either way, it is irrelevant
So tonight I got home and decided to resume my research into Christopher Hitchens and his ideas. I started out with a Google search for “hitchens malkin” just to see if I’d find either of them commenting on or quoting the other. But then I was distracted.
I followed one link, then another, and then another before realizing I had spent consider time at some pretty strange places.
Here are a few:
fixearth.com sets out to prove not only that the Bible is the 100% literal truth and Word of God, and not only that Darwinism/Evolution is false, but that the Earth is, in fact, stationary and neither rotates about its axis nor revolves around the Sun.
Sorry. I actually hadn’t looked at this next link yet, and after doing so, it’s so much bigotry and hatred that I am not going to post a link.
Ok, here’s one. Ever wondered which of your favorite celebrities were God-hating heathens? 
Specifically interesting profiles:
Ok, back to reality. I found Hitchens Watch. Basically, it’s a couple of guys who watch the media for Hitchens, then critique everything he says. What’s really not-so-entertaining about this site is that they do a poor job of it. The comments are full of people who don’t necessarily defend Hitchens, but tear apart the authors’ weak arguments. It’s a cool site, though, because now I have links to Hitchens’ work going back several years.
I’m not 100% sure I see what they’re trying to say.
Today, Michelle Malkin reposted (without much commentary) the results of an Investor’s Business Daily Poll. I’ll get to the contents of the IBD article in a second, but for now, let’s just look at the poll results.
The first thing to point out and consider as you’re looking at these stats is the methodology. Perhaps I’m wrong, but IBD/TIPP polled 925 adults to make their assertion that “Most Americans Want to Win in Iraq and Think We Can”. Second, I’m not sure exactly WHO they’re calling, but I would assume that the responses are coming from subscribers of IBD who have opted-in to this sort of thing. Tell me if you know differently and I’m wrong in this assumption.
Ok… I’m going to ignore the results “by party” because I really don’t know how to take it. For now, let’s look at the 2 questions and the overall responses.
At a quick glance… wow… the percentage who responded “Very important” and “Very hopeful” have gone up substantially since Dec 2006 (3 months ago)!
However, if you add up the “Very important” and “Somewhat important” responses from both polls, they both stand unchanged at 66%, vs the remaing who consider it unimportant. Adding up the “hopeful” responses, the number responding positively has actually gone down from 60% in December to 58% in February.
Note also that no ‘margin of error’ is mentioned in the results, even though only 1 data set actually adds up to a total of exactly 100%.
Ok, the interpretation: If they’re trying to show that general support for the war has increased since December, I think it’s obvious that these numbers don’t exactly reflect it. If they’re simply trying to show that consistently since December, 2/3 of their <1000 people polled support the war and haven't changed much... well... ok, I'll buy that. But I still have to consider my assumption regarding the make-up of the respondents. I'd like to know how many of those asked make less than $30k per year. How many make between $30 and $60k? My point is: are the 925 adult respondents to this poll really representative of "America" at-large?
As for the IBD article itself... what can I say? It's typical paleo-conservative propaganda equating dissatisfaction with the Command-in-Chief and his handling of the war with lack of patriotism and support for the troops. The article says, "There's a reason the founders of this country designated a single commander in chief and placed the responsibility to wage war in the hands of the president." I agree. "Waging" war is the responsibility of the President. And he's failing miserably in that role. If he's not willing, of his own volition, to consider and undertake a different strategy, he deserves the pressure from Congress to do so.
But, despite how we got into this mess, there has to be a way out (of the mess, not necessarily Iraq). So far, the President and his administration appear to only be serving their own oil interests, instigating more hatred for Americans, perpetuating the situation, increasing the terrorist threat and decreasing security at home. This proposed “surge” of an additional 20,000+ troops probably isn’t the answer. Neither is completely pulling out.
Right now, my thoughts are that we, the population, are thinking too “short term”. Perhaps it is a result of how fast news travels these days and how the Internet has brought individuals so close to international conflict. It seems to me a bit unrealistically demanding of any administration, given that we’re there despite the reasons, to have resolved the situation in such a short amount of time.
Perhaps it’s a good thing that I wasn’t invited to be a member of the Administration, but I do believe (sort of a new revelation) that supporting democracy abroad is in the best interest of the U.S. in the long-term. I think maybe we should divert some of those dollars paid to para-military contractors and supporting Israel to, well, advertising/marketing people familiar with the local audience. Maybe there’s a point at which “selling” Democracy and American-style freedom abroad has its place among negotiating and/or forcing it.
Recent Comments