Obsidian Wings

I'll worry about it the day after tomorrow

It was a drizzly Memorial Day here in New York, so the movie theaters were full of folks who might have otherwise had a picnic or gone to the beach. My friends and I treated ourselves to the scientifically challenged, propaganda-laden disaster flick, "The Day After Tomorrow" (what else we gonna talk about as we make our puppets for the upcoming Republican National Convention?).

It's a fun bad movie. Watching as the tidal wave hits my apartment building was thrilling (Look, honey, there goes our place!) and who doesn't want to see a Russian tanker sail up Fifth Avenue? But it was also admittedly somewhat unsettling. We walked out of the theater where it was raining and then into a coffee shop to discuss the film, and the first thought that occurred to me as I closed my umbrella was literally, "Good, there's plenty of wooden furniture in here we could burn if the freeze caught us trapped here."

Later, I spent a bit of time explaining to my beloved that this was so far from reality we really don't have to worry about it, but I can't help but view the movie's alarmist message in the context of an interview about SUVs and the price of gasoline on "60 Minutes":

As Lesley Stahl reports for 60 Minutes, here is your typical American car buyer, when it comes to mileage:

"I'm not gonna interrupt my lifestyle because of a few extra bucks on gas mileage ... I understand the oil situation and everything like that. But we're America, I guess, you know? And this is the way we live."

Growing up in the 70's when conservation was considered good for the nation and good for one's soul, I can't help but wonder how this attitude came to be so prevalent here. Even if we can afford it, is consuming the planet's natural resources as if there's no tomorrow ever morally defendable?

Ratzenfraktzen thunderstorms...

...completely wrecked our plans today, tanjit. Rain is one thing, large bolts of electricity that strike the ground essentially at random are another. Guess we'll go to the Memorial this weekend, instead.

Open thread.

Moe

UPDATE: I was so not into the blogging thing today - I was introduced to this wonderful experience called a 'nap', and it really takes up a guy's attention - and I'm guessing that this'll continue on throughout the evening. Tomorrow is a new day...

Art Irritates Life

Hat Tip to Constant Reader Dutchmarbel for this item
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lori Haigh, a San Francisco gallerist, was attacked by an as-yet-unidentified assailant who apparently objected to a painting she was exhibiting. Judging by the published photo of her, the attack was pretty brutal. The black eye Haigh received was just the latest in a string of verbal and physical abuse directed at her since the show opened. She has since closed her gallery, "citing concern for the safety of her two children, ages 14 and 4, who often accompanied her to work."

The artist, Guy Colwell, in a work titled "Abuse," depicted "three U.S. soldiers leering at a group of naked men in hoods with wires connected to their bodies. The one in the foreground has a blood-spattered American flag patch on his uniform. In the background, a soldier in sunglasses guards a blindfolded woman" (you can see part of it behind Haigh in the photo). I don't know either the gallerist or artist personally, although Colwell's career stretches back quite a while and he's always been (NOTE: this link definitely NOT work safe)somewhat controversial.

There are two issues here for me. The first of course being that punching someone because you don't appreciate the art they exhibit is barbaric. There are plenty of nonviolent means available to protest artwork that offends you. Not patronizing that gallery is an effective one. Writing a letter to the editor of the local newspaper is another. Even emailing the gallery and explaining why you're offended is better than showing up at the door one day and punching a mother of two in the face.

Second, art can (and is sometimes calculated to) push people's buttons. There's no way to discuss this as "right" or "wrong" because there's no point in judging art based on this objective. Art is neither moral nor immoral, it is simply well made or poorly made. Personally, this particular piece is not one I'd exhibit. Besides being too illustrative, how quickly it was produced after the scandal news broke tells me all I need to know about the artist's intentions. The way I see it, there's no resolution to this story yet, so how could an artist possibly have anything worthwhile to express about it? When painting begins to parallel pundit-like commentary, it loses all interest for me.

Having said that, my first observation here is infintely more important than my second.

