Some time ago I set the wheels in motion to do something I've always wanted to do, though it was a long shot. It has happened and soon I'll be doing it.

Sadly, I'll be largely off the grid for a few months, and perhaps longer.

I may be able to reveal more details soon.

Back in September, when I decided to attempt writing full-time, I hoped for a "continued presence for the next three months at a minimum." Since then, I've also managed to do a great deal of writing elsewhere: for PajamasMedia, TCSDaily, The New York Post, The Washington Examiner, and The Weekly Standard online.

Thanks to all who have been reading this site in the two years that it's been operational. It's hard to know whether blogs like mine are exercises in vanity or ephemera, but hopefully within all the noise there has been a signal or two that has had some lasting and larger value.

Perhaps I'll return sometime soon . . .

Until then . . . thanks for reading.

And, PS: Should be one more piece coming out soon at TCSDaily. Look for it there. Also, I've recorded one more podcast, but technical glitches have prevented its publishing. Hopefully these will be resolved soon as well.

Read it here.

I don't get Showtime, and was hoping to watch it via iTunes. Haven't found it there yet, but the first episode of the new season is available free via the official website.

Spoiler alert! Don't watch it if you have a desire to watch the first season, which I thought was excellent.

I want you to consider that the line between good and evil lies not like a thread through society, between good and evil persons, those destined for heaven and those destined for hell. I'd like you to suppose instead that it goes through every single human being. And I'd like you to imagine that there is indeed a fire which burns, not eternally, but until the last day. And that after we die, every word or thought or deed that shrinks from God's grace is burned off by the refiner's fire. And that means that when that process is finished not all of our earthly self gets to heaven. But not none of it, either, even among the worst that humanity has produced. Out of such as remains from the refiner's fire, God makes a heavenly body fit for worship, friendship, and eating with him forever.

For the Mother Teresa and the Francis of Assisi, we can imagine there's very little burnt off, and the refiner's fire is pretty much a painless process. They have accepted the forgiveness of God and been transformed by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit. They're pretty much in the clear and in heaven they'll be instantly recognizable. But the Adolf Hitler and the Joseph Stalin are another matter. Almost everything in them, so we imagine, turned away from the grace and transforming love of God in Christ, and forgiveness was something they never sought. But here's the twist. Because God created them, because they emerged from God's creative purpose, we cannot simply say they are evil without giving up on the all-pervasive grace of God. So what we can say is that for people like them the refiner's fire is an agonizing and almost total experience, and that what's left is pretty much unrecognizable. It takes God to the very limits of his grace to make something beautiful and heavenly out of the scant and desolate remains that emerge from the refiner's fire. And what does appear in heaven after God's astonishing work is almost unrecognizable from the earthly person that perpetrated so much that desecrated the name of God.

UPDATE: Here is the full text.

What then is my opinion? That commanders should be counseled chiefly by persons of known talent, by those who have made the art of war their particular study, and whose knowledge is derived from experience, by those who are present at the scene of action, who see the enemy, who see the advantages that occasions offer, and who, like people embarked in the same ship, are sharers of the danger.

Commentary

I'll see his Lucius Aemilius Paulus and raise him a Marcus Aurelius. From his Meditations:

"People who are excited by posthumous fame forget that the people who remember them will soon die too. And those after them in turn. Until their memory, passed from one to another like a candle flame, gutters and goes out. But suppose that those who remembered you were immortal and your memory undying. What good would it do you? And I don't just mean when you're dead, but in your own lifetime. What use is praise except to make your lifestyle a little more comfortable?" [Book 4, #19]

"To be like the rock that the waves keep crashing over. It stands unmoved and the raging of the sea falls still around it." [4:49]

"Give yourself a gift: the present moment.
People out for posthumous fame forget that the Generations To Come will be the same annoying people they know now. And just as mortal. What does it matter to you if they say x about you, or think y? " [8:44]

"You want praise from people who kick themselves every fifteen minutes, the approval of people who despise themselves. (Is it a sign of self-respect to regret nearly everything you do?) [8:53]

"To see them from above: the thousands of animal herds, the rituals, the voyages on calm or stormy seas, the different ways we come into the world, share it with one another, and leave it. Consider the lives led once by others, long ago, the libes to be led by others after you, the libes led even now, in foreign lands. How many will soon have forgotten it. How many offer you praise now -- and tomorrow, perhaps contempt.
That to be remembered is worthless. Like fame. Like everything." [9:30]

"When you wake up, ask yourself:
Does it make any difference to you if other people blame you for doing what's right?
It makes no difference.
Have you forgotten what the people who are so vociferous in praise or blame of others are like as they sleep and eat? Forgotten their behavior, their fears, their desires, their thefts and depredations -- not physical ones, but those committed by what should be highest in them? What creates, when it chooses, loyalty, humility, truth, order, well-being." [10:13]

"How they act when they eat and sleep and mate and defecate and all the rest. Then when they order and exult, or rage and thunder from on high. And yet, just consider the things they submitted to a moment ago and the reasons for it -- and the things they'll submit to again before very long." [10:19]

Of late, the mall has taken to advertising its holiday hours with very large numbers near the traffic entrances.

