they can take Congress’s approval ratings?

Then there’s Joe Biden. They can’t keep him under wraps forever! And once he’s out of the Senate, can we please try to repeal his dumb R.A.V.E. Act?

So be of good cheer. There’s useful stuff to do, and fun to be had doing it. This is the blogosphere — if you’re not having fun, you’re doing it wrong!

ERIC S. RAYMOND: Timing the Entitlements Crash. “The fundamental problem is that income-transfer programs (and the interest service on the debt purchased to keep them running) are spending wealth in higher volumes than the economy can actually generate, and demand for that spending is rising faster than the economy is growing. Thus, raising tax rates is no longer a way out, if it ever was.” Remember, if something can’t go on forever, then it won’t.

STEPHEN GREEN explains the obvious. But note that no longer being a member of the Libertarian Party is hardly the same thing as not being a libertarian. If it were, there would be precious few libertarians left.

Meanwhile, I’m charged with destroying the conservative blogosphere via my seductive radical libertarian ways:

Rob Neppell (aka N.Z. Bear) made an astute point that the concerns of the largest blog on the Right—Instapundit—tends to drive our conversation. He pointed out for the audience that Reynolds was not a conservative but a self-professed libertarian who was once quoted as saying he’d be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons.”

The panelists chuckled; the audience didn’t seem as amused. The reaction speaks volumes. The fact that many center-right bloggers care more about getting linked by a radical libertarian than they do in discussing the concerns of their fellow conservatives is one of the primary reasons the Right blogosphere is a failing to have the same impact as the Left.

I can’t help being seductive — it’s just how I was made. But I don’t see my failure to lead a conservative blogging revolution as a failure at all, since I’m, you know, not a conservative. People who don’t like gay marriage can do their own blogging thing, and I’ll link to ’em sometimes — I do, after all — but not with approval. I’m not on board the anti-gay-marriage, anti-abortion train, and never have been.

UPDATE: Reader Tucker Goodrich emails:

It’d be nice one day if the Republicans could figure out what theLibertarians never will: libertarianism is far and away the predominant political philosophy in the US. Neither the Democrats, the Republicans, or, especially, the Libertarians can figure this out, but your success, as well as Reagan’s, are indicative of this fact.

Where Americans differ from the Libertarian party and the Democrats, is that they believe that they have a right to defend themselves. And this is such a critical issue, that the other differences really don’t matter. The Republicans agree with Americans on the right to defense, but fall short on moralizing bossiness, and, well, corruption.

Three items would make the Republicans the majority party forever: A strong defense of defense, a libertarian take on social issues, and a conservative approach to finance.

Hmm… Sounds like Guiliani.

I’m no Ronald Reagan. And Giuliani is no libertarian. But Goodrich is right about what would make the Republicans a majority party.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Thoughts from Don Surber.

NOBODY LOVES DONALD: Or at least, there’s a sudden wave of anti-Rumsfeld sentiment from people who have been supportive in the past. Jules Crittenden called for Rumsfeld’s resignation earlier this week (he also wants Cheney to resign and be replaced by Condi); on Tuesday the four military papers (Army Times, Navy Times, etc.) will call for Rumsfeld to be replaced, and it’s hard to avoid a sense that the buzzards are circling. On the other hand, this December Vanity Fair article — conveniently made available just before the election — suggests that the issue isn’t so much Rumsfeld as President Bush, though the critics, especially Ken Adelman, get in plenty of swipes at Rumsfeld, too.

It’s hard to know what to make of this. Rumsfeld’s a polarizing figure, and antiwar people have been talking smack about him for so long that legitimate criticism tends to get lost in the fog of politics. But this critique of Rumsfeld’s management style from Michael Ledeen is more troubling, because it’s specific.

Bush, of course, has said that Rumsfeld isn’t going anywhere — and if he’d wanted to manage a political subject-change before the election, replacing Rumsfeld would have been a way to signal a new direction and perhaps win over some doubters, so how likely is it that he will change his mind afterward? At any rate, who would replace Rumsfeld? Harold Ford, Jr. suggested Sam Nunn, but I don’t think that’s very likely.

My concerns about losing momentum in the war on terror really go to the top — if Bush wanted more action, I think Rumsfeld would be delivering it. He certainly has in the past.

UPDATE: Reader Len Smith is unimpressed with the criticisms:

Read the critique on Rummy and felt it was not specific enough for me to judge whether or not he is performing well. It actually sounded like a lot of grousing I hear in corporate break rooms. No direction, Boss is sending me on a wild goose chase again, etc., etc.. Pretty common comments in a dynamic environment. My boss and I once decided not to put any “goals” on my annual review because it was a worthless exercise. In my business, what is important today is old news tomorrow. So I tend to discount these type of complaints.

What I want to know is:

Are the goals of the US military clearly stated to both the administration and the troops?

Are we better today than we were yesterday?

Are the risks, both military and geopolitical, clearly defined and communicated up and down the chain of command?

Can we fight a 3 block war in the Middle East and a conventional war in Korea?

Is our logistics system better than WalMart’s?

Are we prepared for today’s mission and tomorrow’s threat, what about the next decade?

What are our plans to fight the informational war?

These are the kind of things I would like to know before I pass judgment on SecDef’s performance. My son is an enlisted grunt with the Marines so I hear every gripe about “management”, and yet he can not wait to deploy to Iraq in a couple of months. I personally prefer to look at retention numbers as a good measurement of performance. When the guys that live in the organization keep coming back for another 4 years, one has to ask “what are we doing right?”

I can not say with any certainty that Rummy is performing well. I do know that I don’t want the job. Too many whiners!

Yes, our political system is very efficient at delivering those. And Greyhawk emails:

The “four military papers” aren’t military publications – they are the publications of Gannett’s Military Times Media group. Gannett is America’s largest newspaper publisher in terms of daily circulation. In addition to numerous “local papers” (here’s a list ) they publish USA Today. Army Times is an official Army publication in the same way USA Today is an official USA publication.

“Trade journal” might be an apt description, but circulation of the papers has never been very deep among individual service members. “Office copies” abound.

Yes, I realized that they’re not official, but I still thought it somewhat significant. But it’s worth mentioning this in case others didn’t know.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Michael Ledeen says that Vanity Fair misrepresented him:

Readers of NRO know well how disappointed I have been with our failure to address Iran, which was, and remains, the central issue, and it has been particularly maddening to live through extended periods when our children were in battle zones where Iranian-supported terrorists were using Iranian-made weapons against Americans, Iraqis and Afghans. I have been expressing my discontent for more than three years. So much for a change of heart dictated by developments on the ground.

So it is totally misleading for Vanity Fair to suggest that I have had second thoughts about our Iraq policy. But then one shouldn’t be surprised. No one ever bothered to check any of the lies in the first screed, and obviously no fact-checker was involved in the latest “promotion.” I actually wrote to David Rose, the author of the article-to-come, a person for whom I have considerable respect. He confirmed that words attributed to me in the promo had been taken out of context.

And reader Frank “Varifrank” Martin emails:

Anyone who thinks Rumsfeld is doing an awful job doesn’t understand his job or his mission from the President. Rumsfeld [doesn’t] just hold a position in the cabinet, his mission from the President was to literally transform the Military. In terms of organizational culture, there is no culture in the world more institutionally resistant to change than the Military. Add to that, the difficulty of cutting or changing the various lines of revenue to industry that are naturally going to be impacted by that change, and you get a wicked combination of people who are very unhappy at the start that you’ve appeared on the scene.

Rumsfeld is not a nice guy and he has no ambitions beyond this job. He’s not looking at this job as a way to trade up for Presidency someday. That makes it difficult for anyone to “influence” his decisions, which means they go to “plan B” by attacking him at every turn in an attempt to make his job harder, in hopes that he will ask them to knock it off, and give them some form of favor in return. He of course, doesn’t give a damn, which in their minds is what makes him the ‘most dangerous man’ in Washington.

