August 30, 2004

Blogging While Driving

Check it out, I'm blogging while driving.

Driving_while_blogging.jpg

Okay, I'm not actually driving. Sean is driving and I'm the passenger. But I took this picture with my digital camera, "developed" it by uploading it onto my laptop, and published it here with my cell phone modem, all without getting out the car or even slowing down.

We're in Colorado heading toward Utah. Stay tuned for a lengthier post including pictures, commentary, and even - yes - opinion.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at August 30, 2004 12:02 PM
Comments

Careful. Driving while blogging is an offense in Utah, worse than driving under the influence of a blog.

Posted by: zacek at August 30, 2004 01:02 PM

You scared me there for a minute Michael!

Posted by: Cathy at August 30, 2004 01:14 PM

MJT,

I know your from the great northwest where the scenery is exquisite. (I just spent two weeks up there around the Olympics and Cascades).

BUT, the background is more insteresting than the foregound. Take it from an old man. Enjoy the drives, enjoy the scenery as it goes by.

OldManRick

Posted by: OldManRick at August 30, 2004 01:23 PM

Look forward to bumping heads if you tool by the Wasatch Front, Michael. I left my number on your phone.

As for scenery, you haven't seen anything until you get to Arches. Enjoy.

Posted by: TmjUtah at August 30, 2004 01:52 PM

MJT,

all without getting out the car or even slowing down.

You should slow down and get out of that car. You're in Colorado!

Posted by: HA at August 30, 2004 06:04 PM

I'll second TMJ's comments about the Arches. When I was in college, the Outdoor Rec Club did some trips to the Grand Gultch Primitive Area on a couple of Easter weekends. (Clunky sentence, but I'm at work & don't have time to edit...) Both times, we finished off the trip with a stop at the natural arches. Very nifty.

Posted by: Cybrludite at August 31, 2004 01:12 AM

Who was the idiot on your blog who kept saying that giving into the demands of kidnappers doesn't necessarily encourage more kidnapping?

12 foreigners were slaughtered today in Iraq.

Posted by: David at August 31, 2004 07:34 AM

Who was the idiot on your blog who kept saying that giving into the demands of kidnappers doesn't necessarily encourage more kidnapping?

Not me. I said that posting links to gruesome execution videos and encouraging people to watch them would encourage more kidnappings and killings. These assholes are media whores, and every column inch they get, every download of their homemade snuff films gives them exactly what they want -- cheap PR, a recruiting tool, and more terror among foreign nationals living and working in the region.

I doubt they give a flying fuck if their demands are met or not. The demands are just a red herring. The payoff is publicity.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 31, 2004 08:24 AM

double,

I thought it was you. Then who was it. It was a different moron.

In addition, two French guys are going to die as well because of the appeasement mentality of the French, the Spaniards, the Filipinos, and the Left in general.

Posted by: David at August 31, 2004 12:20 PM

I thought it was you. Then who was it. It was a different moron.

Just one of the many other left-wing caricatures yelling for attention in your head, David. Ignore them, they ain't real.

In addition, two French guys are going to die as well because of the appeasement mentality of the French...

Riigght. The French really caved in on that head-scarf issue, didn't they?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 31, 2004 12:23 PM

>> In addition, two French guys are going to die as well because of the appeasement mentality of the French, the Spaniards, the Filipinos, and the Left in general.

That's a pretty disgusting statement. The blame lies with the perpetrators of these heinous acts.

Posted by: Mickey at August 31, 2004 12:51 PM

Mickey,

when the Filipinos caved, I predicted that was going to cost more innocent lives, and unfortuanately that is coming to pass. Appeasement does that.

Posted by: David at August 31, 2004 01:20 PM

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard, David. Predicting more terror is about the same level of risk to your level of political prescience as predicting the sun rising tomorrow.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 31, 2004 01:41 PM

double,

I'm not patting myself on the back. It seemed like common sense to me; I was surprised at the time to find that on the Left there's remarkably little of it.

Posted by: David at August 31, 2004 02:21 PM

Well, there's at least one glaring error in your analysis - the Filipinos haven't suffered another terrorist attack, so appeasment has worked for them so far.

Personally, I don't believe in caving in to these guys at all. But I suspect that that fact will slip right into your blind spot, as it doesn't fit your internal dialogue with imaginary leftists.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 31, 2004 02:55 PM

double,

I didn't expect the Filipinos to pay for their appeasement, not right away at least. I expected those they left behind when they hightailed it out of there to pay the price. They are now paying that price, and they will continue to pay that price as long as insurgents and terrorists perceive that the appeasers in the West have an ear.

