The opinion page

'Seriously, whatever works at this point ...'

OK, I would've fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, too. In a heartbeat.

But what's far more interesting than the punditry (or today's Wall Street Journal editorial -- what do they do there, sit around and think of what the President must do then say that's wrong?) are the comments on the news websites.

Among the more noteworthy:

• The Rolling Stone reporter should have "reminded" McChrystal he was on the record. Oh...
  
  
• Obama's "body language" at the press conference was "mean." (Did this writer ever catch a glimpse of Dick Cheney?)
  

But, I think there's some reason out there. This, from Slate.com, by David Colburne (wish I'd have written most of this):

I'm not a big Obama fan by any stretch of the imagine, but I have to admit, this was a really shrewd move on his part. This successfully accomplished three things:

1. It communicated to Karzai that we really don't give a damn what he thinks. He went to bat for McChrystal and we ignored him. Good. Now he needs to deal with someone that's used to politicking with local leaders (or buying them off - seriously, whatever works at this point) instead of someone trying to force a top-down approach on Afghanistan. COIN just says you need to build a stable government; it doesn't say it has to be run exclusively from Kabul.

2. It puts the advocates of COIN on notice. This is their last shot. They have the one who literally wrote the book on COIN in charge - if Petraeus doesn't turn it around, nobody could.

3. If Petraeus doesn't turn it around, nobody could, which means that, if he doesn't, Obama can safely walk away while saying we gave it our best shot. That's powerful political cover right there.

Honestly, I really hope Petraeus finds some way to pull this off, whatever this is, exactly. Iraq, for all its present faults, is in much better condition now than it was before Petraeus took over, and that's given us the political cover we need to "declare victory" and start pulling out from there. If he can get Afghanistan to "good enough" in a fairly short time, I can live with that. Though I don't think we should be in Afghanistan at all, I'd rather see us leave on terms that everybody can agree with than deal with another few decades of Vietnam-style "what if", with one side reflexively deriding anything military-related and the other side declaring that we need to "double down" on every little skirmish our troops get into.

Having said that, McChrystal was a classic Patton-style general. He had a flair for the dramatic, only followed the rules when it was convenient to do so, was much more comfortable in the field than he was in socially high status situations, never knew when to shut up, and was known for "getting stuff done". Such generals are fantastic on the field, but miserable failures when you need political acumen along with a solid understanding of strategic and tactical skill. Unfortunately, leading a theater is less about strategy and more about politics - you have to balance the needs of your generals, your allies, the civilian leadership on the ground, and Washington, and hope and pray that you can craft something that everyone can agree or tolerate. You can't do that if you openly disdain your allies, the local civilian leadership and Washington. You also can't do it if you view policy and procedure as an impediment instead of as a tool.

They that go down to the sea in ships

I tell ya, it's getting to the point where a guy can't take an afternoon off with his boat to enjoy the simple pleasures of life.

BP Spills Coffee

What happens to your body on exercise?

This is one of those great articles about how scientists are still finding out about really basic, but important, things. Like what exercise really does for your body, and how it does it.

I am not an exercise freak, by any means, but I am happy to say that, over the past month, I have exercised pretty well (by my standards) -- and on those days I "skipped," I have actually missed doing a workout.

This is from the New York Times "Well" blog:

working out lessens a person’s chances of developing heart problems far more than scientists can account for. They understand the physiological reasons for about 60 percent of the reduced risk. The rest is a mysterious if welcome bonus.

The End of Men -- The Atlantic magazine

Fascinating, from the July/August 2010 issue of The Atlantic:
"Man has been the dominant sex since, well, the dawn of mankind. But for the first time in human history, that is changing -- and with shocking speed."
The End of Men - Magazine - The Atlantic

Maybe an invasion would help

I wish I could take credit for this, because it says fairly succinctly what I've been grasping for.

From Anne Applebaum on Slate.com:

Here is the hard truth: The U.S. government does not possess a secret method for capping oil leaks.

Even the combined wisdom of the Obama inner circle — all those Harvard economists, silver-tongued spin doctors, and hardened politicos — cannot prevent tens of thousands of tons of oil from pouring out of a hole a mile beneath the ocean's surface.

Other than proximity to the Louisiana coast, this catastrophe therefore has nothing whatsoever in common with Hurricane Katrina. That was an unstoppable natural disaster that turned into a human tragedy thanks to an inadequate government response. This is just an unstoppable disaster, period. It will be a human tragedy precisely because no government response is possible.

... most Americans in recent years have come to expect a strong response — an invasion, a massive congressional bill — from their politicians in times of crisis, and this one is no exception.

We want the president to lead — somewhere, anywhere. A few days ago, the New York Times declared that "he and his administration need to do a lot more to show they are on top of this mess," and should have started "putting the heat" on BP much earlier—as if that would have made the remotest bit of difference.

Can't he just make it all better?

What do we expect the president -- not this president, but any president -- to do about the Gulf oil crisis?

We want him to get angry. OK. Maybe he's just not a real hothead. I could show him a thing or two about losing one's temper, but I'm not sure that would solve anything. He did talking about kicking ass. Maybe he could have modified that with a choice expletive. Maybe he could pound the podium. With his shoe. Or throw something at his TelePromTer.