The Military needs transformation, everyone agrees on that, not because the people in it are bad, or that the men and women in it are bad, but its an organization built for a job that’s changed tremendously with world events. It hasn’t changed, and it wont, without someone forcing that sort of institutional transformation. Its a hard job and its rarely successful.

The Military cannot change itself, no organization can do that. Imagine your company or organization suddenly saying that it needs to change to meet business challenges because that’s what the CEO read in a magazine over the weekend. How’s that work? You spend months on “Mission statements” and going on useless employee retreats and in the end, the same lame-o fatass managers run the same asininely redundant departments only with different titles and cost centers. How do you get a company to change? You don’t change because you want to, you change because the competition forces you to change. You get creamed in a quarterly result, or you get merged with the competition. So what happens to us if our Military gets creamed in combat or “Merged”? In that respect, Rumsfelds transformation doest seem so bad now does it?

The Military cannot change itself. Air Force screams at the Navy, Navy screams at the Army, and everyone screams at the Marines, and the Coast Guard continues to go on unfunded. Congress just sits squirms in its seat every time someone wants to do something simple like close an air force base, Private Industry? Oh sure that will work out fine, no self interest there, right?

So what do you do? You get a man just exactly like Rumsfeld, who’s been around forever, knows exactly what works and what doesn’t work, knows where all the bodies are buried at every level of the chain of command and you let him loose by putting him at the top.

Rumsfeld is uniquely and highly qualified to do exactly what he is doing. He is an institutional nightmare to the lifetime bureaucrat. Think of Rumsfeld as one of those CEO’s that gets hired to turn around a company in bankruptcy court, or like Tom Peters without the PR team. This is not to say that the Military is “bankrupt”, but it has lost its way in some places. Do we really need a dozen more Seawolf submarines or should we have 50 more C-17s and C-5s? F-22’s or MV-22’s?, Airborne Laser Missile Defense or another 10 brigades of Marines and Special Forces? I don’t know the answer to those questions, but I know better than to ask Admiral Chuck “Seawolf” Hardmore if we need more Seawolf submarines.

That’s why we are lucky to have him, and that’s why everyone hates him, because in the end Rumsfeld will be remembered as the greatest change agent of all time.

I certainly hope so.

MORE: David Frum also says that Vanity Fair is misrepresenting his position:

My most fundamental views on the war in Iraq remain as they were in 2003: The war was right, victory is essential, and defeat would be calamitous.

And that to my knowledge is the view of everybody quoted in the release and the piece: Adelman, Cohen, Ledeen, Perle, Pletka, Rubin, and all the others.

(Not that it matters, but this fight is very personal for many of those people. Cohen and Ledeen have both had children serve in Iraq, Cohen’s in the Tenth Mountain Division, Ledeen’s daughter in the civil administration and his elder son in the Marines. As a civilian adviser in Iraq, Rubin displayed impressive personal courage living solo for long periods of time in the Shiite zones of east Baghdad.)

Vanity Fair then set my words in its own context in its press release. They added words outside the quote marks to change the plain meaning of quotations.

Vanity Fair dishonestly shilling for the Democrats just before an election? Who’da thought it?

MORE: And here’s more from Michael Rubin, who was also quoted in the piece:

Some people interviewed for the piece are annoyed because they granted interviews on the condition that the article not appear before the election. Vanity Fair is spinning a series of long interviews detailing the introspection and debate that occurs among responsible policymakers every day into a pre-election hit job. Who doesn’t constantly question and reassess? Vanity Fair’s agenda was a pre-election hit job, and I guess some of us quoted are at fault for believing too much in integrity. What the article seeks to do is push square pegs into round holes. Readers will see that the content of the piece does not match the sensational headlines. Were people gathered around the author gripping about Bush? No. Were people identifying faults in the implementation? Yes. Are people sick of the autodafe whereby pundits demand “neocon” confessions to fit their own silly conspiracy theories? Yes. Have those interviewed changed their mind about the war? I have not, no matter how self-serving partisan pundits or lazy journalists want to spin it. I can’t speak for others. . . .

We cannot go around the world betraying our allies—in this case Iraqis who believed in us or allied with us—just because of short-term political expediency. This is not just about Iraq: If we abandon Iraq, we will not only prove correct all of Usama Bin Laden’s rhetoric about the US being a paper tiger, but we will also demonstrate—as James Baker and George H.W. Bush did in 1991—that listening to the White House and alliance with the United States is a fool’s decision. We can expect no allies anywhere, be they in Asia, Africa, or Latin America, if we continue to sacrifice principles to short-term realist calculations. It’s not enough to have an attention span of two years, when the rest of the world thinks in decades if not centuries.

Vanity Fair apparently feels otherwise.

STILL MORE: A reader who prefers anonymity emails:

There is no “loss of momentum” in Iraq.

The deliberate, carefully thought-out mission there is to force the Iraqis to build up a military/security apparatus strong enough to defend the country. If we try to “crush” the insurgency ourselves, the Iraqis will have no incentive to fight. They will sit back and let us battle the unending waves of jihadis, Ba’athists, and Shi’ite militias. We will have to stay there forever while the government enriches itself in the traditional Arab style.

The ball is in the Iraqis’ court. We took away the obstacle to their freedom. If they choose to embrace death, corruption, incompetence, lethal religious mania, and stone-age tribalism, then at least we’ll finally know the limitations of the people in that part of the world.

The experiment had to be made.

Hmm. Some support for this notion — and for the idea that attrition is running in the U.S.’s favor — can be found in this analysis. But for better or worse, the so-called “three year rule” is well-known to U.S. planners — U.S. voters will support a war for three years, but then get antsy for a conclusion. This attitude may be bad, especially as applied to “messy small wars,” but it’s a reality. If the Bush Administration embarked on a strategy that was going to bring this into play, it should have worked much harder on the domestic side, and it hasn’t done that.

On the other hand, it’s also true that if democracy can’t work in Iraq, then we should probably adopt a “more rubble, less trouble” approach to other countries in the region that threaten us. If a comparatively wealthy and secular Arab country can’t make it as a democratic republic, then what hope is there for places that are less wealthy, or less secular?

MORE STILL: Tom Bevan reprints a letter from a reader:

I just came from three years in the bowels of the Pentagon and the SECDEF is generally though of there as tough but fair. Have mistakes been made? Sure, they always are but the professional military learns from it’s mistakes.

Rumsfeld should have probably committed more soldiers to the peacekeeping in Iraq. We didn’t need more to win the battle but to pacify the country afterward. Problem is the services are so small after the Clinton years that there just aren’t enough forces to go much above 140K on a continuing basis. And no one here wants a draft. It would have been nice to get further international support, but that didn’t work out, especially after Madrid. I think everyone in the Pentagon, if not the entire DOD hoped the Iraqis would take more responsibility for themselves and not destroy their country’s infrastructure and their countrymen. But unfortunately they are not.

The Army Times op-ed probably won’t change a single mind in the services. We’re all pretty hard-headed and don’t generally take our cues from the press. We wouldn’t be in the Service if we did.

Read the whole thing. Also, here’s a response from the Pentagon to the Army Times, etc. editorials.

EVEN MORE: Reader Chip Fussell emails:

My son is a USMA educated (ranked 50th in a class of almost 1,000) CPT in Army Special Forces. On January 3, 2005 his team was ambushed in Afghanistan, he was seriously wounded and came as close to dying as I think possible and not die. One of his men, a John Kerry educationally challenged SGT who had a BS in Chemistry and was an NCAA cross country champion was killed, and another of his team members ultimately lost a leg. The IED that initated the ambush did the damage, the team repelled the small arms follow-up with what I imagine was over whelming ferocity. My son recovered in time to return to his team on the Pakistan border and accomplish quite a lot in the war on terror.