Let it be noted, when the appeasers have their way, people DIE. When maximum force isn't used the conflict is prolonged and more people also die.

Re a "blind spot", are you done?

Posted by: David at August 31, 2004 03:30 PM

I didn't expect the Filipinos to pay for their appeasement, not right away at least. I expected those they left behind when they hightailed it out of there to pay the price.

That essentially disproves your point. Appeasement worked for them, if their aim was to avoid more kidnappings of their nationals.

Re a "blind spot", are you done?

I think a better question is, are you?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at August 31, 2004 03:41 PM

>>>"Personally, I don't believe in caving in to these guys at all."

Why not double? Appeasement works, if your last post can be taken at all seriously. Didn't you "disprove" my point?

Or perhaps you don't believe in "caving" out of pure ego? I doubt that. Perhaps you want it both ways; say you don't approve of appeasement generally, but in the case of the Filipinos defend it because you want Bush's policy in Iraq to fail. Your schizoid on this topic, but I can see why.

Posted by: David at August 31, 2004 04:05 PM

Once again, David, you are debating yourself. You made a statement that had a pretty glaring logical error in it. I pointed that out, and so you've fallen back on your old tactic of imagining that I have then taken an extreme stance opposed to yours.

Just to clear out the deadwood here, you and I have a similar opinion, that terrorists should not be granted what they're after, as it encourages both them and others to use those tactics again, as they work.

The difference of opinion that we have is that you think meeting the terrorist's "demands" is giving them what they want. I think that in the cases we're seeing in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, the demands are a red herring, an excuse to commit these acts. I think that what they're doing is giving themselves street cred with potential recruits, and they're also trying to terrorize foreign nationals in the region so that they can destabilize the Iraqi democratization process, and damage the Saudi economy without damaging its oil-producing infrastructure.

When a nation or group meets their "demands", they get publicity and the illusion of being influential. When the "demands" aren't met, they get to make a gruesome video, the publicity, and the illusion of being influential. In either case, their needs are met.

The only way to not meet their needs is to deny them the publicity they're after. And that isn't likely to happen.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 1, 2004 09:57 AM

dpu,

Well said.

This is exactly why I think that Bush said something smart.... (Yes, I am saying that, for once, I thought I heard intelligent words from our Commander In Chief). He said that this was not a War we could win. Of course, he later restated/flipflopped and now says that it is winnable... but his original statement is, I think accurate.

Terrorism has always worked because it had lots of media. The Vikings used terrorism, and were successful because word of mouth and retelling of Viking raids spread throughout Europe. After a time, most of the Viking raids weren't raids, but tithe pick-ups. They didn't need to kill more people, simply because everyone was afraid that they would kill more people.

We can't beat the Terrorists, not in the way that we beat the Nazis, or even in the way that we beat the Soviets. We can make terrorism harder to pull off, we can work on squeezing the money supply to cripple large organized groups of terrorists, but we cannot make them go away completely.

As long as they can use terror to grab the spotlight and vent their grievences, terror will happen.

It looks like the Chechens have been unphased by the Strong US response to terror, they may have blown up two planes and taken a school hostage. Why? Not because they truly believe that Russia will cave, but more likely because it will keep their ideology in the news.

Not covering it in the news, though, may just make it worse, as terrorists would simply do larger acts of terror which could not be ignored.

Just my thoughts,
Tosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at September 1, 2004 01:08 PM

Tosk -

Bullshit.

Anybody who gets a chance to hear the interview in context will understand that the war on terror will not be won by a treaty ceremony on some battleship or in some tent. It's not that kind of conflict, and that was the spirit in which the question was answered. No top hats or cabinet secretaries. There will be a resolution of conflict involving nation states that foster the barbarians, but what the end of the struggle will take form as may be no more than a reduction of the scale of the conflict to some sort of ongoing surveillance/eradication posture. Or maybe the Muslims will get themselves a Martin Luther or a Norman Vincent Peale. Who knows?

We've got a long way to go before there's any win at all.

Posted by: TmjUtah at September 1, 2004 01:35 PM

TmjUtah,

Bullshit? We just said the same thing. We cannot 'win' the war on terror, we can make it harder for people to commit acts of terror, we can try to knock out support for terror groups, but there will still be terrorism.

You might say that you hope, someday in the future to minimalize the current Islamic flavor of terrorism, but thats not a war won, only a threat minimalized.

Still, I had a wonderful (if brief) moment where my patriotism soared and I had respect for Mr. Bush.

