Andy Olmsted, blogger at Obsidian Wings, has been killed in Iraq:
Andrew Olmsted, who also posted here as G’Kar, was killed yesterday in Iraq. Andy gave me a post to publish in the event of his death; the last revisions to it were made in July.Andy was a wonderful person: decent, honorable, generous, principled, courageous, sweet, and very funny. The world has a horrible hole in it that nothing can fill. I’m glad Andy — generous as always — wrote something for me to publish now, since I have no words at all. Beyond: Andy, I will miss you.
My thoughts are with his wife, his parents, and his brother and sister.
What follows is Andy’s post: a bit here; the rest below the fold.
Our deepest condolences to his friends and family.
UPDATE [tgirsch]: Adding link
January 4th, 2008
|
General |
6 comments
Would it kill Slate to get a real press critic? Because Jack Shaffer obviously isn’t. It seems that the opposition to Bill “always wrong and , hey, lets try the NYT for treason for reporting” Kristol getting a post at the Times is just becasue the lefties are just being big ol’ meanies. It has nothing to do with the fact that Kristol is wrong about everything he talks about (literally. I looked: I could find nothing that Kristol has been right about in the last four or five years) in Shaffer’s mind. But more telling is that Shaffer seems incapable of conducting actual journalism when one of his fellow political travelers is being criticized.
Shaffer pretends that Kristol has been correct about at least one thing:
Oh, you say, Kristol’s journalistic crime is not just that he was wrong about launching the war but that he has been absolutely wrong about every chapter in the war since the shock-and-awe bombs lit up Baghdad. Well, not wrong at every turn. From where I write this afternoon, he looks pretty goddamn prescient about the wisdom of mounting the “surge” and adopting a counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq.
This is, not to put too fine a point on it, bullshit. The surge was sold as a temporary increase in troops designed ot create lull in the violence that would allow Iraqi politicians to create a national government. Even if you want to pretend that the surge worked in terms of decreasing violence (something that is far from clear) it has clearly failed at delivering political progress. In other words, it has been a complete and total failure on its own terms The only way that Shaffer can say Kristol was right about the surge is if he is completely unaware of what it was intended to do, completely unaware of the lack of political progress in Iraq, or simply lying in order to make his political ally look better than he deserves. In other words, Shaffer is a dolt or a propagandist.
But it doesn’t stop there. Shaffer then moves on to proving that he doesn’t have an ounce of understanding of what journalism should be. First, and most telling, Shaffer make sno mention of the criticism of Kristol’s attacks on news organizations that brought us stories of how the Bush Administration has tortured people and disregarded the Constitution and the rule of law. he has tiome to deal with the minor — and un-sourced — complaint that th Times already has conservative columnists but not with the substanial criticism that Kristol has been a force for undermining journalistic integrity and effectiveness. To Shaffer, I suppose, it doesn’t matter if Kristol’s idea of reporting boils down to “repeat what the government says and only what the government says.” An odd position for an actual journalist, especially a press critic, to take.
But Shaffer doesn’t seem to think journalism really matters that much, or, at least, has an odd idea of what journalism is:
Pundits shouldn’t lose or win gigs on the basis of how many of their predictions come true but whether they write interesting copy. Kristol—love him or hate him—writes interesting copy.
That is jaw-droppingly stupid. I am actually having a hard time believing Shaffer actually expected us to take that seriously. The job of a pundit is to use their intelligence, expertise, and connections to give their readership a better of understanding of what is going on in the world and what they can expect the future to hold. No one expects them to get everything right, but if one is constantly wrong then that one is a bad pundit, no matter how interesting they might be as a writer. I cannot believe that Shaffer is this dumb. I also cannot believe that Shaffer would forgive, for example, and environmentalist pundit who consistently over-stated the environmental impact of new development or industries. But Shafer is dedicated to defending this hire any way he can and is so reduced to pretending that a pundit is the equivalent of a circus barker.
