Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free.

Okay, we’re up to a third topic. Tim asks whether the $300 billion that has been spent on Iraq could have been spent better in the war on terrorism, port security, homeland security, etc.

Allen kinda evaded that question, essentially falling back on the “it happened, let’s not second guess, let’s look forward’. That would be fair for him to say if he had been in the opposition, but he wasn’t. It happened because this administration and this Congress made it happen. We didn’t slip on our tea and fall into Iraq; we went in on purpose and we spent $300 billion on it, ostensibly to make this nation safer from terrorism. I want to know whether Senator Allen, who was a part of that, thinks that it was money well spent. I want to know if he is looking to spend that kind of money again over the next few years. But he didn’t want to say.

For his part, Jim Webb says there was a better way, but hasn’t said how. I don’t think I buy that. Look, I’m a very non-interventionist kind of guy. I don’t like America invading other nations. But we can’t take a punch in the nose and then curl up into a ball. If between 9/11 and now we had spent that $300 billion building walls on the Mexican and Canadian borders, and beefing up port security and airport security, we would not be safe from terrorism. I would not be comfortable with that response at all. This was Mr. Webb’s chance to convince me, and he passed on the opportunity.

My fourth topic for tonight is that Webb continually implied that George Allen and anybody else who hasn’t served in the military is ignorant on how to use the military. We heard a similar theme from the Kerry campaign in the 2004 elections. This is a point that many on the Left like to use to zing the current administration, as neither the president nor the vice president served in the United States military. In fact, the only cabinet members to have served were the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, and of course the Secretary for Veterans Affairs. For a presidency that will be defined by armed conflict, they run very light on personal experience.

This is, of course, irrelevant to the question of whether Jim Webb is better qualified than George Allen to be my senator. But furthermore, I think this is a very dangerous line of argument for the Democrats to keep embracing. For example, how will it play with those Democrats who run for president in 2008? Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich… none of these have military experience, to my knowledge. This point will still sit at the same level of irrelevance to me in 2008, but it still strikes me as a dangerous tune for this party.

The last topic that caught my eye from either candidate was near the end of the interview, when Jim Webb said

African Americans are the only ethnic group in this country that have suffered from deliberate discrimination and exclusion by the government over generations

I’ll be sure to let my American Indian friends know. It’s a shame that this ridiculous comment distracted me from whatever it was Webb was talking about, because I believe it was something about affirmative action being off track from its original, lawful purpose. I might have liked to have heard that, but my brain stopped short at the comment I shared above.

I’m not sure whether I will be able to catch the upcoming debate between these two, but if I do, I’ll share my thoughts here.

Webb on Women in the Military

This speaks for itself...

...but I'll make a few comments anyway. Jim Webb’s comments about women in 1976 were wrong, and he doesn’t seem to recognize this even today. Russert gives him the perfect opportunity to say that he was wrong, and it should be easy, because time (and some courageous women) have proven him wrong. Everybody is wrong from time to time. But he just won’t say it. Why?

The comments were not only wrong, they were irresponsible, as they were made while women were in the military academies. He says that he doesn’t think it was wrong to participate in the debate at that time, but the fact is that his participation was harmful to those women, and therefore the military itself. It was a stance that was unhelpful, combative, and inflexible. I understand his statement about 4:18 on this clip regarding using the military for social experimentation. But neither can the military be allowed to violate legal standards of equality simply for the sake of a slow transition in warrior mindset.

I won’t refuse to vote for Webb on this one issue, of course, but it just doesn’t instill confidence. I prefer to see a politician admit when something they said was wrong, which Webb’s comments were. This brings up another part of the interview, however.

Right after this clip, Russert asked George Allen about some comments he made regarding whether women should be allowed into Virginia Military Institute. Quoting Allen:

Russert: From American Enterprise magazine, “If Virginia Military Institute admitted women, it wouldn’t be the VMI that we’ve known for 154 years. You just don’t treat women the way you treat fellow cadets. If you did, it would be ungentlemanly, it would be improper.” Men and women shouldn’t be treated the same at a military institution?

Allen: The regiment at VMI and the way that it was… the curriculum, the training, would be ungentlemanly to treat women the way that they were doing it.

Without defining what Allen meant at the time by the word “gentlemanly”, I have to point out that this is completely accurate. Now that VMI admits women, it is not the VMI that it used to be. For better or worse, it’s not the same. The curriculum and training have been changed, and there is no point in denying this. But Allen backed away from saying so:

Russert: But has women at VMI worked?

Allen: Yes, it has.

Russert: So you were wrong?

Allen: Well, we were wrong. But here’s the point, here’s the difference: the Supreme Court said we were wrong, [and] we complied with that decision.

No, Senator. SCOTUS said that the practice of not allowing women into VMI was wrong. They did not say that the women should be subjected to the curriculum and training that were in place for 154 years. They said that women had to be admitted, and had to be given access to the same curriculum, training, and opportunities as the men. Senator Allen should have stepped up and said that VMI has done an excellent job of adapting to this new environment (and he probably could take some of the credit there, too). But he let Russert give the impression that it is the same VMI as it ever was, and the same ungentlemanly environment that used to exist.