Posted by: Ratatosk at September 2, 2004 09:03 AM

Ratatosk -

You run the risk of someone keying your car every time you go to the grocery store (assuming you own a car).

By your logic, that potential represents a society without control or stability, ruled by anarchy.

Murders are going to happen. What will not be accomodated will be the existence of international organizations OR states that support them in making the scale industrial.

You have a problem with Bush? Fine, your call - but just what advantage would the alternative choice bring to the table, and by what standard would you measure the potential benefit of that standard?

Kerry's base has refused the fight. His record is an unbroken string of appeasement at best, support for the enemy at worst (NVN consultations, support for Ortega, resistance to confronting the Soviet Union).

Have a fine one.

Posted by: TmjUtah at September 2, 2004 09:23 AM

Welcome back! Here is what you missed...

Arnold's dad is still a Nazi, he lied about hearing Nixon debate but really didn't and he says he is a Republican but is really lying, even though he is a registered Republican speaking at the GOP convention. Also, the GOP is not really Centrist because they had centrist spekaers and the Democrats really are centrist because they had leftist speakers.

Zell Miller is a Dixicrat racist and was a Dixiecrat racist when he supported Bill Clinton in 1992, he lied when he said he is a Democrat be really didn't since he is, he is spreading fear by talking about the non-issue of terrorism and digging up past by bringing into question John Kerry's records from this year. Plus he seemed pissed, and a Democrat pissed at his own party is proof that the Repugs are imploding. Oh yes, according to the liberal blogs (such as Atrios), Zell is also a Nazi.

In the streets there are thousands of anti-fascists demonstrating with banners supporting dictators. In support of free speech they are attempting to disturpt the convention and have attacked several pro-Bush demonstrators. Bush is still Hitler in their eyes, so all is right as rain.

Again, welcome back! Great pics by the way, thank you for the update on your trip.

Posted by: Toad at September 2, 2004 09:41 AM

Welcome back! Here is what you missed...

Arnold's dad is still a Nazi, he lied about hearing Nixon debate but really didn't and he says he is a Republican but is really lying, even though he is a registered Republican speaking at the GOP convention. Also, the GOP is not really Centrist because they had centrist spekaers and the Democrats really are centrist because they had leftist speakers.

Zell Miller is a Dixicrat racist and was a Dixiecrat racist when he supported Bill Clinton in 1992, he lied when he said he is a Democrat be really didn't since he is, he is spreading fear by talking about the non-issue of terrorism and digging up past by bringing into question John Kerry's records from this year. Plus he seemed pissed, and a Democrat pissed at his own party is proof that the Repugs are imploding. Oh yes, according to the liberal blogs (such as Atrios), Zell is also a Nazi.

In the streets there are thousands of anti-fascists demonstrating with banners supporting dictators. In support of free speech they are attempting to disturpt the convention and have attacked several pro-Bush demonstrators. Bush is still Hitler in their eyes, so all is right as rain.

Again, welcome back! Great pics by the way, thank you for the update on your trip.

Posted by: Toad at September 2, 2004 09:41 AM

Welcome back! Here is what you missed...

Arnold's dad is still a Nazi, he lied about hearing Nixon debate but really didn't and he says he is a Republican but is really lying, even though he is a registered Republican speaking at the GOP convention. Also, the GOP is not really Centrist because they had centrist spekaers and the Democrats really are centrist because they had leftist speakers.

Zell Miller is a Dixicrat racist and was a Dixiecrat racist when he supported Bill Clinton in 1992, he lied when he said he is a Democrat be really didn't since he is, he is spreading fear by talking about the non-issue of terrorism and digging up past by bringing into question John Kerry's records from this year. Plus he seemed pissed, and a Democrat pissed at his own party is proof that the Repugs are imploding. Oh yes, according to the liberal blogs (such as Atrios), Zell is also a Nazi.

In the streets there are thousands of anti-fascists demonstrating with banners supporting dictators. In support of free speech they are attempting to disturpt the convention and have attacked several pro-Bush demonstrators. Bush is still Hitler in their eyes, so all is right as rain.

Again, welcome back! Great pics by the way, thank you for the update on your trip.

Posted by: Toad at September 2, 2004 09:41 AM

Welcome back! Here is what you missed...

Arnold's dad is still a Nazi, he lied about hearing Nixon debate but really didn't and he says he is a Republican but is really lying, even though he is a registered Republican speaking at the GOP convention. Also, the GOP is not really Centrist because they had centrist spekaers and the Democrats really are centrist because they had leftist speakers.

