Author Archive

The Huffington Post’s decision to ban Andrew Breitbart from its front page for…

Andrew Brietbart’s ad hominem attack on Van Jones in The Daily Caller — right down to calling him a “commie punk” and “a cop killer-supporting, racist, demagogic freak” — violates the tenets of debate and civil discourse we have strived for since the day we launched.

I trust you were not drinking when you read that, otherwise your computer would have shorted out from the water.

Lee Stranahan decided that this is the final straw and has quit the Huffington Post:

…as a writer, this latest move by The Huffington Post of banning Andrew Breitbart from their front page (because of comments he made to a different website) is both unprecedented, arbitrary and deeply offensive to the intellectual openness that Arianna Huffington has purported to believe in.

He also comments on the strategy

One very loathsome aspect of this story is something that Huffington Post editor Roy Sekoff told me in a long phone call about Andrew Breitbart several months ago. Roy knows and worked with Andrew and when the issue of Andrew Breitbart being a racist came up, Roy told me “No, of course Andrew isn’t a racist.”

Roy went on to say that while both he and Arianna Huffington knew that the charges of racism being hurled at Andrew weren’t true based on their years of personal dealings with him that they were in a ‘bad position’ to say anything about it.

.
…however it is a question of their base, evidence about Jones not withstanding they will not risk upsetting the liberals who follow them. As Stranahan has already found dissent from the liberal base carries costs.

Dave Weigel notes the absurdity of the statement:

He didn’t write or say any of that at HuffPo, a site he helped develop in 2005. Is the Huffington Post’s standard that contributors can be to some modified limited hang-out if they use ad hominems in other forums? Boy, good thing Breitbart doesn’t have an army of contributors who can comb HuffPo authors’ published and spoken work to see if they’ve done that.

He is exactly right. The number of examples of this kind of stuff that will be dug up this week will be interesting.

In fact Lee Stranahan has already started and the Daily Caller goes long on ad hominem actually at the huffpo:

It will not matter in the closed world of the left its conformity that matters.

At baseball crank, (who I really need to link to more) they are asking what is the one sports event that you would want to go back and see.

His choice of game 7 (actually game 8) of the 1912 world series is a pretty good one (Giants Red Sox) the final game of one of the greatest world series ever played, but my choice is a less significant pair of games in the standing but more incredible in terms of drama.

In 1941 Ted Williams going into the final two games batting .3995 His manager offered to sit him since Major league Baseball rounds up, Williams was having none of it.

When he came to the plate the Catcher for the A’s (then in Philadelphia) informed him that Connie Mack (the manager/owner of the A’s) told the pitchers to “pitch to him” and not around him. Williams in the hottest spot he would be in outside of an airplane at war managed to go 6-8 in the double-header and get his average up to .406. Nobody has come within 15 points of him since, not Gwynn, not Boggs, not Brett, not Yaz, not Bonds, not Ichrio. not Carew not nobody.

And he did this in an 8 team league without expansion pitching.

Libya: Is it the right thing to do?

Posted: March 24, 2011 by datechguy in opinion/news, war
Tags: , , , ,

At Patterico a relevant question has been asked concerning Libya that is not being asked enough concerning president Obama’s decision to go to war in Libya.

But before we hammer the President too hard, ask yourself a simple question. Is he right, right now? Forget what he said when he represented one of the most liberal jurisdictions in America, but is he right, right now?

The answer: It depends on how you look at it.

If you look at is in terms of preventing a slaughter, then yes. Our actions prevented an immediate slaughter and are thus worthwhile in the short term. The trick will be to keep it from becoming a bigger slaughter in the long term.

If you look at it in terms of dealing with troublemakers then perhaps. As a general rule if you have a chance to get rid of an enemy (Gaddafi) one should take the opportunity, however the time to have acted was when the rebels were outside of Tripoli not when Gaddafi was outside of Benghazi.

If you look at it in terms of national interest then frankly the answer is No. The rebels who are fighting him seem to also be fighting us elsewhere. If we give over Libya to a different set of enemies they can use that state to sponsor war against us. This is a very bad idea. Additionally historically we have gotten little payback when we have stuck our necks out for Arab countries in general.

All of this is pretty moot now that we are in, WE ARE IN. The real question is what will be the result of our actions. Here are the three possible results

#1. Gaddafi wins: I think this is the least likely outcome. As long as there is some kind of no-fly zone it becomes a ground fight, Benghazi can still fall but if his armor heads toward Tobruk it is very vulnerable from the air. If the west is willing to take out his tanks and armor then Gaddafi can’t finish the job. Of course if the west gets cold feet this goes from the least likely outcome to the most likely outcome, but I think that England and France have too much invested for them to let this happen.

#2 The Rebels win: This has a better chance of happening because you can’t be sure how loyal the forces supporting Gaddafi are. As long as the money holds out the hired guns from the south will stay loyal, but the loss of air superiority makes a huge difference. Of course it’s also a question of taking back cities held by the government which I think is not possible unless Gaddafi and his sons are dead. The question becoming if the rebels win, will they be grateful or will they use the new Libya as an Islamic state to support our foes internationally?

#3 The partition/administration of Libya. Almost certainly the final result. The west without US leadership doesn’t have the staying power or the willingness to actually win the war or commit the ground troops necessary to do so. Sans such will the end result will be a deal to save face for the west that allows Gaddafi’s family in charge of the east where his tribe lives and the rebels in charge of the west. That allows Gaddafi to claim a victory over the west while the west claims success in its mission even as the east is purged of supporters of the rebellion.

And of course this result is the worst of all possible results for the US. We will have a Gaddafi family looking for revenge by proxy in the east while in the west the rebels, who never liked us in the first place, will blame us for the failure to take the country and the purge of their supporters in the east. Since they were already supporting wars against us they will now have a nation to do so with, and it will be a nation “supported’ by the UN.

This is a mess full of bad choices and results. We can only hope it is done wisely.

Only a very ignorant person can call Liz Taylor the last star of Hollywood’s Golden Era while O’Hara and de Havilland are still around.

Oh and I think considering Taylor was sleeping with her husband I think its classless to be interviewing Debbie Reynolds on Taylor.