Having said that, I voted for President Bush in large part so that Rumsfeld would remain as Sec. of Defense, and I continue to support the President and the Secretary as does my son and almost everyone with whom he has contact in the Army.

For the record, I am a registered Democrat and have always been, although my Dad, retired from the Air Force to Harrison, Tennessee, left to join the Repubs and my son, more influenced by my Dad, is a Republican.

Further thoughts from Elephants in Academia. It seems that some people love Donald after all. Meanwhile, Pierre Legrand thinks Rumsfeld should be asking for more money. “Defense spending in 2006 remained at 3.7% of GDP a level not far from the lowest point of the Clinton years and which we were led to believe by Candidate Bush was too low.” And Kurt Hoglund sends this link, and this one.

FINALLY: Various lefty bloggers keep linking to this post for the “more rubble, less trouble” language and misrepresenting that as something I’m advocating. In fact, of course, I’m advocating exactly the opposite as should be clear to anyone who is not deeply dishonest or hopelessly incapable of reading comprehension. The “more rubble, less trouble” phrase refers to what Victor Davis Hanson calls a kind of “punitive isolationism” that I think we’ll see if we give up in Iraq — and that was presaged by the Clinton Administration’s cruise-missile-based antiterror policy. It’s what I hope to prevent, not what I hope to see, and it’s the likely consequence of doing what the lefties want in foreign policy.

TECH-ADVICE BLEG: I’m thinking of buying a flat-panel TV for the bedroom. I’ve been looking at this one, though the Insta-Wife, somewhat more ambitiously, wants this one, instead. (I stayed in a hotel that had the first TV on the wall recently, and it was quite nice).

I want to mount it on the wall, too. Is a wall bracket like this one a good idea?

But my main sense is that this is a purchase where waiting a few months is probably likely to lead to big improvements on the price-performance curve. Or are we past that phase now? Any advice?

UPDATE: TV Repairman reader Joe Reynolds (no relation) emails:

Both of the models that you linked in your weblog do not contain an HDTV tuner/receiver. These can be purchased as a seperate unit and run generally $250-500. Until June of this year they are legal to be sold w/o the broadcast flag function that controls DRM and may be used legally as long as you own them. I mention this not to encourage piracy, but to let you know the feature will make it really inconvienient to tivo and transfer to any other equipment you may want to use. These units are also available as PCI cards and External USB devices. The bottom line is if you want HDTV with the TV’s you are considering you will need another device. Also LCD-TV prices are plummeting in the current market, you may see even larger discounts soon.

Yeah, you can surf the price-performance curve forever, but I don’t want to move too soon. This has inspired LOTS of email, which I don’t have time to digest now, but I’ll update with it later. Meanwhile, Will Collier weighs in on the side of waiting longer, and reader Tom Westberg sends this link to a review of the Insta-Wife’s fave. Finally, Roger Simon shares his own experience but adds this caveat: “Of course all this advice is already outdated. We did this two months ago!” Indeed.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Wow, lots of people care about this. And Jonah Goldberg emails: “Please! Let me know what you hear about the flat-screen TV thing. I’m researching it too and I can’t make heads or tails of all this. My understanding though is that CRT tvs still have better pictures, which surprised me considering all the hullabaloo.” Yeah, CRTs still have the best picture — and the best price-performance — but they get HUGE as screensizes get bigger. For a big room I’d still get a CRT, or a DLP, but for the bedroom I wanted to save some space.

MORE: Updated below — hit “read more” for more. And here’s a big article by Ed Driscoll from PC World, found via NewDave, who observes: “It looks as though the market is about to reach that critical point where demand gets in line with supply. Once that sweet spot hits (somewhere under $750 for 30 inches), things will slide down with a vengeance.” Let’s hope.

Continue reading ‘TECH-ADVICE BLEG: I’m thinking of buying a flat-panel TV for the bedroom. I’ve been looking at thi…’ »

ROSS TERRILL WRITES in The Boston Globe:

DEMOCRACY IS FRIEND to the common man and authoritarianism is a crutch for millionaires with a villa in Italy — right? Maybe no longer. Lady Liberty has acquired a new dancing partner. Politics in both Europe and the United States have unhitched the left from its trusted partner, democracy. American liberals now often spurn blue collar opinion that is democracy’s fuel. They mostly reject global idealism that is liberty’s post-communism vocation. This has allowed a Republican president to make democracy his cause. On the dance floor of the 21st century, the right embraces Lady Liberty. . . .

What a strange moment for the left to lose faith in democracy. The Soviet Union and other Leninist dictatorships are gone in a puff of smoke. Democracy is taking root in Latin America. South Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan, Mongolia, and Thailand are all newly democratic. Throughout the 20th century, war and authoritarianism were inseparable. For 30 years, democracy and free markets have surged and no war has occurred anywhere on the scale ofKorea and Vietnam, let alone World War I and World War II.

Seymour Hersh recently told “Democracy Now!” radio that America was in a bad way because “eight or nine neoconservatives” have “grabbed the government.” Not mentioning that Bush was elected by 51 percent of the voters, Hersh did detect a ray of hope. One “salvation may be the economy,” Hersh said regrettably, “It’s going to go very bad, folks. You know, if you have not sold your stocks and bought property in Italy, you better do it quick.”

A left that sees a lousy economy as political salvation and frets about stocks and a villa in Italy is not the idealistic, worker-respecting left anymore. Certainly it is not a believer in democracy.

Nope. And, as I keep repeating, this is no strategy for building a Democratic majority. Similarly, stuff like this is comforting to the true-believers, but it’s not likely to win votes. (Via Peg Kaplan.) And read this, too.

This is where I have to agree and disagree simultaneously with Hugh Hewitt, who writes about Peter Beinart:

Peter is without question the very best face of the Democratic Party. Folks love him because he is earnest and very committed to Harry Truman’s Democratic Party, which is a lot like being committed to the Edsel.

But the Edsel was a bomb from day one. No, more like the Nash Rambler — a good car, popular in its time, that’s no longer made. The Truman / FDR style of muscular Democratic thought has been supplanted by the ’68-ers in the Democratic party, and their ideological descendants at MoveOn, MediaMatters, etc. They lack the essential faith in America possessed by their predecessors, and by the voters they’d like to win over. Beinart’s views are marginal in the Democratic Party — heck, the kind of patriotism that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd demonstrated in Davos is indiscernible in the MoveOn / MediaMatters end of the Democratic Party — while the Seymour Hersh Vietnam-nostalgia strain runs strong. That’s bad for the Democrats, and bad for America, but it’s nonetheless the case.

UPDATE: Reader Mark Gunnion, on the other hand, emails:

Fuck you.

Your side is the Taliban side.

I hope all of you Bush-loving idiots wake up some day to how you have been hoodwinked into empowering 12th century religious fanatics – in OUR country.

But I doubt it will happen.

You got your $32,000 tax cut, so you’ll put up with a little preaching.

YOU are the American Taliban.

Nice to see that the Lefties are retaining their sense of perspective.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Hmm. I think, actually, that the email from Gunnion above was inspired by this post from Ted Barlow that criticizes me for my post linking to this post by Nelson Ascher from Europundits on the Euro-left.

The problem is that Barlow seems to miss the Euro angle, and proceeds to suggest that I’m calling American liberals terrorists. (To be fair, there’s a brief reference to Americans in Ascher’s post, which I didn’t notice before, but Barlow doesn’t mention it, and it’s certainly not the main subject of Ascher’s argument.) I’m used to having my posts mischaracterized by Crooked Timber folks, but I do think that this is a bit much.