UPDATE: (Monday, 5/31/04 11:30 AM) As Constant Reader KenB points out, this line is unclear: "Second, art can (and is sometimes calculated to) push people's buttons. There's no way to discuss this as "right" or "wrong" because there's no point in judging art based on this objective."

Whether an artist is intentionally attempting to push buttons is only one small part of determining whether a work of art is well made or not. Hans Hacke, for example, is purposely confrontational. His work is often conceptually sound, aesthetically engaging, and profound. This piece is devastatingly brilliant. Truly a wonderful AND manipulative work. This piece exhibited at the Whitney, however, was lame (sorry, can't find image). He went for the cheap sentiment and depended too heavily on the viewer bringing their personal associations of Hitler and garbage cans to make his point. Sloppy, lazy work. Hacke remains a great artist, despite the Whitney flop. Neither of these pieces, in and of themselves, is moral or immoral however.

Back from the Barbeque.

I'm in fairly good shape, considering that the Dark Lady Tequila was there in her enticing, oh so enticing form of margaritas. Ah, tequila, lover and destroyer...

Anyhow, it's obviously been mostly a quiet day in these parts, although the subject of a DC blogging bash seems to have a resonance. Two notes:

1). When did I suddenly become the one doing this... oh, right, I opened my mouth. Lemme think about it; I don't have the slightest idea how to run one, after all, and I'm not the organizational one of my particular pair bonding.

2). No matter how it'd turn out, I suspect that it wouldn't resemble much the one Gary went to.

Couple of Questions and a statement.

1). The girlfriend and I plan to visit the World War II Memorial on Monday (yes, we know about the likely crowds, and yes, we know about the security issues). I don't normally care about picture taking, but is there any interest on this from our loyal readers?

2). Do DC political bloggers ever get together for a Bash... jeez, that sounds like a personals ad, or maybe an age/sex check. Still, it seems like every other city has partying political bloggers; you'd think that our nation's capital would sponsor one...

3). I hope everyone out there has a reflective and SAFE Memorial Day weekend, including those out there too busy defending us to have the time to read this weblog.

Moe

Heading this off at the pass?

Ted Barlow has a straightforward suggestion about how to make personal attacks against the Bush daughters, now that they're joining the Bush campaign: don't. He thinks that it's not nice (Ted always was a big softie) and not smart politics (being a big softie doesn't mean that you have to be dumb). Considering the unfair crap that got slung* against Chelsea Clinton, I'd have to agree, on both counts.

Of course, he still has to convince everybody else - certain of his commenters are, um, resistant to the idea - so I'll sweeten the pot. I hereby swear that I shall make no cheap shots at Senator Kerry's daughters for as long as Ted Barlow makes no cheap shots at President Bush's, and I encourage bloggers from across the spectrum to follow my lead. Let us have something about this election that isn't war to the knife, no matter how small it may be.

Moe

The United States of Sparta

I know that headline may immediately turn off a portion of the readership ("Good God, not another anti-war diatribe, can we just get over it?"). To those folks, I'd ask you read a bit further. It's not what you think. The Belmont Club's Wretchard writes a breathtaking thesis on the future direction of war in "The Global Battlefield." His central argument is "Wars will no longer be fought between armies. They will be fought between societies." He builds his argument around the ideas that

If I'm reading between the lines correctly...

...we may soon see a resignation by U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi (or at least some serious squawking).

In a secret session today, the Iraqi Governing Council unanimously nominated Iyad Allawi (a current Governing Council member) as the Prime Minister for the Transitional Government beginning June 30. This despite Brahimi's expressed belief that no current GC members should hold top offices in the transitional government. According to the NYT, currently

It [is] unclear whether Brahimi, who is charged with putting together a new government, accepted the nomination.

The existing Council has expressed disapproval with the plan to keep them out of key positions in the transitional government. Noting specifically

The whole idea of having the U.N. or any foreign entity to appoint or lead a political process in Iraq is not acceptable.