So this is what passes for press criticism at Slate: a piece so ridiculous in its assertions and so lacking respect for the craft of journalism that one is left to believe that the writer is either and idiot or a hack. It is depressing that Slate seems to find this state of affairs acceptable, but it tells us quite about Shafer, his integrity, and the quality of his “journalism”.
January 4th, 2008
|
Politics, Media |
no comments
I really blew my predictions, didn’t I?
On the GOP side, things are a mess. I don;t see Huckabee winning New Hampshire. There isn’t the heavy evangelical vote and Huckabee’s brand of Christianist fervor doesn’t play well in independent places like New England. Romney might recover, but Romney was always a compromise, he can win it candidate. now that he has show he cannot win it, why would anyone vote for him? That might mean McCain has the edge, but McCain is not well liked by the GOP base even outside evangelical circles and he will have to compete for independent voters with Obama and, to a lessor extent, Edwards. Thompson doesn;t appear to want it and Paul is still a minor candidate despised by the establishment, though he does probably have enough money to at least make some noise in New Hampshire. My guess is that someone beats Huckabee in New Hampshire, but I’m not entirely sure who.
On the Dem side, Obama pulled of something quite remarkable. He won in large part becasue he brought young and new voters inot the caucuses, something that no other campaign has ever really been able to do. The Dems shattered the caucus record and almost doubled the numbers of the Republicans, both good sides for the general. If Obama can continue to inspire these new voters to come to the polls, then both he and the Dems will do very well in November and beyond.
Edwards also did very well. He finished ahead of the establishment candidate based on a populist message and did it while being enormously outspent by Clinton and Obama. He also had almost no press and what press he did get was very hostile and mocking. Coming in second under those circumstances is pretty remarkable. Win or lose from this point out — and he is obviously not in a good position to win — Edwards has done very well. His candidacy has moved the Democrats to the left on the environment, the war, and health care (his plans on all of these matters were much more aggressive than Obama and Clinton’s and they adjusted theirs to move closer to his) and even rhetoric — both Clinton and Obama have adopted some of his rhetorical themes in the last couple of weeks and he has even gotten Obama to move off his “compromise first” rhetoric a little bit. He has proven that there is a hunger for progressive change in the country and he has done so in the face of establishment and press hostility. He has changed the race for the better in a way few candidates ever do.
I am not sure where Clinton goes form here. Her entire campaign has been based around the notion that she is the one most able to get things done. Well, she couldn’t beat a political newcomer and a mad who got the worse press since Gore in Iowa, where organization is everything and she recently had a large lead. She must win New Hampshire, I think, to have any chance, but I don;t see how seh can do that. her main rationale his damaged and she is not inspiring in the way Obama or Edwards, to a lessor extent, is. Edwards psot-Iowa spin contained a great deal about how Iowa voted for change. There is quite a bit of truth in that sentiment and if that is reflective of the electorate as a whole, then the only thing that keeps Clinton form finishing third in new Hampshire would be her huge money lead over Edwards. It would not surprise me if even the money is not enough to keep her ahead of the eventual second place finisher.
I think at this point we may be looking at an Edwards/Obama race. If we are, I’m not sure how long it lasts. I see no reason Obama will not win New Hampshire. He is, at his best, inspiring and since he is well funded, there is no reason he cannot continue to reach people with that inspiration in new Hampshire. If he does win New Hampshire, then I see no reason he doesn’t win South Carolina, and I don’t see how a money-poor Edwards survives that. I hope he does and I hope he stays in the race at least through February 5th. Edwards speaks for the people who are uncertain about the future this country is speeding towards and the present that discounts their work and their lives so heavily in a way no other candidate really does. He has reminded the Democratic Party that those people exist and that they deserve a shot at a decent future as much as any one else. The longer he does that, the better off the party and the country will be.
January 4th, 2008
|
Politics |
10 comments