But maybe the emails I get from Oliver Willis, accusing me of thinking that everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman is a traitor, reflect a broader view rather than, as I assumed, just Oliver. So, in the interest of clarity: No, I don’t think that. I do think that it’s unfortunate that the Democrats decided to make the war their big issue for the election — I suspect that they do, too, now — and I think that it was unseemly and wrong for them to embrace Michael Moore, etc. That’s hardly the same as calling them terrorists.

The support for terrorism that Ascher describes on the part of the Euro-left is something different. I’m not the only one to note that France has been engaging in a “proxy war” with the United States using terrorists and dictators as surrogates — Tom Friedman has noted something similar. I think that this hostility is part wounded pride, but also partly the result of the attitudes that Nelson Ascher describes. That my comments on that subject (in a post with a later update [LATER: since Barlow’s post, I should note] also linking a British, not an American, journalist calling for our defeat in Iraq) would be seen as representative of the American left seems odd, and perhaps a bit overly defensive, to me. If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.

But as I thought things like my repeated praise of Barney Frank illustrate already, I certainly don’t think that there’s anything necessarily unpatriotic about being a leftist or liberal. I do think that those people who are rooting for our defeat, or showing a strange eagerness for a Vietnam rerun, and so on, are in fact unpatriotic, as surely rooting for your own country’s defeat in time of war counts as unpatriotic. (Those people aren’t entirely on the left, of course, as you can find some of them in the wackier theocon or isolationist or antisemitic paleoconservative movements, too. Indeed, the term “idiotarian” was coined with reference to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson among others.)

At any rate, to the extent that there’s genuine confusion, and not point-scoring, going on here, I hope that this clears things up. In the meantime, I wonder if people will stop calling me a Taliban or a Nazi. Probably not. In fact, one commenter at Rand Simberg’s is calling me a Nazi for not having open comments on my blog: “Some, like Instapundit , do not even allow comments for refutation. In that regard, they are like the mass rallies of the Nazis.”

Well, it’s true — there weren’t open blog comments at a single Nazi rally that I know of. It’s a fair cop!

MORE: Let’s cut to the real outrage — Michael Demmons emails: “You got a $32,000 tax cut????”

Er, no. I don’t know where he got that number. Nor was I aware that the Taliban were motivated by a desire for tax cuts. . . .

STILL MORE: Donald Sensing — who has been the recipient of the same “left of Joe Lieberman” charges — declares a Joe Lieberman meme war. And instead of an Edsel, above, perhaps the best automotive metaphor is the 1959 Cadillac Eldorado — union-made, still desired by a lot of people, but no longer available from the original source.

Meanwhile, the Progressive Policy Institute offers a diagnosis of the Democrats’ problems that isn’t so far from mine:

As Democrats, we are proud that our party led the way in crafting America’s resolute response to fascism and communism. Far-sighted Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy fashioned a tough-minded internationalism that eventually won the Cold War and stimulated an unprecedented expansion of liberty and democracy throughout the world.

For too many Americans, however, all this is ancient history. In recent decades, the public has shown a consistent tendency to trust Republicans more on matters of defense and security. We believe the confidence gap on national security played a major, even decisive, role in the 2004 election, and now stands as a major obstacle to building a new Democratic majority.

To persuade the public to entrust us with national leadership, Democrats must offer a more compelling vision for making Americans safer. We believe such a vision must incorporate key pillars of the party’s internationalist tradition: the willingness to use force to defend our interests and values; support for open trade and a globalizing world economy; and active promotion of individual liberty and democracy around the world. We recognize that these are contentious issues and that some will want to paper over our internal differences to preserve a semblance of party unity. But we believe Democrats should not fear a vigorous, honest debate on national security — better to wrestle these issues now than on the eve of the 2008 election. . . .

America’s work in Iraq is not yet done. We, therefore, urge you to oppose calls to withdraw troops from Iraq prematurely, before the new Iraqi government is able to consolidate its authority and defend itself against Sunni insurgents and foreign terrorists. This is not the time for casting anxious glances toward the exits. Instead, Democrats should reaffirm our resolve not to leave behind a failed state in Iraq, because to do so would hand our Jihadist foes a strategic windfall, swelling terrorist ranks and lending credence to Osama bin Laden’s claim that the United States is a paper tiger with no stomach for a protracted fight. . . .

This new danger tests the mettle of the people and parties that aspire to lead America. No political party will gain or hold power — nor will it deserve to — if it cannot provide people with a basic sense of security.

The Jihadist creed, in its bigotry and intolerance, its sanctification of murder and its contempt for liberal democracy, bears a sinister resemblance to the totalitarian ideologies of 20th century Europe. Like fascism and communism, it poses a moral challenge to our liberal beliefs and values. Once again, our foes doubt that we will fight and sacrifice for the ideals we profess to live by. Once again, we must prove them wrong. Moral clarity in this fight is essential. The American people will not trust leaders who will not vigorously defend their ideals.

Indeed. But David Adesnik’s comment on this letter also points to the problem:

Does the Democratic party dare associate itself with a phrase such as “moral clarity”? Or will the invocation of a phrase associated with the White House simply persuade the Democratic left that the idealists who drafted this letter are closet Republicans? I hope not, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they did.

One should also point out the significance of this letter’s suggestion that the American people actually prefer leaders who “vigorously defend their ideals.” I can’t really recall any instance during the campaign when either Democratic pols or media figures said that John Kerry was hurting himself by not talking about democracy promotion. Unsurprisingly, Kerry didn’t even try to insist that he was the real idealist and that Bush was just a poseur. Instead, Kerry simply let Bush take the pro-democracy high-ground.

Although both the pols and journalists knew that Kerry had to present himself as tough, they never seemed to think that American voters also cared about electing a president who is openly idealistic. Nor did the pols and journalists ever argue that being idealistic is part and parcel of being tough.

The bottom line is that there is a massive gulf of perception that separates tough, idealistic Truman-style Democrats from the party’s liberal establishment. This isn’t just about the war in Iraq or even the occupation.

No, it’s not.

STILL MORE: Or, people could just try to blackmail me, as Robert McClelland urges in the comments over at Oliver Willis’s. Yeah, that’ll solve the problem. Jeez. Perhaps they should start here . . . .

McClelland’s obviously one of Karl Rove’s provocateurs, implementing his demonically effective “blogpaper” strategy, in which lefty activism is drained off from constructive sources and into obsession with an obscure law professor’s personal website. Apparently, it’s working pretty well.

MORE: John Cole emails:

You missed the humor in the suggestion that you be blackmailed.

Robert McClelland is a Canadian, or at the very least a resident of Canada, who most recently described the United states as a ‘third world hellhole.’

So, to summarize: An America hating Canadian is so incensed by a post in which you assert that some lefties seem to hate America that he travels to a left wing site to recommend the outright blackmail of an American to stifle political speech.

That ought to play well in the heartland. I officially declare irony to be dead.

Heh. And buried. I wonder if that comment counts as “hate speech” in Canada? But, really, I think this kind of frothing — in response to a post whose actual point is, of course, that some lefties like Barney Frank are showing a spirit I’d like to see more of — is indicative of how some people have just lost it, and I really do think that it’s hurting the Democrats. Maybe we can get a Lieberman / Frank ticket in 2008 to restore some sanity. And though I’ve thought that by pointing out this problem I’d do some good, I suspect that in some cases the reaction to hearing it pointed out overwhelms any benefit. That’s unfortunate, as — unlike, say, Hugh Hewitt — I’d be quite happy to see the Democratic Party flourishing in the way that the Progressive Policy Institute, or Peter Beinart, want it to. (Aside from the war, I probably agree with Barney Frank on more issues than I agree with, say, Trent Lott on — and unlike some, Frank’s opposition to the war has been honorable, as his behavior regarding Davos illustrates.) And I think that all this hatred and bitterness and reflexive opposition is deeply damaging to the Democratic Party, and not good for America, either. Those people who engage in it are doing the Republicans a favor (at least short-term) and serving the Democratic Party very badly.