Zell Miller is a Dixicrat racist and was a Dixiecrat racist when he supported Bill Clinton in 1992, he lied when he said he is a Democrat be really didn't since he is, he is spreading fear by talking about the non-issue of terrorism and digging up past by bringing into question John Kerry's records from this year. Plus he seemed pissed, and a Democrat pissed at his own party is proof that the Repugs are imploding. Oh yes, according to the liberal blogs (such as Atrios), Zell is also a Nazi.

In the streets there are thousands of anti-fascists demonstrating with banners supporting dictators. In support of free speech they are attempting to disturpt the convention and have attacked several pro-Bush demonstrators. Bush is still Hitler in their eyes, so all is right as rain.

Again, welcome back! Great pics by the way, thank you for the update on your trip.

Posted by: Toad at September 2, 2004 09:41 AM

Welcome back! Here is what you missed...

Arnold's dad is still a Nazi, he lied about hearing Nixon debate but really didn't and he says he is a Republican but is really lying, even though he is a registered Republican speaking at the GOP convention. Also, the GOP is not really Centrist because they had centrist spekaers and the Democrats really are centrist because they had leftist speakers.

Zell Miller is a Dixicrat racist and was a Dixiecrat racist when he supported Bill Clinton in 1992, he lied when he said he is a Democrat be really didn't since he is, he is spreading fear by talking about the non-issue of terrorism and digging up past by bringing into question John Kerry's records from this year. Plus he seemed pissed, and a Democrat pissed at his own party is proof that the Repugs are imploding. Oh yes, according to the liberal blogs (such as Atrios), Zell is also a Nazi.

In the streets there are thousands of anti-fascists demonstrating with banners supporting dictators. In support of free speech they are attempting to disturpt the convention and have attacked several pro-Bush demonstrators. Bush is still Hitler in their eyes, so all is right as rain.

Again, welcome back! Great pics by the way, thank you for the update on your trip.

Posted by: Toad at September 2, 2004 09:42 AM

Welcome back! Here is what you missed...

Arnold's dad is still a Nazi, he lied about hearing Nixon debate but really didn't and he says he is a Republican but is really lying, even though he is a registered Republican speaking at the GOP convention. Also, the GOP is not really Centrist because they had centrist spekaers and the Democrats really are centrist because they had leftist speakers.

Zell Miller is a Dixicrat racist and was a Dixiecrat racist when he supported Bill Clinton in 1992, he lied when he said he is a Democrat be really didn't since he is, he is spreading fear by talking about the non-issue of terrorism and digging up past by bringing into question John Kerry's records from this year. Plus he seemed pissed, and a Democrat pissed at his own party is proof that the Repugs are imploding. Oh yes, according to the liberal blogs (such as Atrios), Zell is also a Nazi.

In the streets there are thousands of anti-fascists demonstrating with banners supporting dictators. In support of free speech they are attempting to disturpt the convention and have attacked several pro-Bush demonstrators. Bush is still Hitler in their eyes, so all is right as rain.

Again, welcome back! Great pics by the way, thank you for the update on your trip.

Posted by: Toad at September 2, 2004 09:42 AM

TmjUtah,

Someone keying your car does not anarchy make.

I'm not arguing that we cannot throttle Terrorism, I think we can heavily impact the terror organizations. However, I do not think we can wipe out terrorism, I don't think we can 'Win' this war, I think, at best, we can make it more difficult for terrorism to happen.

As for the alternative.... I'm not a fan of Kerry's. I don't think he will solve our problems, I don't think he will do better than Bush on the WoT (in fact, I think he'll probably be about the same, with maybe a little less huberius.) However, the WoT is not the only thing, indeed not the main thing that concerns me.

I disagree with Bush on almost every domestic issue. If he were a more moderate voice on domestic issues, if he actually tried to get rid of Big Government, if he showed respect for the rights of individual States then I would probably vote for him, even though I think he made lots of errors in the WoT.

I've said it here before, Kerry cannot go soft on Terror. It would be political suicide for him and the entire Democratic party. Onlyh a fool believes that there will be no Terrorist activity during the next Administration (no matter who is in the Oval Office). If there will be Terror, the President must maintain a strong offensive against the terrorists, lest another horrifying attack allow his political enemies to creamate him. Kerry cannot be seen as soft, he can't take that gamble.

The WoT, I think, will continue without much change. The domestic policies, though, I fear, will only worsen if Bush retains control.

Ratatosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at September 2, 2004 11:00 AM
Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member



Testimonials

"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

"Terrific"
Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere


Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com


News Feeds




toysforiraq.gif



Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button

totten_button.jpg


Tip Jar





Essays

Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn