No, Petraeus! So say us: Time‘s untimely choice

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m with William Kristol on this one: why wasn’t General Petreaus the obvious choice for Time magazine’s annual “Person of the Year?”

Time was when Time actually had something intelligent to say about the world. But that Time was a long time ago. Putin is certainly an influential man on the international scene, but why him, why now?

Because, that’s why. Because first runner-up Al Gore didn’t need the trifecta (Nobel, Oscar, Time), for what even the NY Times acknowledges is a film and a message that is “exaggerated and erroneous” from the standpoint of science. Because although Harry Potter’s a fine creation, the coice of second runner-up J.K. Rowling would have been an absurdity. Next in line seems to have been China’s Hu Jintao (who?? Jintao?). I’m sure he’s influential as well, and China is always a big story and will continue to be so into the distant future, but certainly he has not done anything to make him extaordinarily noteworthy this year.

Which brings us to Time’s next in line, Petraeus. Continue reading →

Oh, why not?

The New Neo Posted on by

Why not take a break from politics and world angst? You’ve got a good excuse, because it’s that time of year again—“Nutcracker” time, that is.

Especially if you live anywhere near New York City, where the New York City Ballet has danced its 2000th performance of (excuse the pun) the old chestnut. If you have little children, especially girls, there is hardly a greater holiday treat than to take them to a performance (dressed in holiday finery, of course) and watch their faces light up.

At least, that was true for this little girl, who was enchanted by the ballet back when the troupe had danced only a couple of hundred performances, and when Balanchine himself took to the stage as an especially spooky Herr Drosselmeier. Even as a child I appreciated choreography and stage business, as well as scenery, and “Nutcracker” was loaded with more than its share. Continue reading →

More on Wallace and Jennings: a war reporter is not a nature reporter

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m pressed for time, so I’m writing this quickly and might have more to say later on the subject, but I urge you to read the comments section of yesterday’s thread.

One of the many interesting comments there was by Mitsu, who wrote:

…A sort of non-interference principle of reporting, that reporters should be out there to observe but not interfere with what they’re observing…Of course, this principle it seems ought to be superceded by the principle of saving lives ”” however, you might consider this argument (I’m not saying I believe it, but I am offering it). One reason reporters are often allowed into dangerous areas, even enemy territory, is that they are seen, basically, as uninvolved observers. For this reason reporters have managed to get information to the public in a wide variety of very dangerous situations. If reporters started to regularly get involved in an active way with what they were reporting on, this information flow might stop. They might become much more active targets than they already are, in war zones, etc. This would have the effect of making it much harder for us to find out what is going on especially in parts of the world where we’re not ordinarily very welcome.

I submit that, although this sounds very reasonable on the surface, on reflection it does not conform with reality. For starters, it is a fiction (born of arrogance and/or ignorance and/or wishful thinking) that journalists can cover a story by accompanying enemy soldiers on a mission and not affect that story. Their mere presence affects it by giving the enemy an opportunity for propaganda. Furthermore, in order to continue that presence and get further access in such situations, the journalists must be careful not to be too negative towards those who are kind enough to grant them the access, the story, and possibly the scoop (don’t discount the factor of the reporters’ own ambitious professional ends, either). Continue reading →

No higher duty: “You’re a reporter!”

The New Neo Posted on by

We now know a bit more about the charges against Iraqi AP photographer Bilal Hussein. It seems that he was tipped off to a planned IED attack against US forces, and that:

…he was standing next to the I.E.D. triggerman at the time of the attempted attack, and that he conspired with the I.E.D. triggerman to synchronize his photograph with the explosion.”

“Abominable,” you say, “if true.”

Agreed. But I wonder what Mike Wallace would have to say about it.

Mike Wallace? Multiple award-winning elder-statesman journalist, he of “60 Minutes” fame? That Mike Wallace? Why on earth do I ask? Continue reading →

The perils of being a frontrunner

The New Neo Posted on by

Ah yes, the election. It seems I can’t ignore it after all. The news is all about the decline of the old frontrunners (Clinton, Giuliani) and the rise of the new challengers to frontrunner status (Obama, Huckabee), the candidates de jour.

What’s it all about? I think it’s about the incredible length of the campaign these days. This means there’s plenty of time for the following principles to be played out: Continue reading →

Listen to the Squad, live

The New Neo Posted on by

Click here at 8 PM this evening to listen to the Sanity Squad live. Or click later and listen to the recorded version. But if you listen live, you can call in with a question—and maybe even get an answer.

Tonight’s topics will include the recent murder of a teen age girl in Canada by her religious Father, who was upset because she wouldn’t wear a hijab; and the reaction of Islamic groups to her killing. If there’s time, we’ll switch topics to the national political scene and talk about Lieberman’s endorsement of McCain, Huckabee’s rise and Hillary’s descent.

Doing my non-Christmas shopping

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m still unpacking in my new apartment, but even though I carefully numbered each packing box, and kept a list of what’s where, I apparently wasn’t specific enough. So now, in all those boxes labeled “kitchen” and sub-labeled things like “pots and pans” or “vases,” where oh where is my kitchen clock? Or that little knick knack that was so handy for this and that and the other thing? And why doesn’t my old bathroom wastebasket fit in the new bathroom? And, and….

All of this means it’s still rather chaotic around here, boxes and boxes and boxes, packed, unpacked, stacked, crushed, intact. And it also means that, in addition to whatever Christmas shopping I’ve been doing this year (minimal), I’ve also been shopping for apartment supplies.

Hooks of all shapes and sizes. A new toilet paper roll holder (who knew they came in such variety?) And storage, because there’s not much here. Shelves for the closets. Little plastic bins. Medium plastic bins. Big plastic bins. Open plastic bins. Plastic bins with drawers. Something on which to hang pots. A paper towel holder. A smaller microwave. One of those clever things that fits into a kitchen cabinet door and vertically stores Saran wrap and aluminum foil.

They don’t make those anymore, you say? Ah, but you have to go to five stores to find out that sorrowful news. And because it’s Christmas, there are long lines in every store.

And so—at Home Depot, for example—you walk the wide and lonely aisles late one night looking for a certain kind of sink handle (faucet handle? what are those things called?) because yours are very hard to operate. Continue reading →

Hanson and the myths of Iraq

The New Neo Posted on by

History will assess Iraq when it ends, writes military historian Victor Davis Hanson.

By the way, the “it” in that previous sentence refers to the war itself, not Iraq itself (hopefully), nor history itself (pace Fukuyama).

In his piece, Hanson deals with several myths of this war, including that old canard “there is no military solution.”

Of course there’s no military solution—if by “military solution” one means an approach that is solely of the traditional military type. But our attempts at solution there have always contained many other elements, some more or less successful than others. As Hanson points out, basic security—whether it’s called a military solution or a police action performed by the military—is the foundation for all the other possible approaches, which work in tandem with it, not separately.

Well, duh! Whether you hate Bush or not, whether you think Iraq is going well, poorly, or somewhere in between (I’m in that last camp), it’s hard to believe any well-informed person actually perceives our efforts there as having been solely military. And yet one hears that old canard again and again. Therefore I can only conclude that the “there is no military solution” crowd is either using a simplistic rhetorical device that even they don’t believe, merely to make a point; or they are uninformed; and/or they are not thinking straight.

And they’re not reading Victor Davis Hanson.