And to go full circle, read this post by Dr. Frank on more of the Euro-Left’s nostalgia for communism, along the lines described by Nelson Ascher. For a more sensible leftist perspective, on the other hand, read this piece from Harry’s Place.

But look, here’s the bottom line on the domestic side: I was a card-carrying Democrat for years. Unlike Hugh Hewitt, I don’t want to see Democratic power broken forever, I just want to see a more constructive attitude toward national security. I’d really like to see the party do better, but instead it seems to be trapped in a sort of 1972-style anger that can’t possibly be good for its future or for the country. I’ve hoped that calling attention to that would do some good, but I’m afraid that through a sort of reverse psychology it may actually be doing more harm than good — when I point it out, some people, at least, actually seem to become more hardened against the idea. Perhaps Hillary Clinton will be able to fix things.

THIS IS A RECONSTRUCTED POST: My open-comment thread letting people liveblog the speech vanished — the server was overloaded and was having problems before they restarted, and that may have something to do with it. Anyway, some of the comments were saved by readers, and here’s a good chunk. Click “more” to read the post and comments.

Continue reading ‘THIS IS A RECONSTRUCTED POST: My open-comment thread letting people liveblog the speech vanished –…’ »


In a stunning mission conducted under enormous secrecy, President Bush flew into Baghdad today aboard Air Force One to have dinner with United States officials and a group of astonished American troops.

His trip _ the first ever to Iraq by an American president _ had been kept a matter of absolute secrecy by the White House, which had said that he would be spending the Thanksgiving weekend at his ranch outside Crawford, Tex. . . .

The presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, appearing on CNN, called it “a perfectly executed plan” that would be “one of the major moments in his biography.” It would have provided “an incredible thrill” for the American.

Mr. Bush sneaked out of Crawford on Wednesday in an unmarked car, then flew to Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, where a few advisers and a small number of reporters sworn to secrecy joined him. They then flew on to Baghdad International Airport, arriving around dusk.


UPDATE: Here’s another story on the Bush visit:

“We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost of casualties, defeat a ruthless dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins,” the president said, prompting a standing ovation and cheers.

He also had a message for the people of Iraq: “The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone forever,” he said, and pledged the help of the United States and its coalition partners, saying “we will stay until the job is done. I’m confident we will succeed.”

Wearing an exercise jacket with a 1st Armored Division patch, Bush stood in a chow line and dished out sweet potatoes and corn for Thanksgiving dinner and posed with a platter of fresh-baked turkey.

Read the whole thing, as they say.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Michael Graham has more on his site. He asks:

WHAT CAN PRESIDENT BUSH DO IN BAGHDAD THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN CAN’T? Appear in public. If that doesn’t send a message to the Ba’athists and their would-be allies, I don’t know what does.


MORE: Here’s a look into how the trip will be spun, and here’s the text of Bush’s speech.

STILL MORE: More reactions here.

MORE STILL: Reader Brian Morgan emails:

One of the things that people seem to overlook is that the United States has the capability to take the leader of our country (I wanted to say “Free World” – ed.) – under constant scrutiny from the world’s press – and insert him – ON A 747 NO LESS – inside Iraq, without people finding out until he was airborne en route on the return trip to the US.

Honestly, I am damn proud as an American. And happy to see our tax dollars at work.

Quagmire my ass.

It certainly speaks well for the White House’s ability to maintain operational security. And, I should note, for the ability of the few journalists who were in on the story to keep a secret, too. Meanwhile reader Greg Dougherty emails:

You missed the best part . . . Of the Fox report about Bush’s trip to Iraq:

‘Instead, Bush slipped away from his home without notice Wednesday evening with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, both of them disguised with baseball caps. Bush told reporters that they looked like a “normal couple.”‘

The white male President and his black female National Security Advisor, looked to him just like a “normal couple”.

Imagine that 20 years ago!

Indeed. Though I’m worried that it will just provide a different storyline for “The Boondocks.”


Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations.

Actually, I had quite a few years like that before I was married, and I consider it a good thing, though I’m quite happy to be married now and wouldn’t have wanted to live that way forever. (But I think that one reason that I’m happily married now is that I did live that way for quite a while first). But I agree with David Brooks that gay marriage is a good thing, and actually strengthens traditional values rather than harming them.

UPDATE: Got a few emails like this one:

So you are saying promiscuity is OK? That indiscriminate sex is OK? That degrading your self for sexual gratification is OK? Is this what you teach your children? I don’t agree with you at all! Gay sex is not natural nor normal and cannot strengthen our decaying traditional moral values!

Hmm. I didn’t say anything about “indiscriminate sex,” now did I? Funny that some people can’t conceive of anything else. Nor was my pre-marital love life “Hefneresque,” as another reader puts it. These strike me as rather revealing reactions — much like those who, on another topic, assume that all war is equivalent to “carpet bombing” or that owning a gun guarantees mass slaughter. Moderation, apparently, is inconceivable to some people.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Bruce Bridges emails:

As a single man that has not found the right girl even at this late date, I am one of those that has been pulverising all that is private and delicate blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blaaaaaaaaah.

The problem with those that need to point out my failings is of course that they can’t stop themselves. First it was gays, then single sinners and of course eventually, married people that are corrupt enough to venture beyond the missionary position.

The republicans would do well to recognize that this way of thinking is what most of us think of as “fringe”.

Given a choice, I’ll hang with the sodomites thank you.

Yeah. But my point was that to arrive at what is, in fact, the kind of marriage that Brooks describes (except perhaps for the “I am you” angle, which seems a bit creepy to me), I had to pass through the kind of conduct he deplores. Only I think that I couldn’t have the one without the other. I’m deeply suspicious, frankly, of people who assume that all sex outside marriage is somehow depraved or corrupt or instrumental. Perhaps they are projecting, or perhaps they are just ignorant. It certainly seems to me — as I indicate above — that sex is to some on the right what violence is to some on the left: something seen as so dangerous, and so powerful, that if it is not kept entirely in check, it is sure to go completely out of control. I regard both kinds of thinking as misguided.

And, at any rate, the one kind of lust that appears to be incapable of satiety is the lust to control others’ lives. . . .

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Stephen Green isn’t ashamed to admit that he likes sex.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Beth Mauldin isn’t either.

IT’S FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not freedom from religion, we’re told. So I guess this would be okay. . . .

UPDATE: Reader Ben Gibbons emails:

If most of the Founding Fathers of our nation had been followers of Cthulhu (and even those who weren’t devout recognized his importance); if they had specifically mentioned Cthulhu in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as the fountainhead of all liberties and freedoms; if our laws, culture, and customs were based in large part upon the principles found in the teachings of Cthulhu; then you might have a point. As it is, you’re just full of it.

Hmm. So the real question here isn’t whether we have a state religion. Rather it’s the claim that we do, or should, have a particular state religion. I’d certainly prefer Christianity or Judaism to the Elder Gods, if that’s the choice. But I don’t believe that the Constitution requires me — or even permits me — to make that choice.

ANOTHER UPDATE: To my surprise, this post is generating less email than my dissing of White Castle and Krispy Kreme, below. But Michael Gebert writes:

I have to wonder which Founding Fathers Ben Gibbons thinks were so determined to see Christianity sewn into the very fabric of our government and society.

Was it John Adams, who said of the framers, “It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”

Or maybe it was Jefferson, who said “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law”?

Or Franklin, who said “When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”

If there’s a reason why Iran is terrorized by corrupt mullahs and we aren’t, I think it starts here. We forget that at our peril.