You know, something just seemed appropriate about seeing this as a sort of symbol of consumerism in America these days:

I'll leave you to your own interpretation.

I would like to say a bit about the atmospherics though.

Yesterday I found myself driving in the afternoon to a new bookstore about 30 minutes away, because it was the only one nearby with a copy of something I have to read by early next week.

Along the way, I listened to NPR. The airwaves crackled with hints of glee at the report's contents. Withdrawal recommended! The war is not going well! Failure! Defeat! Humiliations galore!*

The show was "Day to Day," which I've never heard before. In one segment, a reporter named Mike Pesca interviewed a gentleman named Ron Slavenas, whose son died in Iraq in 2003 in a helicopter crash. Pesca's questions were ridiculous. Time and time again, the reporter tried to bait the man into some sort of emotional outburst about the death of his son, or perhaps a repudiation of the Bush administration, and time and again, the man failed to engage. Forever looking for a Sheehan moment, Pesca continued for several minutes. It was pathetic. You can listen to the whole thing here. Let me give you some of the flavor. Here's his initial question:

Pesca: Ron, before I ask you your thoughts on the war, I want to ask you this: whether you tell me this is a good war or a bad war, or tough but worth it, or a mistake from the get-go, do you think the conclusions that Americans have about the war, do you think that should affect their answer to the question, "Was your son killed in vain?"

Slavenas: Well . . . it's hard to say. My son was a soldier, and when you're on a mission, when you get deployed, you do what you have to do. So, whether it was in vain or not, I would say yes as a father with personal feelings, but, he was just caught out at a bad time, and he did his duty and he died for his country. It's very saddening, you know we lost a tremendously fine human being, but, we lost about three thousand now, talking about this war, so they went out for a higher cause -- the country calls and you do your duty, that's how I see it, although it's painful . . . he would have lived a long life.

Pesca: Do things like midterm election results, or the impending departure of Donald Rumsfeld, or the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, are those benchmarks that cause you to reassess your thoughts, to check in your own head about Iraq policy?

Slavenas: Not really . . . you know nothing much will change. I think Iraq has to sort itself out right now. You take away a dictator a la Yugoslavia, or Czarist Russia, and the dictator's gone and all of a sudden the cat is gone and the mice are fighting for their cheese . . .

Pesca: [In 2003,], there was a framed condolence letter from President Bush on display in your living room. Is it still there?

Slavenas: It's still there, yes.

Pesca: Has your opinion of the decisions that the President's made changed at all in the last three years?

Slavenas: Not really you know, in retrospect, you know things turn a little bit sour, usually it happens after you topple a dictatorship. We are impatient people. Americans are very impatient. You want instant results. Military operations go very smoothly with Americans usually, but in the followup, that's the, the difficulty.

Pesca: And when people hear that your son died, have their reactions changed at all over the last three years?

Slavenas: Well, they feel very regretful, you know, it's a waste, but, again, we have to find strength through it, and I see it in terms of, he was a soldier who raised his right hand to serve his country and, it happens. Sometimes . . . I had two other sons who served and both were in combat. I served twenty years but I've never seen combat because of the luck of the draw. I served in Eisenhower's time, it was peaceful. So if the chance happens of activity in warfare, and you get called, then that's just bad luck, I guess.

The segment ended and Day to Day went on with its breathless coverage of the Iraq Study Group's report.

I arrived at the bookstore and browsed a little before picking up the book I was there to get. In the World History, Middle East section, what before my wondrous eyes should appear, but a miniature paperback copy of . . . the Iraq Study Group Report! How amazing! The report was released today and here it is already available for my purchase for only $10.95!

Coupled with the atmosphere in the press coverage of the report, I found myself wondering if there were merchandising opportunities for the Iraq Study Group. Little action figures perhaps, or a small replica of a Senate hearing -- perhaps a press podium surrounded by tiny lights such that one presses a button and flashbulbs go off as James Baker says "We do not recommend a stay the course solution. In our opinion that approach is no longer viable," all to resounding applause.

Westhawk described this week as containing Two Very Bad Days in Washington.

