December 28, 2004

Worst of times, best of times...

It's an appalling thing, that even as the world increases in knowledge and wealth, there seems to be more stupidity in public life rather than less. More times when I look at some high-level discussion and think, "I'm just an ordinary person, but even I can see that that's just silly."

But the good part is, there are also more tools available now to combat idiocy. Glenn gave me a treat to go with my coffee this morning, pointing to Baldilocks, and to Jason van Steenwyck, both with good posts pummeling the clowns who have been attacking our military to advance the sacred cause of appeasement. Van Steenwyck savages a ridiculous Bob Herbert NYT column that says that intelligence-gathering by the Pentagon is some new Rumsfeld plot, and claims as also "new" and shocking the idea of using military operations to gather intel. Anyone who knows even a few scraps of our history will see that this is asinine. For instance our Navy broke Japanese diplomatic cyphers before WWII. And the trench raids of WWI fame were intelligence-gathering operations.

Van Steenwyck is in top form, do read his post. One of his commenters writes: This column is typical of the low quality produced by Bob Herbert. In a way, the Times is promoting racism by using so mediocre a token black op-ed writer. I suspect that's exactly what they are (unconsciously) doing. There are lots of sharp writers who are also black, but they also tend to ask pointed questions about their status on the Democrat plantation.

What the NYT needs is someone like Baldilocks, who wrote today:

...The problem with the mainstream media is that so few of them are (or recognize) real men, that such foreign beings actually frighten them. Real men communicate with each other (and everyone else) without the…er…nuance that characterizes the exchanges between more neutered types. So when the SecDef says something like this to a National Guardsman,
As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. [bold mine]
…the two men know the statements reflect a mere military axiom (regardless of whether the precipitating question was planted or not). However, the mainstream media types--and, unfortunately, some Republican US senators--who are more accoustomed to weasel-worded lip-biting drivel, squeal “Insensitivity to the Troops!” as if they gave a rat’s hairy behind about any of the troops...

So true. Even if Rumsfeld were doing a bad job (I very much think he's doing a great job) it would still be a huge plus to have real men running things again. (And real women, instead of those grotesques that Clinton seemed to turn up...)

Posted by John Weidner at December 28, 2004 5:11 PM
Weblog by John Weidner