Month: February 2003

Iraq and Kosovo: The Same, But Different!

Well is just plain silly:
Justice Richard Goldstone, of South Africa’s Constitutional Court, said today there was no evidence of imminent attack by Iraq against the US and its allies.
Under international law, countries can only go to war with the approval of the United Nations Security Council or in self-defence.
Justice Goldstone said neither criteria applied to a war with Iraq.
“There’s absolutely no evidence that I’ve seen or heard indicating that the United States is under imminent threat of attack from Iraq and all the more so Australia,” he told ABC Radio.
“It would clearly be held to be illegal under the charter.
“It’s highly unusual, I don’t know of any example of military action being used, save for humanitarian purposes in the case of Kosovo, without the Security Council.”
Justice Goldstone said the Iraq and Kosovo situations were different and there was no case for unilateral action against Iraq.
“This would be a first time ever of military action being taken absent of a Security Council resolution which is not in self-defence and which is not for humanitarian purposes,” he said.
Well, my first reaction as I read this gibberish was to raise the example of Kosovo — but he did it for me! But of course, Kosovo was different. Why? Because Mr. Goldstone says so, that’s why!
I must have missed the It’s-OK-If-Richard-Goldstone-Says-So (But-Not-If-George-Bush-And-Most-of-Europe-Does) clause in the U.N. charter.

Debate Responses In Right Side Bar

I’ve started listing responess by those supporting war in the right sidebar at the top of the front page; I’ll update this a few times before the big roundup (with quotes and all) next Monday.
(Thanks to for doing his own count, which helped me double-check I hadn’t missed any…)

The Meta Debate

Well, the debate is off to a great start. Many folks have responded on the pro-war side, with a significantly lower (but growing) number of responses supporting the anti-war position.
I wanted to open something of a meta-debate, however, as I found some of the discussion around which questions we selected — and how they were phrased — rather interesting.
To summarize: some folks were concerned that the questions being raised by the pro-war side were “loaded” with preconceptions. In the final version, I attempted to tone this down, but even then, it could be argued that bias remained in the questions. Powers, on the anti-war side, sent me the following in e-mail (reprinted with her permission):
NZ, great idea, but a couple of questions from the pro-war side for the anti-war gang to answer are what is known as a leading question, and considered bad form in debate. An example is:
“American and British military force has allowed Northern Iraq to develop a society which, while imperfect, is clearly a freer and more open society than existed under Saddam Hussein’s direct rule”
A debate should always have question that doesn’t have built-in assumptions of value, and that don’t begin with leading questions. Debate questions should never have built-in emotional triggers. A better question would be (with assertions attached to delimit the components of the question):
A society independent of Saddam Hussein’s rule has developed in the northern part of Iraq (this is a fact). This area of the country is also supported by a no-fly zone, enforced by British and American military forces (this is a fact). Do you see an association between the formation of this society and the no-fly enforcement (between these facts, please form and articulate your opinion)? If so, do you feel that the no-fly zone is beneficial (same)? Should this type of no-fly enforcement be extended to all of Iraq (again, opinion asked based on facts)?
You’re also using ‘liberated’ in your last question which is, again, a loaded term. A debate should be based on facts and allow the debater to debate from a neutral platform rather than one based on trigger words and emotion, and pre-suppositions, as well as bias.
I know you’re going to say that I have a bias on the anti-war side, but if you look at the questions provided by this side, there are no trigger words in the questions, and no pre-suppositions. Even something such as “The Bush Administration has issued numerous allegations about the threat represented by Iraq, many of which have been criticized in some quarters as hearsay, speculation or misstatements”, is a verifiable fact and makes no opinion about whether the question asker believes that the criticism is justified; the debater is then allowed to debate from a neutral platform.
If this had been worded “President Bush has made misleading statements about….leading to justified criticism….”, you would have had the same type of question the pro-war side asked.