Thus ends two ignominious days in Washington, D.C. Many inside the Washington bubble will consider the replacement of Mr. Rumsfeld and the arrival of a bi-partisan commission’s study of Iraq to be progress. On the contrary, U.S. interests have been positively harmed by the Gates hearing and the ISG presentation. The U.S. would be better off had these two days never occurred. Observers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world must have watched and then despaired at the strength and wisdom of the U.S. government.

The U.S. requires the cooperation of indigenous people and tribes in these troubled areas if it is to achieve its policy interests. After Mr. Gates’s performance and the ISG presentation, does anyone know what the U.S. government is going to do next? The U.S. is looking for allies it can trust. But what about U.S. policy? Is it something an Iraqi or Afghan man should bet his life on?

*gratuitous Princess Bride quote

The article is titled, "Why Newt Is Right," and if I could have added a subtitle, it would have been, "To worry about a catastrophic attack." It seems instead that many people added their own subtitle, something like, "To restrict free speech."

Arguing in favor of restricting free speech was not my intent. Aside from poor writing on my part, that it was nonetheless taken that way may show just what problems await us as the war continues.

For example, blogger Glenn Greenwald took special umbrage to the piece:

In a TCS Daily column this week entitled "Why Newt is Right," Josh Manchester talked about all the bad things that would happen in the event that a nuclear bomb were detonated in Long Beach, California, and then expressly urged measures for "physically stopping or legally outlawing the ideas behind radicalism"

An offensive yet superficially benign way to accomplish some of these same goals might be to begin a cultural war against extremism. In addition to physically stopping or legally outlawing the ideas behind radicalism, such a campaign might seek to propagate competing memes, which appeal to the same core demographic that is apt to become extremists.

Let me elaborate upon this, since I obviously did a poor job in the article: Rather than merely restricting speech, as many would assume is what I was talking about, why not create competing ideas, and discredit those that appeal so strongly to the core demographic (young men) who are drawn to terrorism? In order to do this, I think many of the same things Newt mentioned would be necessary: technologies to disrupt and track extremist websites. As I tried to say in the piece, to merely restrict such websites is a defensive method.

To take an example: outlawing a website only gives it a sort of cache within the world of rebellious extremists. But a lampooning of extremist ideas in a comedic fashion, in a cultural manner that appeals to the demographic of extremism, would be much more valuable, and probably more successful in the long run.

For the benefits of monitoring terror sites instead of shutting them down, see this backgrounder by the Council on Foreign Relations.

Also, I don't think it's clear that Newt wants to restrict free speech. Instead, he was merely noting that the pursuit of terrorists and stopping attacks is going to require "a serious debate about the first amendment," and that it is better to have this debate now to "develop the appropriate rules of engagement." I don't think it's a straight leap from that to detention camps, and a police state, as the left seems to assume. I can't speak for Newt, but what I was more concerned with is things that we can do now that will serve the purpose of both preventing an attack and preserving the government. To me, this includes civil liberties. In fact, it's not just to me. I used the examples of the nuclear strategists Fred Ikle and Philip Bobbitt in the article. One of Bobbitt's pet peeves is that as of today there is no legal mechanism in place to quickly reconstitute the House of Representatives should a majority of its members be killed or incapacitated in an attack (the Senate does not have this problem, as replacement Senators can be appointed by governors). I'm no legal expert, but I believe that the only way to restaff the House of Representatives is to hold new elections. Even if these are scheduled to take place a few months after an attack, those months are likely to be when crucial decisions need to be made by the House, and when crucial oversight needs to take place as well.

In short, ask yourself: is the United States less or more secure in its freedoms if a plan exists to quickly reconstitute the House of Representatives after a catastrophic attack?

You might say that such measures are how the Nazis rose to power. I'd argue that "stockpiling laws" such as Bobbitt has advocated, is meant to stop such a nightmare scenario from occuring.

This in fact is the entire thrust of Fred Ikle's new book. It's no accident that it's called "Annihilation From Within." Here's an excerpt from the book's website:

Our greatest threat is a cunning tyrant gaining possession of a few weapons of mass destruction. His purpose would not be to destroy landmarks, highjack airplanes, or attack railroad stations. He would annihilate a nation's government from within and assume dictatorial power. The twentieth century offers vivid examples of tyrants who have exploited major national disasters by rallying violent followers and intimidating an entire nation.

To be clear as well, just so I'm not misunderstood, neither Bobbitt nor Ikle argues for restrictions on speech.

Now Newt is a different story. As I tried to argue in the article, he's right to be concerned with the same issues as Bobbitt and Ikle. I think he's right to raise the questions of undermining terrorist communications as well.