As George Washington noted, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

I’m willing to ignore, as de minimis, things like “In God We Trust.” But there’s nothing de minimis about what Roy Moore was attempting. He wanted to make a statement, to the effect that George Washington was wrong, and that the United States is a Christian nation. He wanted, in other words, to establish Christianity as the officially sanctioned religion. And that’s not, er, kosher. It’s quite obvious that Moore has more in mind than merely making a cultural/historical statement about the role of the Judeo-Christian tradition in law. And to suggest otherwise is either to be completely clueless or to, er, bear false witness.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Boy, while I was on my birthday break, the mail poured in on this post. Some messages didn’t get read — like the one with the subject line “You are a serious dumbfuck regarding the Living God and this country ” Well, actually, I did read that one. It continued:

Wet nosed bloggers afraid of God. “Oh, look at the muslims!! That’s what happens when people get religion!!” The muslim are fucking devils, boy. They worship the devil. They want to put the world off on the Living God of Creation. Atheist fucking bloggers. Fucking “I’m correct on this, see, am I correct? I am correct and everybody can see that. I’m part of the correct, intelligent people.” Fucking two-digit I.Q. comic book fucking genius atheists.

Uh, right. On a more civil note, Clayton Cramer says that many of the above quotes are wrong. (Though in an earlier post he seems to regard me as one of the “intellectual shock troops” of the left.) [Well, you have written for The Guardian, after all! — Ed. Just call me Atrios! I think he just did. — Ed.] At any rate, I apologize for the errors — I didn’t check the Gebert quotes, and I’ve always regarded Liberty magazine as trustworthy — and as it’s published by the Seventh Day Adventists, it can hardly be called a shill for secular humanism.

Quotes or not, the notion that what Roy Moore was trying to do is either constitutional, or consistent with American ideals, is just wrong. Adopting a particular religion’s tenets — and any reading of the Ten Commandments makes clear that they’re religious tenets, not general guides to living as some maintain — is establishing a religion. That’s forbidden by the First Amendment. Interestingly, it also appears to be forbidden by the Alabama Constituion, which Justice Moore presumably swore to uphold. It’s hard to be sure with web searches, but I believe this is the current text:

That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

Those who think that America should be run according to religious principles are entitled to their opinions, of course. But they shouldn’t pretend that they’re asking for anything less, or that doing so isn’t an establishment of religion.

MORE: The Krispy Kreme issue, however, is provoking outright lawlessness. Can’t we all just get along?

STEVE DEN BESTE WRITES ABOUT POSTWAR MALAISE in the blogosphere. I know what he means. In fact, as I said a while back, Kaus put it best:

You’re completely sick of the war — sick of watching cable, sick of reading the paper. The military campaign’s basically been won. The adrenalin is leaving your body. The overwhelming urge is to breathe a sigh of relief and get back to normal life, only more so: normal life minus current events. Yet this is just the moment when it’s probably most important to pay attention to what is going on in the Middle East, because these are the weeks when we will or won’t make the mistakes that will cost us the benefit of all the sacrifice of life and treasure.

That’s why I didn’t take a vacation like Andrew Sullivan, or Bill Quick. (Or, sadly, like Nick Denton). But it’s been a struggle. It’s been made worse by the difficulty of getting a big picture. Yeah, there are lots of media reports suggesting that things aren’t going that well. But they’re mostly from people who were declaring the war a quagmire after 15 minutes, and who peddled the bogus looting stories. Others are from more credible sources, but even those are hard to place in perspective. Europe and Japan looked pretty crappy for quite a while after World War II — ordinary people were putting food on the table via prostitution for quite some time after the war, something now largely forgotten except for vague jokes about nylons and chocolate bars. Things aren’t nearly that bad in Iraq. And in some places they’re quite a bit better. We also faced efforts at subversion by the Russians in Japan and Germany that were far more serious than anything we’re likely to face in Iraq, which is smaller and has — I think — actually got more U.S. troops occupying it per-capita than Japan had in 1946. (I haven’t checked this, but a usually reliable reader emails that fact.)

My waitress at dinner was a Kurd, who reported that relatives in Northern Iraq (she hadn’t been back for a couple of years) say that things are much better since Saddam’s fall. Mark Steyn reports that things look pretty good to him. Phil Carter, meanwhile, is less positive: he has argued pretty persuasively that we had enough troops to win the war, but not enough for the occupation. (He also thinks we’ll see Al Qaeda attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq.)

But as Salam Pax says,

Everyone expected a civil war, but now that’s not happening. Actually, the situation is much better than we imagined before the war… People who before the war sold tomatoes now suddenly offer satellite phones on the open street…

And, actually, even this is probably good news:

One thing is sure: No one is relying on the Americans. No one expects
that they will do anything for us.

Low expectations are better than too-high ones, and self-reliance is better than dependence. I think that this has been a deliberate strategy in the occupation, though we may have overplayed it. On the other hand, Baghdad has free Internet now, via self-help. That’s a good sign, I think. But a too-disengaged approach is likely to breed more resentment than an overbearing one, actually. As Osama says, people (especially Arab people) tend to want to back a strong horse. So it’s important to look strong.

On the broader scale, things look pretty good. We had anti-Al Qaeda demonstrations in Morocco, and Syria seems to be feeling the heat. There have been some signs of self-examination and skepticism toward fundamentalist Islamism even in Saudi Arabia, though the Saudis remain unimpressive on this front. The Iranian mullahs are nervous (though not nervous enough), and — though I remain skeptical — there are some things that could be interpreted as progress with regard to Israel and the Palestinians, though I doubt it will be possible to achieve peace there as long as Arafat is alive. And, over all, Al Qaeda has faced many, many arrests, and we’ve gone over 18 months without a significant Islamic terrorist attack in the United States.

That’s all pretty good news, and far better than we feared in September of 2001. In fact, the big news so far is that things are a lot better than we feared in September 2001.

I certainly agree with Paul Wolfowitz that:

I think the two most important things next are the two most obvious. One is getting post-Saddam Iraq right. Getting it right may take years, but setting the conditions for getting it right in the next six months. The next six months are going to be very important.

The other thing is trying to get some progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

I think the two are connected. Getting things right in Iraq is very important, and it won’t happen overnight, and it won’t be obvious how things are going overnight. (It’s not obvious how things are going in Russia, and it’s been well over a decade since the end of the Soviet Union). I think it’s very important that we work at it, and I think it’s ironic that some of the people who were critics before the war saying “we’ll just put in a friendly dictator and leave” are now pushing arguments and criticisms that imply just such a course of action when the Administration is obviously committed to something more. We want a peaceful, free and prosperous Iraq. Claims that Arabs are somehow incapable of that sort of thing seem a bit dubious to me, especially when they come from people who call themselves “progressive” — and it’s especially unimpressive when those people say “Iraq is ungovernable” with ill-concealed glee at the prospect of what would be, in practice, a far bigger disaster for the Iraqi people than for George Bush. But they don’t care about the collateral damage if they can see Bush hurt.

As for the Palestinian problem, well, I tend to see that more as a symptom than as a disease — it’s a vehicle for Arab despots to use in distracting their citizens. But denying them that vehicle wouldn’t be such a bad thing. And getting rid of Saddam, both because it undermined Arab fantasies and because it deprived the suicide bombers of a very significant subsidy, can only help that.

So overall, I’d say that it’s too early to say how well things are going, but that things in general look pretty good. And though there are predictions of doom aplenty, it’s worth remembering that the doom-predictors have a pretty lousy record so far.

I think, though, that both Iraq and Israel are currently tests for the Arabs. If they can’t achieve a reasonable degree of peace and freedom here, if they sink back into theocracy and thuggery, then it’s going to be easy for the rest of the world to give up on them — as the “progressives” already have — and say “what can you expect from the wogs?” as it turns a blind eye to another generation of dictators’ brutality. I don’t want that, and I don’t think that the Iraqi people, or even the Palestinian people, really do.

But as I said before, and Roger Simon says now: “Patience, patience — now of all times.”