We want him to promise help. Done. 30,000 workers; 17,000 National Guard.

We want him to beat up on BP. I suspect tomorrow's meeting with BP's CEO (the nightmare of communications directors the world over) will be something other than a love-fest.

We want him to create a new form of energy so we aren't reliant on fossil fuels a mile and more below the earth's surface. Maybe he could work with Congress to create a law to that effect, or something. Wishing doesn't make it so. Meanwhile, I drive my 17mpg (on a good day) Jeep every day.

I'm as appalled, and as steamed, about this crisis as most people I know. (For the record, I don't know any Gulf Coasters who make their living from the water, and I understand how they are beyond anger.)

But what do we want the president to do?

'Future Shock' happens every day

Friday night. I try out the Google Goggles application with some friends by taking a picture of a T-shirt that has a logo made to look just like Pabst Blue Ribbon's. Sure 'nuff, up comes a series of Google results for PBR.

"How'd it do that?" we all ask, then dive into the nachos.

Saturday morning, at a hospital event. Chatting with a colleague (who was also there Friday night) about a music video featuring an Abba song. When we tried this with a Bangles (remember them?) song, YouTube immediately recognized the song and created a "Buy This" link through iTunes.

"How'd it do that," we ask, simultaneously.

Sunday morning. Reading today's New York Times before cleaning the gutters (yes, it's an exciting life). There's a story on the cover of the Business section about "The Singularity Movement" and Singularity University (SU -- take that, Orangemen).

According to its website:

SU hopes to stimulate groundbreaking, disruptive thinking and solutions aimed at solving some of the planet’s most pressing challenges.

This story is either alarming or invigorating (and, incidentally, just one reason The Times is still worth six bucks on a Sunday -- another is to read mostly intelligent comments on a newspaper website.)

This paragraph stopped me cold:

“We will transcend all of the limitations of our biology,” says Raymond Kurzweil, the inventor and businessman who is the Singularity’s most ubiquitous spokesman and boasts that he intends to live for hundreds of years and resurrect the dead, including his own father. “That is what it means to be human — to extend who we are.”

OK, the guy sounds like a whack job. But I remember reading Future Shock by Alvin Toffler as a nerdy teenager and thinking "wow." (Yup. Maybe it was something else, but the book still had an impact.)

Under the influence of nothing else this morning, except two cups of coffee, and I'm saying, "wow."

And we're asking, "How'd it do that?"

NFA Crew 2010

Emma's crew team at the Mayor's Cup Regatta in Providence. Cool.

Stuck on an Escalator

I asked today, "Why are people so helpless sometimes when the answers are all around them?" A colleague suggested I watch this on YouTube. Yup.

The Vatican’s Ask and Tell Problem | The New York Review of Books

The Vatican’s Ask and Tell Problem | The New York Review of Books

'Our cluttered minds'

Re: Yesterday's post. The opposing view to Clay Shirkey's in Saturday's Wall Street Journal was by technology guru Nicholas Carr. He's just written “The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains."

A review in Sunday's New York Times Book Review takes issue with Carr's position that the Internet is destroying our power of concentration. (Vindication!)

One more historical/hysterical reference about how it has ever been thus:

Socrates started what may have been the first technology scare. In the “Phaedrus,” he lamented the invention of books, which “create forgetfulness” in the soul. Instead of remembering for themselves, Socrates warned, new readers were blindly trusting in “external written characters.” The library was ruining the mind.

Does the Internet make you smarter or dumber?

Saturday's Wall Street Journal posed just this question.

Clay Shirley, a deep thinker on the social and economic effects of Internet, says it's a tool for helping us be smarter -- if we wish. I agree. (I'm sure Shirky is thrilled.)

Yes, there is a lot of crap on the Internet. But, as Shirky points out:

Every increase in freedom to create or consume media, from paperback books to YouTube, alarms people accustomed to the restrictions of the old system, convincing them that the new media will make young people stupid. This fear dates back to at least the invention of movable type.

After Gutenberg, the Church was alarmed that the Bible was being translated into language most people could understand. When paperback books became popular, authors bemoaned the lack of literary quality that was flooding the market.

It all comes down to freedom, Shirky concludes. And, I think, a few assumptions: that most people are good, that knowledge is power, and that learning is valuable.

It is tempting to want PatientsLikeMe without the dumb videos, just as we might want scientific journals without the erotic novels, but that's not how media works. Increased freedom to create means increased freedom to create throwaway material, as well as freedom to indulge in the experimentation that eventually makes the good new stuff possible. ... [T]he task before us now is to experiment with new ways of using a medium that is social, ubiquitous and cheap, a medium that changes the landscape by distributing freedom of the press and freedom of assembly as widely as freedom of speech.

No 'big government' -- until we need it

It amazes me how we profess to "hate big government" until something goes horribly wrong, and we want the government to make it right. I'm as cynical as the next guy, and heaven knows government has made its share of mega-blunders. But in America, we ARE the government.