Adios a Pinochet

Christoper Hitchens is also glad to say goodbye:

There were those who used to argue that, say what you like, Pinochet unfettered the Chilean economy and let the Friedmanite breezes blow. (This is why Mrs. Thatcher was forever encouraging him to take his holidays and shopping trips in London; a piece of advice that he may well have regretted taking.) Yet free-marketeers presumably do not believe that you need torture and murder and dictatorship to implement their policies.

Historically, the moderate left has not been given much of a chance to try new things out in South America. In the long run, there is nothing wrong with letting leftist populists either (a) prove that their policies work, or (b) discredit leftist populism when they don't.

(Venezuela might be an exception, since the government has lots of oil money to spare.)

The same principle should apply to the right-wing policies too. Just as long as it's not "one man, one vote, one time."

Life imitates Onion

Two days ago, Nancy pointed out to me one of the best headlines in The Onion in a long while:
Rebels Immediately Regret Seizing Power In Zambia. (Apologies to the real Zambia, by the way.)

Today, I see this real headline: Fiji coup chief runs ads to fill Cabinet.

Movie-related Quote of the Day

From the Washington Post:

"What if you showed the ancient Maya 'The Passion of the Christ'? They'd freak out."

- Stephen Houston, professor of anthropology at Brown University.

The Borat Memo

Continuing with the New Yorker crutch (it's easier to link than to write original posts!), this short bit of satire summarizes what for me were some of the more disquieting things about the Borat movie.

Lessons of Vietnam

I was going to write a post about President Bush's remarks in Vietnam a couple of weeks ago, but The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg has done a pretty good job already:

In Hanoi, which under its nominally Communist rulers is more vibrantly capitalist than Ho Chi Minh City ever was when it was called Saigon, he [President Bush] was asked if the American experience in Vietnam offered any guidance about Iraq. “One lesson is that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while,” he replied, and added, “We’ll succeed unless we quit.” What did he mean? That the peaceable, bustling, unthreatening (if unfree) Vietnam of today represents an American success, made possible by the fact that we didn’t quit until fifty-eight thousand Americans and three million Vietnamese were dead? Or that it represents an American failure, which would have been averted by another decade of war, another fifty-eight thousand, another three million? Who knows? And who knows, really, what this President has been taught by this month’s election? The present President Bush, after all, is a decider of decisions, not a learner of lessons. And he likes to decide that he was right all along.

The Baker-Hamilton Report

I skimmed the report this morning on the train, and I must say that it is much better than I expected.

It is a breath of fresh air, a welcome dose of reality. Even if that reality is not pretty and, as the report states, there are no flawless options to pursue. I think it can also serve as a good primer for the American public to understand the complex forces at work in Iraq - infinitely more nuanced than just repeating "Iraq is a central front in the War on Terror".

A good sample paragraph:

Iraq is a centerpiece of American foreign policy, influencing how the United States is viewed in the region and around the world. Because of the gravity of Iraq’s condition and the country’s vital importance, the United States is facing one of its most difficult and significant international challenges in decades. Because events in Iraq have been set in motion by American decisions and actions, the United States has both a national and a moral interest in doing what it can to give Iraqis an opportunity to avert anarchy.

Read: it was a war of choice, and the US must get it right. But is it too late now?

Rumsfeld's memo

Juan Cole has a good analysis of Rumsfeld's memo. This stood out:

Rumsfeld spends more time plotting out how to manipulate the American public than how to win the war. Everything is about spin, about giving the image of progress even in the face of a rapid downward spiral into the abyss.

It's the FOX-news, Michael "how do I look on TV during Katrina" Brown, Big Lie style of Government.

The Big Lie

In previous posts, I've compared the Bush Administration's policies in the "War on Terror", and the mentality of its defenders, to those of Third World dictators. This provocative, and thought-provoking, article on Slate goes one further than that.

The article has helped me cristalize why Fox News, and the likes of O'Reilly, bothers me so much: it's the culture of the Big Lie, very dangerous indeed. Sure, there are left-wing fundamentalists as well, spouting much nonsense. But they don't get away with stating blatantly false and illogical "memes" repeatedly, as Fox News does. And call themselves "Fair and Balanced," after that.

(Case in point, the "War on Christmas." Silly, yes, but symptomatic.)

Only bad options in Iraq?

This post by James Fallows explains how there's mostly only bad choices left in Iraq.

But one thing is clear: no matter how it happens, if things end badly, they will be blamed on the "liberal" media, the Democrats, the fickle American public, and the Iraqis themselves.

On a related note, NPR just ran an interview with two Iraqi exiles in Jordan this morning. Both well-educated, with excellent English, had to leave the country due to very serious threats on their lives and those of their families. One worked for the US occupation authorities; the other had the ability to borrow and pay $25,000 after being kidnapped, thus becoming a marked man.

Again, one would think that the self-proclaimed "law-and-order" Republicans would be the ones to understand how you cannot have a successful country, much less a "Democracy", without some law and order.