I responded as follows:
Thanks for the comments; appreciate you being interested enough at least to reply. (Somehow, I had a feeling you’d have opinions one way or another! 🙂
I did what I could to assemble a sensible set of questions from the input I received; I was trying to balance my own opinions vs. the input of the group. In general, I will confess that I am not terribly troubled by the issue of leading questions — although I did try to keep the leading to a minimum in the final set of questions. In my personal opinion — and it is only that — in this debate, since it is one side asking the other side questions (not a supposedly neutral moderator), I think it is to be expected that some of each side’s beliefs will be revealed through the questions themselves. And I don’t necessarily consider that a bad thing.
I would also argue that the opposing sides’ questions *did* have trigger words and presuppositions, although perhaps to a different degree: Why, for instance, is the phrase “regime change” presented in quotes in question 3? I’d argue those are “scare quotes”, meant to imply disapproval of the term — a bias in itself. And question 2 asks ‘What do you feel are the prospects that an invasion of Iraq will succeed in a) maintaining it as a stable entity’ — which completely pre-supposes that a Iraq being a stable entity is a desirable goal in itself. (Many would argue that it is not, given the Kuridsh situation and Iraq’s arbitrary borders).
But anyway, I do appreciate the feedback, even if (or perhaps especially if!) we have different perspectives — and I don’t think your comments are based in an anti-war bias at all. (There was discusion of the same issue of ‘loadedness’ among the pro-war group as we developed the questions).

And finally, for completeness, Shelley’s last brief response:
I guess my hope was that we could see a debate in the weblogs that wasn’t so emotional. Perhaps one that would put the politicians and the journalists to shame. But ’emotion’ is what most likely forms the basis of each person’s opinion anyway.
As for your comments on the anti-war side, I concede the quotes, but stable entity — no matter what you think of Hussein, Iraq is a stable entity. Saddam Hussein uses ruthless tactics to ensure this. However, neither here nor there.
So I toss the following meta-questions out to the peanut gallery:
1) What questions (on either side) do you consider “loaded” with preconceptions or assumptions, and why?
2) For the purposes of our debate, do you think this was a bad thing?
At this point, of course, the question-selection is done; we ain’t changing them now. But I’m still curious to understand how widespread Shelley’s concerns are — and how the perception of bias is different depending on your starting position…

Cross-Blog Iraq Debate: The Questions

Editor’s Note to Google / Yahoo Searchers: Welcome! If you’ve found this page because you’re searching for weblogs about the Iraq conflict, you’ve come to the right place. Or at least, a right place. If you are new to the world of weblogs, then a double-welcome to you: you are about to discover one of the most rewarding information sources in existence today. We aren’t professional journalists (well, most of us) — but sometimes that’s a good thing!
I am N.Z. Bear, and this is my humble weblog. The post you see below is from a grand experiment in which webloggers from the pro- and anti- sides came together for a structured debate to exchange ideas and argue their respective positions. I coordinated the pro-war side of the debate, and Down: The Left-Right Blog Opposing an Invasion of Iraq coordinated the anti-war side. The debate had several parts:
The Call for Questions
Publication of the Questions
Publication of the Answers
If you just want to cut to the chase, I suggest going right to the answers, as that’s where you’ll find the actual arguments made by myself, and many, many other webloggers.
If you are looking for more up-to-the-minute news, I highly recommend The Command Post, a collaborative weblog being updated continuously, 24×7, with the latest breaking stories on the conflict.
And of course, I hope you’ll check my own front page for my latest take on recent events, and browse the sidebar for my past “greatest hits”. And if you don’t find what you are looking for, feel free to drop me a line and I’ll try to point you in the right direction.
Again, welcome!
-N.Z. Bear
March 27, 2003

OK folks, the first phase of our Cross-Blog Iraq Debate is over, and now it’s time to get busy with the real fun!
Listed below are the five questions developed here on TTLB to be answered by the anti-war crowd, as well as the five questions that Stand Down has put together for pro-war bloggers to address.
If you’d like to join the debate, it’s easy: just go ahead and answer the appropriate set of questions on your weblog, and then let either myself or Stand Down know with a TrackBack ping or comment. On February 17th, a roundup of responses will be posted here and at Stand Down.
Thanks to everyone for their support, and we would of course welcome links to this post and the corresponding one at Stand Down to spread the word that the game is on.
So here are the questions:
To Be Answered By Anti-War Bloggers:
1) If you were President of the United States, what would be your policy toward Iraq over the next year? What advantages and disadvantages do you see in your proposed policies versus the current path being pursued by the Bush administration?
2) Is there any circumstance that you can conceive of where the United States would be justified in using military force without the support of the UN Security Council — or does the UN always have a veto against US military action for whatever reason?
3) American and British military force has allowed Northern Iraq to develop a society which, while imperfect, is clearly a freer and more open society than existed under Saddam Hussein’s direct rule. Do you agree that the no-fly zones have been beneficial to Northern Iraq — and if so, why should this concept not be extended to remove Hussein’s regime entirely and spread those freedoms to all Iraqis?
4) Do you believe an inspection and sanctions regime is sufficient and capable of keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of the Hussein regime — and should this be a goal of U.S. policy? In what way is an inspection/containment/sanctions regime preferable to invasion? Civilian casualties? Expense? Geopolitical outcome?
5) What, in your opinion, is the source of national sovereignty? If you believe it to be the consent of the governed, should liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s regime be U.S. policy? If so, how do you propose to accomplish this goal absent military action? (And if in your view the sovereignty of a state does not derive from the consent of the governed, then what is the source of sovereignty?)
To Be Answered By Pro-War Bloggers:
1. Attacking Iraq has been publicly called a “pre-emption” of a threat from Saddam Hussein’s regime, whose sins include launching regional wars of aggression. Do you think there is a clear and reliable difference between pre-emptive and aggressive warfare, and if so, what is it?
2. What do you feel are the prospects that an invasion of Iraq will succeed in a) maintaining it as a stable entity and b) in turning it into a democracy? Are there any precedents in the past 50 years that influence your answer?
3. How successful do you think the military operations and “regime change” in Afghanistan have been in achieving their stated objectives? Does this example affect your feelings about war in Iraq in any way?
4. As a basis for war, the Bush Administration accuses Iraq of trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear), supporting terrorism, and brutalizing their own people. Since Iraq is not the only country engaged in these actions, under what circumstances should the US go to war with other such nations, in addition to going to war with Iraq?
5. The Bush Administration has issued numerous allegations about the threat represented by Iraq, many of which have been criticized in some quarters as hearsay, speculation or misstatements. Which of the Administration’s allegations do you feel stand up best to those criticisms?
Reminder: I will be rounding up the pro-war responses here at TTLB next Monday, so if you’d like your answers to be included, please be sure to either TrackBack to this post or add a comment linking to your weblog. Thanks!

Iraq Debate: Preliminary Question List

Ok folks, I’ve spent some time studying the questions submitted for the Iraq Debate. First: many thanks to all those who linked to the kickoff post, and even more thanks to those who participated and suggested questions.
I decided it might be worthwhile to put up a “preliminary” list of the final questions immediately and ask for one last round of feedback from the peanut gallery. So listed below you will find my suggested final five.
I’ll take comments until 5pm PST today, and will then finalize the list shortly thereafter. So to be clear: this is not the official list, and this post is not the final post, so don’t link to this one! There will be a time to link very soon, but this isn’t it.
In selecting the questions, I tried to ensure that we covered the major areas of the war debate: the moral (is the war just?), the legal (national sovereignty, international law), and the pragmatic (is war the best possible solution)? Obviously, I had to discard the vast majority of the questions submitted to narrow it down to five. Often, I combined suggested wording from one or more questions to more clearly express an idea for debate, and where I felt it helpful, added my own verbiage to drive points home.
I tried to ensure that the questions posed would genuinely lead to thoughtful and interesting responses. “Gotcha” questions, while fun in live debates, won’t be very useful here, so questions like “If you lived in a tyranny, wouldn’t you want to be liberated?” got thrown out — because I can’t see them generating any more substantive response from our opponents than “Of course I would; but that’s not the point…”
Anyway, this is a deeply imperfect process, of course, but I’ve tried my best to represent our side well and pick a good batch. So please, take a look, share your thoughts, and we’ll finalize the list later today.
And as a reminder: these are the questions which will be answered by the anti-war side of the debate. So, without further ado, here’s the preliminary list:
1) If you were President of the United States, what would be your policy toward Iraq over the next year? What advantages and disadvantages do you see in your proposed policies versus the current path being pursued by the Bush administration?
2) Is there any circumstance that you can conceive of where the United States would be justified in using military force without the support of the UN Security Council — or does the U.N. always have a veto against the United States

Warblogger Awards

John Hawkins has posted the winners of the Annual Warblogger Awards.
TTLB won a tie for third place for ‘Best Looking Blog’. I find it deeply amusing that I’m tied for best-looking with The Unablogger (not work safe; nekkid women ahead, click at own risk). And to be even mentioned in the same category with Lileks (who won, natch) for design is, well, flattering.
Many thanks to those who voted for my humble web page.

Clay Shirky on Weblogs & Power Laws

Glenn just linked it this morning, but I feel I should mention Shirky’s excellent commentary on power laws and how they relate to weblogs and their popularity.
Clay’s recent effort is actually an expansion/clarification of earlier thoughts he shared last year, which I commented upon at the time. It also uses my old Blogosphere Ecosystem project as one example demonstrating how power laws naturally emerge in social systems.
Since the Ecosystem is back in the spotlight, it seems appropriate for me to provide an update on both that project and my related work on the Weblog MetaData Initiative.
The obvious truth is that the Ecosystem has been shut down for a very long time, in large part because Phil did such a great job replacing it with his own Myelin Ecosystem. And WMDI, which was the project I had focused on as a ‘sequel’, has been moving extremely slowly: a problem almost entirely due to my own lack of focus on it.
Despite this, both projects will move forward, and I remain committed to them. Appropriately, or perhaps ironically, I had spent yesterday morning working on a completely re-worked version of the Ecosystem, only to find Clay’s newsletter in my Inbox that afternoon, declaring it to be “sadly defunct” (an understandable misperception, and no offense taken on my part).
When it re-emerges, my intention is for the new Ecosystem to be a prototype application incorporating the ideas of WMDI. To summarize for those who are not familiar with the metadata project: it is my goal to aid in the creation of standards and infrastructure that will allow projects like the Ecosystem, Blogdex, Blogstreet, and other applications to both collect more relevant data on weblogs and their contents, and share that data effectively between applications. In a nutshell: I think the current environment has far too many folks spending far too much effort re-inventing the wheel on how to gather data on weblogs, and my hope is that the creation of open standards in the ‘metadata space’ could lead to a revolutionary new wave of applications to make finding and reading weblogs easier and more rewarding.
Anyway, my philosophy at this point is that I’ll share thoughts and updates like this when it is appropriate, but for the most part, I’m focusing on the real work of driving these efforts forward, and I’ll let you know when I produce something worthwhile. There will most certainly be a time when I’ll be looking for help from other folks, however, and so if you’re interested, by all means, drop me a line or comment here and I’ll let you know when I’ve gotten things back on track.

Cross-Blog Iraq Debate: Last Call for Questions

Folks –
For those of you interested in submitting questions to be answered by the anti-war side in the Cross-Blog Iraq Debate, now is your last chance.
I’m going to be sifting through the full list of questions submitted later today and tomorrow morning, selecting five that I think best represent those questions the pro-war side would like to see answered by our anti-war colleagues. (I’ll consider any suggestions that come in by 9amish PST Monday). I will be using my own ‘editorial judgement’ to do so, but I very much want input from folks on other people’s questions. A question submitted by one individual with several comments after it that say “yes, ask that one!” will be much more likely to make the final cut than singletons that had no positive feedback.
So: get thee to questions post, read what others have submitted, and add your comments.
Thanks!
-NZB

Splendid Isolation

Now we have more countries supporting the U.S. in its dreadfully “unilateral” action:

Statement of the Vilnius Group Countries
For the record: 5 February 2003, Wednesday.
Statement by the Foreign Ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in response to the presentation by the United States Secretary of State to the United Nations Security Council concerning Iraq:
Earlier today, the United States presented compelling evidence to the United Nations Security Council detailing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, its active efforts to deceive UN inspectors, and its links to international terrorism.
Our countries understand the dangers posed by tyranny and the special responsibility of democracies to defend our shared values. The trans-Atlantic community, of which we are a part, must stand together to face the threat posed by the nexus of terrorism and dictators with weapons of mass destruction.
We have actively supported the international efforts to achieve a peaceful disarmament of Iraq. However, it has now become clear that Iraq is in material breach of U.N. Security Council Resolutions, including U.N. Resolution 1441, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002. As our governments said on the occasion of the NATO Summit in Prague: “We support the goal of the international community for full disarmament of Iraq as stipulated in the UN Security Council Resolution 1441. In the event of non-compliance with the terms of this resolution, we are prepared to contribute to an international coalition to enforce its provisions and the disarmament of Iraq.”
The clear and present danger posed by the Saddam Hussein’s regime requires a united response from the community of democracies. We call upon the U.N. Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action in response to Iraq’s continuing threat to international peace and security.
The Vilnius Group can party at Chateau Bear any day. And as Instapundit reader Jody Green noted, the “community of democracies” bit is splendid.
Say, that sounds a lot like something I suggested. (And more eloquently, something Ralph Peters has laid the foundation for with his ‘tiered sovereignty’ model).

“Process Over Substance”

The U.N. approach to the Iraq inspections?
No! Saletan’s approach to covering the Iraq inspections.
The Saddameter was bad enough — a half-baked, semi-daily feature in which Saletan makes an art of over-interpreting the day’s events to produce a cute “score” supposedly showing how likely war is on any given day. But now, Slate’s resident numerologist has created an impressive-looking chart of Security Council reaction to Powell’s presentation.
Memo to Will: Those speeches were all written before anybody had heard what Powell had to say. Relying on them to gauge how good a job Powell did is a bit pointless. Using them to try to pseudo-scientifically “score” Powell’s performance is doubly so. (In Saddameter-like terms: if 0 was totally pointful, and 100 is utterly pointless, Saletan gets a 97 today.)
Fellow Slatester Fred Kaplan grokked this rather obvious truth (“…[diplomats] were reading boilerplate that had been written before Powell’s briefing… “). What’s Will’s excuse?
But hey: It is a spiffy looking chart…
Update: Eric Umansky, aka Today’s Papers, gets it too: “USA Today goes highest with foreign feedback, running above-the-fold excerpts from the Security Council responses of Britain, France, China, and Russia. The only problem with that is, as most of the papers mention, that the speeches were all written before Powell gave his talk, so what are they a reaction to?”
Good question, Eric. Ask Will!

