To see this, go to www.thedailyshow.com.
Jon Stewart dedicated more than 15 minutes of his 21 or so minute show to the interview with Tony Blair. They went over the ground you'd expect them to - the Iraq war, 9/11, international terrorism, and so on, and while I've heard much of the same rationale before, I think I have a great deal more respect for Tony Blair as a result of this interview than I had before. He actually seemed to take Stewart's questions seriously and attempt to answer them as best he could without sounding like a jerk about it. Clearly, they disagreed on nearly every major point, but it was civil and respectful.
I just can't imagine George Bush doing that. I can imagine him, however, making that irritating smirk he always makes after making a statement about something that to him seems breathtakingly obvious and you're just a stupid moron for not understanding something that's so utterly clear to him. I can't imagine at all George Bush engaging in a reasonable, measured conversation in which his opponent disagrees with him entirely without resorting to his usual tactics of asserting that his opposition is just completely wrong-headed and is going to destroy the United States by allowing the terrorists to win.
So good for you, Tony Blair, for going on the Daily Show. More than that, good for you for being a decent human being about it, even if I do disagree with the way you chose to involve your country in my country's greatest mistake in recent history. And good for the Daily Show for keeping what matters in the news and always treating every guest - of whatever persuasion - with the same sense of humor and humanity.
Showing posts with label war in iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war in iraq. Show all posts
Friday, September 19, 2008
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
future suicide bomber
I just read this article on msnbc... it's hard to imagine a situation in which the intelligence could be so wrong as to bomb the life out of a large wedding party.
Iraq:
Confirmed US dead: 4151
Confirmed US injured: 30,000
Estimated Iraqi dead: 1,033,000 (as of August 2007) acc to Opinion Research Business survey
Afghanistan:
Confirmed US dead: 582
Estimated Afghani dead: 2700
World Trade Center attacks: 2974
I don't think this math adds up very well.
And I think I might want to join up and fight against anyone who bombed the life out of my future spouse and entire extended family.
Iraq:
Confirmed US dead: 4151
Confirmed US injured: 30,000
Estimated Iraqi dead: 1,033,000 (as of August 2007) acc to Opinion Research Business survey
Afghanistan:
Confirmed US dead: 582
Estimated Afghani dead: 2700
World Trade Center attacks: 2974
I don't think this math adds up very well.
And I think I might want to join up and fight against anyone who bombed the life out of my future spouse and entire extended family.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Thursday, November 15, 2007
IQ is relative
My dad once said that usually people of moderate intelligence accomplish things of import in this world, because truly intelligent people are capable of seeing multiple sides to the issue, and are thus far less likely to jump feet first into any one course of action. I think I would like to modify the definition somewhat - people of moderate intelligence who focus all of their energy and intelligence on bettering themselves generally accomplish more than truly intelligent people who are capable of seeing that life is made up of more than simply themselves and their own goals.
Take for example, our dear President, who is clearly intelligent enough to at least surround himself with people intelligent enough to get himself elected. Whatever else you may think of him, he did manage to get into the White House, which is no mean feat. He is a man I would call more clever than intelligent. He generally seems to be able to get what he wants, which demonstrates that he is clever, but what he wants is generally stupid, which demonstrates his lack of intelligence. For example, there were a number of academics (but who listens to academics anyway?) who prepared a panel back in 2002 on why the invasion of Iraq would be a mistake. Their reasons were well thought out, based on historical precedent, and were careful to consider the questions no one in the government seemed to be willing to answer - what if it isn't a cheap war? What if the Iraqis don't love us as much as we think they will? What if there is sectarian violence? Actually, some of the panelists were disturbingly accurate in their portrayals of what was likely to happen.
However, our dear President knew what he wanted, and set about getting it. This is, I think, the secret to getting ahead in the world. Focus on what you want to the exclusion of all else, and focus on ways you can achieve your goals. The reason why intelligent people - as opposed to merely clever or cunning people - rarely gain positions of power or control is that they generally think about the ramifications of what they do before they take action.
Unfortunately, if one is the sort of person who enjoys using one's brain on occasion, such single-minded devotion to self is rather difficult to justify.
Take for example, our dear President, who is clearly intelligent enough to at least surround himself with people intelligent enough to get himself elected. Whatever else you may think of him, he did manage to get into the White House, which is no mean feat. He is a man I would call more clever than intelligent. He generally seems to be able to get what he wants, which demonstrates that he is clever, but what he wants is generally stupid, which demonstrates his lack of intelligence. For example, there were a number of academics (but who listens to academics anyway?) who prepared a panel back in 2002 on why the invasion of Iraq would be a mistake. Their reasons were well thought out, based on historical precedent, and were careful to consider the questions no one in the government seemed to be willing to answer - what if it isn't a cheap war? What if the Iraqis don't love us as much as we think they will? What if there is sectarian violence? Actually, some of the panelists were disturbingly accurate in their portrayals of what was likely to happen.
However, our dear President knew what he wanted, and set about getting it. This is, I think, the secret to getting ahead in the world. Focus on what you want to the exclusion of all else, and focus on ways you can achieve your goals. The reason why intelligent people - as opposed to merely clever or cunning people - rarely gain positions of power or control is that they generally think about the ramifications of what they do before they take action.
Unfortunately, if one is the sort of person who enjoys using one's brain on occasion, such single-minded devotion to self is rather difficult to justify.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Friendly Fire Incident
The friendly fire incident four years ago in which two U.S. A-10 fighter pilots fired on a British tank group and killed one man has been a fascinating exercise in the difference in spin between my only two international news channels that are in English.
On CNN Intl, the pilots are described as distraught and obviously upset when they realized what they had done. The "experts" interviewed by the anchorman and anchorwoman pointed out the difficulties the pilots faced, from faulty information to simply the uncertainty of the situation, the 'fog of war.'
On BBC, the incident was reported as the U.S. not being able to keep its communications together (remember, this was four years ago during the initial invasion - I'm sure we've gotten better since then). My favorite difference was when the widow released a statement saying how upset she was at the casual language the pilots used after they realized that they had fired on friendly troops. She said this just proved how completely callous they were.
On CNN Intl, pilots swearing equals distraught (American males express distress by swearing, they also express happiness, excitement, anger, envy, and other emotions in a similar fashion); on the BBC to the widow, it apparently means callous and stupid.
Perhaps this is a cultural difference. Or perhaps CNN and BBC are much more loyal than they would like to say they are.
On CNN Intl, the pilots are described as distraught and obviously upset when they realized what they had done. The "experts" interviewed by the anchorman and anchorwoman pointed out the difficulties the pilots faced, from faulty information to simply the uncertainty of the situation, the 'fog of war.'
On BBC, the incident was reported as the U.S. not being able to keep its communications together (remember, this was four years ago during the initial invasion - I'm sure we've gotten better since then). My favorite difference was when the widow released a statement saying how upset she was at the casual language the pilots used after they realized that they had fired on friendly troops. She said this just proved how completely callous they were.
On CNN Intl, pilots swearing equals distraught (American males express distress by swearing, they also express happiness, excitement, anger, envy, and other emotions in a similar fashion); on the BBC to the widow, it apparently means callous and stupid.
Perhaps this is a cultural difference. Or perhaps CNN and BBC are much more loyal than they would like to say they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
