May 19, 2004

silhouette3.JPG From the desk of Jane Galt:

Reader survey

I know that most of you have probably already seen this, but just in case you haven't, Henry Copeland, who provides the magnificent ads at the right (which you should all click through to help out Asymmetrical Information's very fine advertisers), is running a reader survey. Please, please, please take a moment, if you haven't already, to fill out the survey. And if you want to help me out, by giving me a glimpse at my reader demographics, write in "Asymmetrical Information" (watch the spelling!) for question number 22.

Posted by Jane Galt at May 19, 2004 10:30 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
Comments
Posted by: Chris Farley on May 19, 2004 11:31 AM

I already did this for "THE BALKO" over at The Agitator. But, I did list you as my favorite blog.

Posted by: David Walser on May 19, 2004 11:58 AM

Does this mean you shouldn't respond to the survey more than once? Oops.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on May 19, 2004 3:58 PM

Although this is absotively my favorite blog, and (for the purpose of the survey) I have an enormous income that I spend almost entirely online, I refuse to fill out the survey until you give us the long promised "I've Rethought Iraq, and It Turns Out Bush is An Idiot" essay.

Maybe not "promised." Maybe just overdue.

Posted by: Katherine on May 19, 2004 5:12 PM

Tim, for goodness' sake, quit trying to convert Jane. What are you, worried about her eternal soul?

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on May 19, 2004 6:58 PM

"...quit trying to convert Jane. What are you, worried about her eternal soul?"

Yeah, the conversion bit is getting annoying, isn't it? I'm not sure why I keep doing it - it might be to declare my political loyalties and suggest she is wrong in a jokey way. Given the partisan furor in the blog world generally, I wouldn't want Jane to think that my criticism of her positions indicated a criticism of her (b/c she seems decent enough, if sometimes deeply wrong). Or it might be some sort of verbal OCD. I have trouble parsing intentions occasionally. As Dan Quayle so rightly noted, "What a terrible thing to have lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind at all. How true that is."

In this specific case -- well, for the life of me, I've never been able to understand the Bush II case for war. The claims about WMD treated all such weapons alike, when all we should really have cared about was nuclear capability (inc. delivery). No one ever explained why we believed that Saddam had suddently changed from pragmatic dictator to madman who would seek his own certain destruction by using weapons against us. No one ever explained why we didn't think Israel could continue to police the area, since our interests are something like parallel in the area. No one explained why Bush I's analysis wasn't perfect at the time and perfect to date. And no one credibly explained why it was suddenly important to pay for the improved welfare of Iraqis but not for the improved welfare of the poorest Americans. I really just don't get it.

Jane apparently does (or did). Since I like the way Jane's mind works, I'd be interested in her answer. I haven't been able to find said answer on this site, or a satisfactory answer elsewhere. If there is an even quasi-credible explanation for the Iraq war, I just want to know what it is - it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. Hell, I'd even take Mindles's explanation.

Anyway, I'll stop with the conversion bit. It was meant as a joke, but more the mildly funny kind and less the annoying, preachy kind.

Posted by: Katherine on May 20, 2004 10:53 AM

Fair enough. I was going to sic the Mormon missionaries on you, but I shall now forbear. :)

I don't think anyone's arguing that Saddam Hussein changed after 9/11. The point is that we changed. We woke up to the fact that a) al-Qaeda and friends are ready and willing to kill us in large numbers, given the opportunity, and b) Saddam Hussein apparently holds weapons that are capable of killing us in large numbers.*

If you supported the war, it's likely because your gut told you a) and b) might just get together, with horrific consequences. If you didn't, it's probably because your gut told you a) and b) were unlikely to get together anytime soon. Honest people may hold either the former position or the latter, but honest people should also agree that both positions are at least logical and defensible. I think it comes down in the end to who your gut tells you is the enemy, and what the enemy is likely to do in the future. And everyone's gut is going to tell them something different. So among well-informed folks with different gut reactions, it doesn't make sense to argue the question. You might as well talk religion.

* That includes biological and chemical weapons, not just nuclear. Delivery is trivially easy given the size of the weapons involved; for some, an envelope will do. And let's leave aside the question of their existence. Parties on both sides agreed at the time that they existed.

Comments are Closed.