I said that I prefer to see a politician admit when something they said was wrong, but Allen admitted to being wrong when I don't feel he actually was.

I will likely put out some more thoughts on today's Meet the Press. Perhaps after the kids are in bed...

Webb v Allen

I really need to put some of my thoughts down on this race for the Senate seat from Virginia – you know, the one currently held by former Virginia governor George Allen. I should be sharing my thoughts because
1) I live in Virginia,
2) George Allen is thought to have presidential aspirations, and the outcome of this race could set that stage or damage it severely,
3) There is some ridiculous poo-flinging that ought to be squelched by any reasonable observer,
4) This race really highlights the untenable position of the American libertarian.

Allow me to expand on that last one. There is no libertarian candidate in this race, even for those of us who do not feel that such candidates are a wasted vote. The only candidates are the Republican (incumbent George Allen), the Democrat (James Webb), and the Independent Green Party of Virginia, which is not to be confused with the Green Party of the United States (i.e. the real Green Party).

Now, I have outlined more than once before the reasons why I support the growth of “Third Parties”, including those who do not represent my point of view. I think it would be very good for this nation to have several viable parties instead of just two. But even given that, I don’t think I can vote for the candidate from the Independent Green Party of Virginia: Gail “For Rail” Parker, whose motto is “More trains, less traffic”. I mean, I have to be able to take the fledgling third party seriously on some level.

So I’m left with the two major parties as options. I start with the Republican, George Allen. I start with him because he is my known factor. Specifically, he is an incumbent, which means he has probably done something to piss me off during his term. That goes without saying. And he’s a Republican – a party I am especially angry with, as they trick liberty-loving people into voting for them with promises of smaller government and cowboy bravado, but then they grow government, partly through pork-barrel spending. So out he goes, right? Well, that’s what the Democrats are hoping. And I’ve thought about it. But the Republicans are the lesser of the two evils, and the Democrats are the evil of two lessers, as discussed previously.

Okay, how about the two men as individuals? The following really caught my eye in an article on Jim Webb in the June 15th edition of The Economist:

Mr Webb is not much good with people, and has no patience for such campaign chores as fund-raising. He knows little about the issues, save one: the war in Iraq, which he passionately opposes.

Great. A one-issue candidate. And it’s not exactly an issue on which I find Allen particularly out of line. I’ll be writing more on this race between now and the election, partly in order to make sure I’ve got my thoughts as straight as possible on it. And I will definitely be watching Allen and Webb tomorrow morning on Meet the Press. What, no Gail Parker? I have to say that early on, I am leaning hard away from the Webb campaign, because I haven’t seen his camp demonstrate that he would do anything better than Allen has. It’s all been about macaca and race-baiting. I demand substance.

Full disclosure: Jon Henke has been hired asNetroots Coordinator with the George Allen Senate Campaign. He is blogging the campaign at GeorgeAllen.com. And he is a personal friend of mine. But what I say is what I think, and I have no qualms about telling a friend when I think they are wrong, or even just overstating their case. Anybody who doubts this will be directed to my friends who co-blog with me on this site, who will be happy to tell you that I don’t let friendship get in the way of hashing out a good disagreement.

September 16, 2006

Technological Nirvana

I really enjoy the BBC Editor's Blog (see our blogroll), in part because I frequently read things there that might not matter so much to my life, but are just fascinating to me. For example:

So where is this technological nirvana... the city [that is] one of the first in the world to be a giant wireless zone[?]

Want to know? I think you will be very, very surprised.

Roxanne, You Can’t Cross That Red Line…

I heard this story on the way to work last week. It really blew me away. Then I got cut off by some ignoramus who righted-on-red about 10 seconds before they would have had a green light anyway, and I lost my train of thought. Thank you to Kip for reminding me of the issue.

Richmond [Virginia] is clamping down on prostitutes and customers in their favorite spots.

City Council voted unanimously last night to approve the creation of Target Enforcement Zones that would make it a crime for a previously arrested prostitute or "john" to be seen in three neighborhoods.

At the request of city prosecutors, judges will be able to prohibit someone with a previous arrest from entering the zones unless they live, work or worship in the area. Enforcement begins Oct. 1.

Some council members expressed concern that the zones might push the streetwalkers to other parts of the city.

the RPD also launched "Johns TV" on the city’s public-access station, a controversial program that airs the faces of all those who have been convicted recently of soliciting a prostitute in Richmond.

Unintentional Hiatus

It cracks me up to see the ebb and flow of the blogosphere. Activity goes up with major events and minor controversies, of course, but there is also an underlying baseline pattern. Most blogs are less busy on the weekends, for example. Some people seem only to post during banking hours – why could that be?. Traffic certainly goes down here at AtlasBlogged, with weekends appearing as local minima on our sitemeter graphs. For example, check out our last month (the red circles represent the last five weekends).