UPDATE: Dave Winer has a notably nasty post on this. It begins “Amazingly, Glenn Reynolds is still covering the war,” and then goes on to blast warbloggers. Um, you’d rather I ignored this, Dave? Or do you just not like the way I point out that “progressives” never gave a damn about the Iraqis, and still don’t? I think you’ve proved that, anyway. And probably provided an answer to Marduk’s question for war opponents:

Given the choice which would you prefer:

A. George Bush is proven correct. Peace in Iraq. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Bush re-elected.

B. George Bush is proven incorrect. No peace in Iraq. No peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Bush defeated.

The answer to that one is pathetically obvious. “Pheh” right back atcha, Dave.

ANOTHER UPDATE: It’s interesting to contrast the antiwar folks’ self-justifying kvetching with this rather thoughtful post from

After the fireworks are over, people like me are sent out unto the world to do all the hard work in support of peacekeeping and all that mess. It doesn’t make for good TV like war does, but war sells. It’s got death, ‘splosions and all that other cool stuff people like to watch. Peacekeeping, on the other hand, isn’t exciting at all. It’s long, boring and never goes as fast as everyone wants it to. It’s kind of like construction. Those buildings they put up always seem to take forever to build and the work isn’t exactly glamorous. I-beam by I-beam, concrete block by concrete block, these buildings slowly rise from the remains of what was there before and begin to take shape. It’s done right out there in public so everyone walking by can give their take on the whole deal and criticise the design, the materials used or how things would go so much better if everyone just listened to them.

But at the end of the thing, the workers have a sense of accomplishing something solid that’ll remain for while. Everyone always gathers around and watches those dramatic building demolitions. The walls explode, the building collapses into a cloud of dust, people clap and then everyone heads off to the next big thing. It’s a brief, transitory moment of excitement, but that’s about it. Building stuff is a hell of a lot less glamorous then blowing it up, but at least you have something to point to years down the road when someone asks what the hell you were doing all that time. It’s kind of hard to point at nothing, no matter how dazzling its collapse may have been.

That’s what I’m writing about, Dave. Sorry it doesn’t interest you.

SUMAN PALIT IS UNFAZED by the French/German diplomatic counteroffensive. I think he’s right here.

Just now I caught a bit of an NPR program in which an expert was solemnly warning that Europe would become a “rival superpower” and asserting, as evidence, the “growing pacifism” among Germans.

I’m willing to run the risk of a pacifistic rival. In truth, Europe can’t become a rival superpower without structural change that would completely undermine the current meaning of “Europe” — a shift away from socialist welfare-state economics that would allow investments in military capacity, for example.

That could happen, but it’s not likely, and it’s not the kind of thing that happens gradually, or by accident.

Personally, I think that the French/German behavior here is further support for Steven Den Beste’s theory that they have something dreadful to hide regarding their relations with Saddam.

UPDATE: Reader Chuck Herrick emails:

Clearly, this is a credible alternative to democracy forced by war. Certainly not preferable, but definitely credible, meaning a butt-load of folks are going to believe in it.

So, why wait until it’s too late (so late)?

I think the point the Euro’s are trying to accomplish is the destruction of George W Bush, and the muscular, politically conservative agenda of America. Because, even if Bush takes us to war (I pray for this) and wins (I pray for this) and wins easily (I pray for this) and transforms the middle east into a domino-phenomenon that beings a democratic ripple throughout the region (I pray for this), the anti-war, America-haters are going forever to be able to brand America as “The Big Cowboy”.

For the Euros, this is not about presenting viable alternatives. This is about neutering America. This is about international competition of the most venal sort. Because if there were a shred of interest in presenting alternatives, this alternative would not have been presented so late in the game.

Look at the play-by-play, in slo-mo if you like. The Euros have played this brilliantly. This is going to be very difficult for the US to bat down in time before we go to war, and that I think is the whole point. The Euros want us to go to war with this proposal sitting on the table.

In other words, since this is not an honest proposal (serious, yes, honest no), they win big chips in the court of world opinion.

It’s poker baby, and the Euros have just called our hand. They suck, but play very well.

Yeah, but it’s a bluff, and it’s not going to work. First, this assumes that it’s bad to be thought of as the “Cowboy of the World.”

A year or two ago I might have agreed with this. But looking around the world I see a degree of cravenness and an appetite for appeasement that makes me wonder whether it’s worth it to play nice.

And my question for the French and Germans is this: If the Security Council fails to constrain Saddam Hussein, what makes you think that it will constrain America?

And how long can you demonize America as an imperialist power that doesn’t give a damn what other people think before it comes true?

And do you want to live in that world?

As I said below, of course, it would serve these guys right if Bush said: “We’ve mobilized the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, and we’ll transport 50,000 of your toops to Iraq starting on Thursday. But if you’re not ready to send them, we’ll dismiss you as a bunch of unserious kibitzers and go on as planned.”

I predict a different outcome, however, because this is, in fact, a transparent ploy.

SPACE SHUTTLE COLUMBIA is out of communication and lost from radar. It should have landed three minutes ago. At this point, it can only be presumed to have been lost on reentry. CNN has photos of it above Dallas, with no obvious problems.

Is there a connection with the presence of an Israeli astronaut? Probably not, but who knows?

UPDATE: Just saw CNN play the video from Dallas — I was going earlier on something they had said that I guess I misunderstood — and it looks as if it shows the Shuttle breaking up. A single trail breaks up into multiple vapor trails as it moves. They’re gone. May they rest in peace.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s the report. People have phoned CNN to report a “loud impact.”

Here’s Spaceflight Now’s real-time update page. At the moment it notes rather optimistically that search and rescue forces are being deployed.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Now, more realistically, NASA is asking people to stay away from any debris that they find, as they may be hazardous.

“At least they got to go into space,” observes my daughter. Well, yeah. It still sucks, though.

MORE: Why it’s probably not terrorism: (1) if you planted a bomb, you’d want it to go off on takeoff — that’s when everyone is watching, and there’s less time for stuff to go wrong, since you’d have to wonder whether a bomb would work after spending an extended time in space; (2) it’s basically impossible to shoot down a reentering space shuttle because of its speed and altitude; (3) there are so many things that can go wrong with shuttles, especially Columbia, which is the oldest, without invoking terrorism. I suppose it’s conceivable that a saboteur did some sort of subtle structural damage calculated to cause this sort of a failure while remaining unnoticed during ground checks, but that strikes me as unlikely for a variety of reasons.

From the video it looks like structural failure, followed by an explosion as the spacecraft disintegrated. That’s unlikely to be the result of sabotage. Most likely it was failure in a wing spar or some other component, probably brought on by age and fatigue, though possibly caused by tile zippering and burn-through, or damage on launch. We’ll see. No point getting ahead of things here, but plenty of reason to think it’s not terrorism.

Prediction: This won’t traumatize people the way Challenger did because (1) it’s not the first time; and (2) we’re at war now, and people’s calculations of such things — especially post-WTC — are different. I hope, however, that we’ll look at moving beyond the elderly and unreliable Shuttle now.

ANOTHER UPDATE: A woman from Huntington, Texas is reporting lots of debris and a “burning rubber” smell, after hearing a rumbling sound at about 9:15. Debris is reported, via police scanners, in Jasper and Moffett counties, too.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Boy, that didn’t take long. Reportedly, a Canadian Broadcasting Company interviewer has blamed “American Arrogance” for the crash. Follow the link for more information, and a link to the CBC Ombudsman. I’ll let you know if I find out more on this.

MORE: President Bush will be addressing the nation.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s a link to live streaming video from

Meanwhile ModerateLeft responds to the reported charge of “arrogance:”

Well, if this is arrogance–exploring space for science, pushing the envelope of the human experience, doing what our species has always done–then I support it. If it is arrogant to want to learn, we are arrogant. If it is arrogant to want to explore, we are arrogant. If it is arrogant to risk our lives for the possibility of a better future for all mankind, we are arrogant.

