It's like Mardi Gras meets the bombing of Dresden...
Monday, November 21, 2005
Article Sampling
Lots of good articles around today-

Mackubin Thomas Owens rips Jack Murtha to shreds on Iraq here- Our school system must be failing when Al-Queda has a better grasp on US military history than US Senators...

Mark Steyn on French unrest- "No need to worry about his getting any wacky ideas down at the madrassah, he's an impeccably secular pluralist Peugeot-torcher." He sounds like Charles...

and finally something good to come out of Canada- an article on music copyright protection.
"It's backwards thinking. It's protectionism," said Terri McBride, president of Vancouver-based Nettwerk, whose roster includes the Be Good Tanyas (who?). "The average consumer who's not tech-savvy is going to buy the CD, thinking that they can load it onto their IPod . . . They're going to be royally pissed off." He added: "Why do you want to piss off the people who buy?"
Apparently, that logic is just way too obvious for major US music execs- "Hmmm... people who don't buy cd's download our music, so let's make our music a giant pain in the ass for the people who do buy them! Brilliant!"

Want more sales? Instead of spending a billion dollars promoting pop culture crap like Gwen Stefani or the ugly Simpson sister, find a new Dispatch...

Speaking of music, do you think I can buy this t-shirt without jeopardizing my soul?

Tenacious D rocks!

5 Comments:

Blogger RedHurt said...

well, it's doubtful.

10:42 AM  
Blogger CharlesPeirce said...

Items:

(1) I disagree with Owens's analysis of Murtha's comments. His analogy of Iraq to "why we lost Vietnam" is at best irrelevant. Now, this isn't to say that Murtha is correct--it's just to say that juxtaposing Iraq and Vietnam in this way gets us nowhere and adds nothing to the debate. He's impaled himself on a dilemma--either Iraq is like Vietnam, in which case we're in serious trouble; or it's not, in which case his argument fails.

(2) Why does Mark Steyn sound like me?

(2)supplemental: fix your link to me!

3:48 PM  
Blogger Jackscolon said...

1) I think his point is that Vietnam was winnable (as is the Iraq war) provided we don't cut and run or let politicians micromanage. However, I agree that both wars are totally different. The North Vietnamese had backing from China and Russia, and Al Queda has nobody. The North Vietnamese were hardly desperate, the insurgency has taken to bombing weddings in Jordan and other ventures that are less that prudent.

2) He doesn't sound like you in that I assume you agree with him, to me, the phrase "wacky ideas down at the madrassah, he's an impeccably secular pluralist Peugeot-torcher" sounds like something you might drop over an apple martini down at Lenin's.

(2b) fixed!

4:10 PM  
Blogger CharlesPeirce said...

(1) You don't really believe, as the Republicans from On High would have you believe, that Democratic whining is actually somehow "undermining" the "war effort", do you? If the Iraqi insurgency wants to "win", and by "win" I mean sink Iraq into civil war and chaos, they can--it's much easier to blow something up than it is to turn into a modern, technological, democratic state.

(2) Thanks!
(2b) Thanks!

4:31 PM  
Blogger Jackscolon said...

No I don't think Democratic whining really does very much damage (maybe a tiny bit) to our morale and boost the morale of our enemies, but I do think a more unified front would expedite things.

"If the Iraqi insurgency wants to "win", and by "win" I mean sink Iraq into civil war and chaos, they can"

I disagree, I don't think they really hold all the cards anymore. I would say that minus some sectarian infighting the Iraqis have shown overwhelmingly that they favor a free, moderate democratic state over an Islamic caliphate. If anything, I would say that popular opinion is really turning against AQI (Al Queda Iraq) because of the wedding bombings, school murders, Mosque bombings, and the like.

Regardless, I'm not sure how withdrawing makes us any safer...

Also, I think the Democrats have largely achieved their point. I find it very unlikely that the United States will really undergo much in the way of militaristic foreign policy in the future short of an obvious state sponsored attack comparable to 9/11. What President isn't going to be gunshy and realize that he has to meet a higher burden of proof before action?

10:57 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home