And on most weekdays, our sitemeter could practically be used as a sundial. A slow climb begins midmorning (EST) and peaks in the late morning, dipping down around lunchtime and then giving it another go in the afternoon and a third time in the evening. Much like Sitemeter itself, or USA today, it may not be very accurate, but it’s pretty reliable. I assume that busier blogs have a similar pattern, but I have to admit that I was too lazy to go look.

And then there are the college kids. Every once in a while, a site becomes very inactive for a while, and then the author pops up to apologize, blaming “exams”. Sometimes it really catches me off guard, because I hadn’t realized the blogger was a student.

But AtlasBlogged is a group blog with no students, so we should be immune to the outdated balancing act between agrarian society and education (usually called “summer vacation”). Unfortunately, my co-authors are a bunch of unreliable slackers, leaving nearly all of the writing around here to yours truly. Scroll down on this page to see what I am talking about. Thus the recent near-total lack of activity around here as I begin my fourth year teaching at a public high school. AtlasBlogged is a slave to the school calendar – isn’t that sick? Student or no, I have just been too busy to hit the keyboard. My last couple of weeks have been spent showing n00b teachers the ropes and learning the names of new students. As much as I would have liked to, I just haven’t had time to come over and talk to you.

And I might point out that none of our readers checked on me – I mean, I could have been on my deathbed, and none of you cared. (sniff) I’m just saying. Nary a worried call from Kip or from Scott Stein or Chris Smillerz. I’m pretty sure that Kos and Malkin troll our site, but no emails from either one of them. Sigh. I see how it is.

But chins up, friends. I've got a backlog of thoughts and comments, and they will soon see the light of day. The real question is, what the hell is wrong with my co-authors?

September 13, 2006

Top Ten Headlines You Won't Read Today

10. Absolutely no one was killed or even hurt yesterday in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Israel, or anywhere else in the Middle East.

9. Beautiful 22 year old woman marries 92 year old man. Man is completely
broke and has no will.

8. Las Vegas sports books delcare that absolutely no money was bet on any
of the NFL games over the weekend.

7. Small boy falls into pool and was about to get out on his own but
family dogs grabs him and drags him back into pool, thus helping him
drown.

6. Category 5 Tornado rips through trailer park in Oklahoma and after it
has passed through left the trailers in a state of being cleaner and
having shiny new curtains.

5. Single male, age 40, wins $350 million in lottery and passes by and
ignores 6 strip clubs on his way to a local church to donate the full
amount.

4. LaGuardia Airport makes an announcement that, in order to cut down on
travel time, they are removing all airport security and people can board
planes in mere minutes without now waiting in long lines.

3. Catholic Priest takes 15 eight year old boys on a weekend camping trip
into the deep woods...and absolutely nothing happens.

2. President Bush gives a 2 hour speech of thanks after completing the
clean sweep by winning the Pulitzer Prize for economics, humanity, arts,
and sciences.

and the #1 headline you will not be reading in the news today:

1. Hey Bob, this is Pete, the newsprint guy. I know we were supposed to
run a headline about the War on Terror, but just wanted to say instead
that I am banging your wife. Payback is a bitch, isn't it?

September 9, 2006

Partisan Style

Washington Post columnist Tom Shales on the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11":

The impression given is that Clinton was spending time on his sex life while terrorists were gaining ground and planning a nightmare.

It would have made as much sense, and perhaps more, to cut instead to stock footage of a smirking Kenneth Starr, the reckless Republican prosecutor largely responsible for distracting not just the president but the entire nation with the scandal.

Ooooooh! That dastardly Ken Starr! The way he commandeered the TV cameras and took over the newspaper presses was unconscionable. The fact that he was able to distract this nation while the media attempted to wrestle our attention back to The Real Issues was absolutely criminal. Why, if he hadn't distracted President Clinton, then 9/11 might have been prevented!

Mr. Shales is out of his element. He is a Style Columnist and a media critic. If he would like readers to know that the historical accuracy of the ABC docudrama is somewhere between questionable and nonexistent, then that's legitimate. But I'm already getting that message from thousands of other sources (which may be recklessly distracting President Bush from stopping the next 9/11 - who knows?). What I want from a WaPo Style Columnist is simply an assessment of whether the acting and production are any good. Hell, I'm not going to watch the thing anyway, so even that information is purely academic for me. But if I want a partisan hack's opinion on Mr. Starr - a man who has long had a reputation as a moderate judge and a staunch defender of the First Amendment - I'll check in at Kos.

Mr. Shales attacks Mr. Starr simply for the sake of the never-ending game of bullshit partisan tit-for-tat. Shame on any journalist who can't see that. It deserves to be pointed out that the paragraph on Ken Starr was completely pointless and irrelevant, and should have been left on the floor - like most of "The Path to 9/11", from what I gather.