There's widespread speculation that it's more unacceptable to the existing GC members with high ambitions in a new Iraq than it is to anyone else, but I suppose they do have a point. Having said that, existing council members haven't exactly distinguished themselves as trustworthy leaders.

The fact that Bremer's on board with this nomination, does suggest that the US is not truly behind the UN's plan for the transition, as well. We'll see if Brahimi bolts or rolls over and plays dead.

UPDATE:

The White House said the nomination was only one of many recommendations being made to U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, who has led the process for drawing up the new government and is expected to announce the final lineup by Monday.

The council is “one of many groups that have made some recommendations to Mr. Brahimi,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Brahimi’s spokesman, Ahmad Fawzi, said that the envoy “welcomes and respects the choice of Mr. Allawi.” He did not say whether Brahimi backed the nomination.

Good and Better

Kevin Drum gently criticizes Drezner, Yglesias, and me for (what I'll roughly call) the "more troops" argument. Yglesias seems ready to concede; I'm not.

Criticism 1: "The practical problem is that we don't have 450,000 troops[,]" which is the number of troops Drezner suggests should have been deployed to Iraq.

Drum is likely correct that -- even if we had followed a "go slower" approach on the Iraq war (which I favored) -- 450,000 may have been beyond our reach. It's not certain, of course: This is Monday morning quarterbacking for an alternate universe. Let's assume, nonetheless, that Kevin is right.

This does not end the debate, however. First, the "450,000" figure is a rough projection. It is not gospel. And, while many believed that troop levels in the 100-150,000 range were far too low, there was no consensus on exactly how many were needed -- and 450,000 was at the very top of the spread.

Second, even assuming 450,000 was the ideal figure, diminishing returns set in well prior to that point. We kept the peace in most of the country with about 150,000 troops. Having 100,000 more may have allowed us to secure the border with Iran and the oil infrastructure, as well as provided a reserve that could be deployed to the spots where trouble flared. Having 50,000 on top of that makes everyone's job easier, and may have allowed us to quicken the infrastructure-rebuilding process. It was possible to deploy 300,000 troops (roughly, double the actual force size), it would have made a tremendous difference, and there likely would not have been much practical difference from a 450,000 troop deployment.

Third, we should beware of the trap of failing to do the good for fear that it would not be perfect. If one believed that Saddam had to go and that war was the only way of accomplishing that goal, your options were limited. At some point, you have to act. This is what Drezner (and I) mean when we say "The craft of foreign policy is choosing wisely from a set of imperfect options." You never get the perfect option; stop waiting for it.

Criticism 2: "The systemic problem might be even worse. . . . [in a country like Iraq,] the only tactics that will provide the level of security needed to make democracy possible are so brutal that they will turn the Iraqis against us and eventually force us out — thus bringing an end to our experiment in forced democratization."

This assumes that the essential conflict is about religion. It's not. It's about money.

Remember: the main complaint from Iraqis in the first six to twelve months was not that they hated being under the thumb of a "Christian power." The main complaint was that the electricity didn't work and, consequently, people couldn't work. Brutal means were not necessary to resolve these complaints; a visible U.S. troop presence coupled to visible economic progress were. Put more boots on the ground (as the British did in Basra, and as 300,000 troops would permit), continue to pay Iraqi soldiers to keep them home, and focus on protecting and repairing infrastructure.

Wallets and pocketbooks, not religion, drive revolts. Drum's doom-and-gloom forgets this. Don't you.

And have a happy Memorial Day weekend.

Thursday Night Blahs...

...my Thursday night RPG session was fairly uninspiring (which is all due to me, being the guest gamemaster and everything), I had to do real work today and I'm just kind of beat. Thus, some site work (got a few people to add to the blogroll) and then to bed. If we're missing sites that link to us, or features that you'd like to see (yes, Gary, I'm thinking about adding a Search feature) please feel free to use comments to sound off.

Moe

PS: One thing to note: last week I clarified and generalized an unstated site policy (the removal on sight of spam and too-long cut n'paste jobs from comments, the latter without prejudice). Should have noted it formally before now; my apologies.