Mankind is arrogant. We believe foolish things–that we may one day cure cancer, that we may one day develop new forms of energy, that we may one day walk on Mars. We believe these foolish things, and we dedicate ourselves to achieving them. How ridiculous. How arrogant.

And people die for these things. And people are injured for life. The astronauts of Apollo 1, and the Challenger, and now, sadly, the Columbia have died for the arrogant belief that we can be more than we are, that we can walk on the moon, that we can touch the stars.

So call us arrogant for building the space shuttle. Call the men and woman who gave their lives today arrogant for believing they could fly to space and return to tell about it. But don’t call us wrong. For this arrogance defines humanity. And I would rather our species be arrogant than afraid.

And that last is the sentiment that the critics can’t understand.

UPDATE: Here, via The Corner, is Reagan’s Challenger speech. And here is the text of the speech written by William Safire for Richard Nixon, in the event the Apollo XI crew was lost:

Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace.

These brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, know that there is no hope for their recovery. But they also know that there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice.

These two men are laying down their lives in mankind’s most noble goal: the search for truth and understanding.

They will be mourned by their families and friends; they will be mourned by their nation; they will be mourned by the people of the world; they will be mourned by a Mother earth that dared send two of her sons into the unknown.

In their exploration, they stirred the people of the world to feel as one; in their sacrifice, they bind more tightly the brotherhood of man.

In ancient days, men looked at stars and saw their heroes in the constellations. In modern times, we do much the same, but our heroes are epic men of flesh and blood.

Others will follow, and surely find their way home. Man’s search will not be denied. But these men were the first, and they will remain the foremost in our hearts.

For every human being who looks up at the moon in the nights to come will know that there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind.

I got it here, but the site loads slowly enough that I doubted it could handle the traffic from a simple link. Here’s another in case that one is dead.

MORE: Rand Simberg has some useful observations. Excerpt:

The entire NASA budget is now in a cocked hat, because we don’t know what the implications are until we know what happened. But it could mean an acceleration of the Orbital Space Plane program (I sincerely hope not, because I believe that this is entirely the wrong direction for the nation, and in fact a step backwards). What I hope that it means is an opportunity for some new and innovative ideas–not techically, but programmatically.

Once again, it demonstrates the fragility of our space transportation infrastructure, and the continuing folly of relying on a single means of getting people into space, and doing it so seldom. Until we increase our activity levels by orders of magnitude, we will continue to operate every flight as an experiment, and we will continue to spend hundreds of millions per flight, and we will continue to find it difficult to justify what we’re doing. We need to open up our thinking to radically new ways, both technically and institutionally, of approaching this new frontier.

I had actually been invited to the Monday teleconference on the new NASA budget, but I imagine that’s off now. Rand also has some useful speculation (which he’s careful to label as such) about what might have gone wrong.

Meanwhile, the Times of India is proud of Indian-born astronaut Kalpana Chawla:

Kalpana Chawla, who is feared to have perished in the Columbia space shuttle mishap along with six others, had done India proud when she embarked on her first space mission on November 19, 1997.

The Karnal-born Chawla, the first Indian American astronaut, began her career at the Ames Research Center at Nasa in 1988.

A graduate in aeronautical engineering from the Punjab Engineering College she began work at the Ames in the area of fluid dynamics.

They should be proud. Ilan Ramon’s presence has gotten more attention, but Chawla’s presence is more representative.

MORE: Jim Flowers is setting up a blog (metablog?) that will track blogosphere coverage of the Columbia loss.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Canadian reader Peter Ash emails:

As a Canadian, I sincerely hope that no one in the States draws the conclusion that other Canadians share the bad attitude (and exceptionally poor taste) of the journalist you cited. Trust me, I’ll be looking for verification that what was implied was in fact implied, which will be followed by an acidic letter or twenty to the appropriate parties.

I still remember where I was when Challenger happened (I was in grade four, no less). Several Canadian astronauts have ridden the Shuttle, and right now Canadians are feeling the pain with their cousins to the south. If you would, please do convey to your readers that the overwhelming majority of us feel as awful about this as all of you do.

On the technical side, you’re right. The Shuttle is too old and rather poorly designed. In some ways it’s surprising that this hasn’t happened before. They’re not going to get much out of the crash debris, the re-entry forces will have reduced most of it to charred lumps. Look for replays on the launch footage, and focus on the piece of insulation that fell of the External Tank and allegedly hit the left wing. There will probably be an inquiry as to why more wasn’t done to check on the integrity of the wing before the space shuttle was allowed to re-enter. After all, if closer inspections revealed trouble, awkward as it would be, the Shuttle could have been left up in orbit until such time as another Shuttle, or a Russian Soyuz module, could have been sent up to bring down the crew.

Indeed, there could have been repairs made in space if need be, with the Shuttle eventually brought down by a skeleton crew or perhaps even on automation.

This is going to be somewhat problematic for the current occupants of the Space Station. NASA might have to pay the Russians to use one of their modules to bring them down, since they’re likely going to ground the Shuttle fleet for a year or two. Oh, and obviously, look for that renewed initiative to send another teacher into space to quietly disappear. And given that NASA’s only other two space tragedies (the Apollo fire and the Challenger disaster) occurred in late January, I would expect that there won’t be any more late January/early February flights again for a long time. Not that the NASA scientists are suspicious, but the pilots who fly their Shuttles just might be.

All interesting. And, I should stress, we don’t take the all-too-frequently anti-American twits of the CBC to represent general sentiment among Canadians. And I presume that if the reports about that remark are false, that will show up when the CBC ombudsman replies, or when transcripts appear. But I have no reason to doubt the report at the moment. LATER: Fraters Libertas blogs more mean Canadian comments — from C-SPAN, this time.

MORE: A reader sends this link to a NOAA radar image that seems to show the debris trail. I don’t know what else that long orange streak could be. LATER: I’m watching MSNBC, which says the streak is debris. STILL LATER: I should note that the plume looks so big and dense because it’s full of vaporized/powdered aluminum and other metals, which will register far more strongly on weathe radar than the water vapor it’s designed to measure. I mention this at the behest of several readers, in the vain hope of heading off conspiracy theorists.

ANOTHER UPDATE: It’s a big deal in India, but not in France:

Just thought you might be interested in knowing that none of the major French channels (TF1, A2, FR3, M6) have, as of this moment, even bothered to interrupt programming to announce the Columbia news. I live in Switzerland and have been zapping back and forth between CNN, MSNBC, BBC and various Swiss, German and French channels. The French apparently haven’t noticed yet (or don’t care?)

Best regards from Lausanne,

James Wade

Hmm. That’s representative, too. LATER: Bill from MerdeinFrance emails:

I’m definitely not one to defend the French but with regards to French news coverage of this disaster it is true that LCI TV (owned by TF1), 24 hour French language news available only to cable viewers, has covered this non-stop since the story broke. Other channnels, it is true, have not broken for any coverage.

So there you are. It’s also showing up on the websites for many French TV stations and newspapers.

MORE: Here is a report of debris on the ground. Excerpt:

NACOGDOCHES, Texas (AP) — Residents said debris, including bits of machinery and pieces of metal, were found strewn across the city Saturday morning, hours after NASA lost contact with space shuttle Columbia.

“It’s all over Nacogdoches,” said James Milford, owner of Milford Barber shop in downtown Nacogdoches. “There are several little pieces, some parts of machinery … there’s been a lot of pieces about 3 feet wide.”

There’s a photo, which doesn’t look very impressive. But then debris isn’t, usually.

David Janes has lots of links, including one that led me to this piece by Doc Searls on the Challenger tragedy, which is still very much worth reading.

Okay, I’m closing out this post. New developments will be reported above.