Watch Powell Online

If you are looking for a live internet stream to listen to and watch Powell’s presentation (since he’s expected to show video and imaging evidence), the best I have found is NBC’s local New York affiliate, WNBC. They seem to have a nice Windows Media stream here.
I also found a RealVideo stream here, from WBUR in Boston.
Heck, I’m not going to be able to do anything else, it looks like it’s another TTLB live blogging event! I’ll post my thoughts here as they occur to me.
First Impression: Good start. Emphasis on the Councils own actions; reminders of past resolutions and 1441 in particular, and on the burden being on Iraq to prove compliance. Heh, and he’s invoking Blix’s comments as well. nice.
A tape! Starting with good stuff! First audio tape: Not quite a smoking gun, but not a bad start.
Holy crap, audio intercepts from January 30th? They are pulling out the stops. Doesn’t that short turnaround time reveal something important about our intelligence capabilities?
I particularly liked Powell’s challenge to the Council: are the inspectors to search every house of every government official?
The before/after satellite photo of the biological weapon site is nice as well.
Nice: “This body places itself in danger of irrelevance.”
I’m having trouble keeping up (and getting distracted by other stuff), so go read Stephen’s commentary, I’ll probably have summary thoughts later…

Stephen Schwartz on The Two Faces of Islam

This week’s Booknotes from PBS is excellent interview with Stephen Schwartz on his new book, The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa’ud from Tradition to Terror.
Schwartz emphasizes the severe distinction between the the radical Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia and the vast array of more moderate and diverse strains of Islam that are threatened by it.
The program is available via streaming RealVideo by the link above: a must-listen for the “anti-idiotarian” crowd.

Cross-Blog Iraq Debate: Call for Questions

Editor’s Note to Google / Yahoo Searchers: Welcome! If you’ve found this page because you’re searching for weblogs about the Iraq conflict, you’ve come to the right place. Or at least, a right place. If you are new to the world of weblogs, then a double-welcome to you: you are about to discover one of the most rewarding information sources in existence today. We aren’t professional journalists (well, most of us) — but sometimes that’s a good thing!
I am N.Z. Bear, and this is my humble weblog. The post you see below is from a grand experiment in which webloggers from the pro- and anti- sides came together for a structured debate to exchange ideas and argue their respective positions. I coordinated the pro-war side of the debate, and Down: The Left-Right Blog Opposing an Invasion of Iraq coordinated the anti-war side. The debate had several parts:
The Call for Questions
Publication of the Questions
Publication of the Answers
If you just want to cut to the chase, I suggest going right to the answers, as that’s where you’ll find the actual arguments made by myself, and many, many other webloggers.
If you are looking for more up-to-the-minute news, I highly recommend The Command Post, a collaborative weblog being updated continuously, 24×7, with the latest breaking stories on the conflict.
And of course, I hope you’ll check my own front page for my latest take on recent events, and browse the sidebar for my past “greatest hits”. And if you don’t find what you are looking for, feel free to drop me a line and I’ll try to point you in the right direction.
Again, welcome!
-N.Z. Bear
March 27, 2003

A few weeks back I proposed a cross-blog debate on Iraq. I’m pleased to announce that the folks at Stand Down: The Left-Right Blog Opposing an Invasion of Iraq have agreed to coordinate the anti-war side of the debate. And so: the game is on!
The process and schedule for the debate is as follows:
Today – Sunday 2/9: Each side in the debate will develop a list of five questions to be asked of the other side. As coordinator for the pro-war side, I will be accepting proposed questions here in the comments thread of this post. Additionally, I ask that those interested in the debate also comment on other people’s proposed questions, so that I can attempt to gauge which questions are most popular. (I might resort to a poll-widget towards the end of the week, depending on the volume of response). Similarly, Doctor Slack has opened a post at Stand Down to collect questions to be posed to the pro-war side.
Monday 2/10: The final list of five questions to be answered by each side will be posted both here and at Stand Down.
Monday 2/10 – Sunday 2/16: Any blogger who is interested in participating in the debate can do so by simply answering the questions appropriate to his or her position on their own weblog.
Monday 2/17: Doctor Slack and I will post a roundup of the responses from our respective sides.
So with that, the official question-solicitation period has begun! (Cue dramatic music). If you are a supporter of miltary action against Saddam Hussein and have questions you’d like to hear answered by the no-war crowd, submit your ideas here. And if you happen to be part of the no-war crowd, then head over to Stand Down and toss in your suggestions to stump the pro-war side.
I’ll start us off with a few proposed questions of my own:
– Given your opposition to military action against Iraq, what specific actions do you believe should be taken to deal with Saddam Hussein?
– Do you agree that the current Iraqi regime is in material breach of numerous U.N. resolutions, most recently Resolution 1441? If not, why not; and if so, how does this affect your opposition to military action?
– How, if it all, would a Security Council resolution endorsing a military strike against Saddam Hussein affect your views?
I look forward to hearing other folks’ ideas for thought-provoking questions, and to an interesting debate!
-NZB
Note: I would welcome links to this post from as many bloggers as possible; I’d like to spread the word far and wide to ensure high participation and a vigorous debate. If you do feel inclined to link, please link to both this post and the corresponding one at Stand Down. Thanks!

Half Empty, or Just Plain Cracked?

Priceless description of Blix’s report from New Republic (tip o’ the hat to the Volokh Illuminati for the pointer:)
“Some, hilariously, have described this report as ‘mixed.’ By this standard, Saddam’s record of aggression is also mixed–we must consider the lengthy list of countries he has not invaded.”

Free the High Frontier

Is there a way to seize victory from the tragedy of Columbia?
I am not aware of anyone outside of NASA (and perhaps not within it), who believes that the shuttle fleet represents the safest, most cost-effective method for moving human beings and cargo to orbit possible with today’s technology. The same, I think, can be fairly said of the entire human spaceflight program, most notably including the International Space Station.
At the same time, private industry appears bursting with ideas for both how to move mass to orbit, and what to do with it once there. Space elevators, once abject speculation, are now ever closer to reality. Companies like Bigelow Aerospace bet their futures on space tourism. And meanwhile, on the unmanned side, TransOrbital marches forward with plans for a commercial lunar mission.
Contrast this with NASA, which appears mired in the 1970s. There are exceptions, to be fair, but the overall picture is not an inspiring one. And if you can’t make the exploration of space inspiring, well, there’s just no helping you.
And so, it seems to me that we are at a historic moment of decision. More of the same seems a recipe for failure and mediocrity. And who better than a Republican President to call for a complete re-examination of how we view space exploration, and for a loosening of the stranglehold that NASA has held on the high frontier for so many years?
NASA will have a role in the future of space, to be sure. But it need not be the near-monopoly it possesses today. And President Bush could be the leader to make the case that the creative power of private enterprise is exactly what is needed to give this nation a space program that is faster, cheaper and safer.
Let me be clear: I speak with only the most casual knowledge of the space program. But I would welcome further thoughts from those with greater expertise than I. (Glenn, Rand, and Dale would be great folks to start with, of course — and I recognize this is a subject they each have already addressed at various times.)
The mass media is already swarming over the wreckage of Columbia — both physical and metaphorical — searching for answers, and for villians. They are looking backward. Someone must put forward a positive vision of how we can move past this tragic loss, and into the future.
Bloggers must be realistic about our impact on the world, which, in general, is minimal. But the past year has shown that, when an issue has resonance; when a cause is just and the moment is right, the weblogging world can supply the initial pebbles that ripple outward to become a media tidal wave.
And so, while I don’t claim to know the answer with certainty, I will pose the question: is this such a moment? Is it time to ‘flood the zone’ with the idea of opening up the high frontier to private enterprise?
Thanks to the Samizdatistas for many of the links above.

Moving Forward

I said yesterday that I had no words, and little has changed today. Like many, I was deeply saddened by the loss of Columbia and her crew, and a day of mourning for TTLB seemed an appropriate, if trivial, gesture.
But I do not think the brave men and women of Columbia would wish for us to wallow in this tragedy: so one day only it has been, and now it is time to move on.
Don’t expect much more from me on Columbia; many others are covering the subject far better than I could hope to. But normal blogging, whatever that may mean, will resume around here shortly.
Update: It would appear I was mistaken. I did have to say; its worth I will leave to others to judge.