If Al Qaeda were a state -- Qaedastan -- where we could clearly locate them, is there any doubt we would have destroyed their command and control infrastructure long ago?

The problem is that Al Qaeda, or jihad, or extremism, or however it can be identified, is not a state. It is more like a virus. It's command and control infrastructure is highly diffuse and a lot of it is located in cyberspace. To stem recruitment, I think we should offer counternarratives and competing memes. Newt thinks we should shut down recruiting websites.

Whichever of us you agree with, the point is that we are both concerned with preventing another attack. Newt is asking for a dialogue about free speech in order to figure out how to stop terrorism from spreading through the internet. To merely demonize him as wishing to restrict speech is to deny the very dialogue that he seeks.

I'm a blogger. I can appreciate the beauty of free speech. In a post a long time ago I once told "the troglodyte FEC bureaucrats and their draconian moronic henchmen in the court system" that "You can have my blog when you pry it out of my cold dead hands."

At the same time, as a blogger, I'm pretty in tune with the power of the internet to organize people and ideas. Jihad can use this power just as well as Josh.

I guess all of this debate swirls from the fact that cyberspace is both speech and a place. It's probably the one true commons in the world today.

Well, I hope that helps somewhat. Again, I wish I could have been clearer in my article.

A tipster notes that Pentagon email has been restricted to sending and receiving to other Pentagon accounts. No messages from other domains may enter the system. This measure has been instituted because a foreign government hacked the Pentagon's computer systems.

I'm not sure if this includes all dot.mil accounts or only certain domains.

Looking for confirmation elsewhere . . .

UPDATE: Looks like the hackers were Chinese. Strategypage reported this several days ago:

December 4, 2006: For the third time in five months, Chinese based hackers attacked a Department of Defense computer network. In mid-November, the U.S. Navy's War College had to shut down it's computer network because, as one instructor explained to his class, Chinese hackers had gotten in, and the Naval War College servers had to be scrutinized to see what was taken, changed or left behind. The is the latest of several attacks on Department of Defense computers, that could be traced back to China.

Portions of The Adventures of Chester Open Source Analysis Policy may apply to this post. If you need to contact me, my email address is in the sidebar.

UPDATE: Here's more info on the original attack.

Read it here.

The idea that blue ribbon committees of greybeards can come up with novel ways of solving problems that everyone would then agree on has long had great appeal. We're positively overrun with the Blue Ribbon Panel on This and the Bipartisan Commission on That.

Just a quick Google search reveals the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (aka "The 9-11 Commission"), the National Commission on Social Security Reform (not to be confused with the 1998 National Commission on Retirement Policy or the 2001 President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security), the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy, the Commission on No Child Left Behind, and the bipartisan Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress. The gold standard has to be the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, which was headed by former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. It just doesn't get any more bipartisan, moderate, and statesmanlike!

[ . . . ]

Any solution that Baker, Hamilton, and their colleagues could agree to was destined to be so watered down as to be meaningless. Get more international cooperation! Make the Iraqi leadership take responsibility! Make a more concerted effort to solve the Palestinian crisis! Because nobody currently in office ever thought of those things?

Commentary

The post "History's End, History's Beginning" considered whether states might benefit from decentralizing and networking much of their operations. If so, then perhaps commissions could be replaced with "unconferences." Wikipedia defines them thus:

An unconference is a conference where the content of the sessions is driven and created by the participants, generally day-by-day during the course of the event, rather than by a single organizer, or small group of organizers, in advance. To date, the term is primarily in use in the geek community. Unconference processes like Open Space Technology, however, have been around for over 20 years in other contexts.

The idea for an unconference came while sitting in the audience of a panel discussion at a conference, waiting for someone to say something intelligent, or not self-serving, or not mind-numbingly boring. The idea came while listening to someone drone endlessly through PowerPoint slides, nodding off, or (in later years) checking email, or posting something to my blog, wondering if it had to be so mind-numbingly boring. This observation may turn out to be the Fundamental Law of Conventional Conferences:

The sum of the expertise of the people in the audience is greater than the sum of expertise of the people on stage.

It’s probably much worse than that. My guess is that if you swapped the people on stage with an equal number chosen at random from the audience, the new panelists would effectively be smarter, because they didn’t have the time to get nervous, to prepare PowerPoint slides, to make lists of things they must remember to say, or have overly grandiose ideas about how much recognition they are getting. In other words, putting someone on stage and telling them they’re boss probably makes them dumber. In any case it surely makes them more boring.

First, you take the people who used to be the audience and give them a promotion. They’re now participants. Their job is to participate, not just to listen and at the end to ask questions. Then you ask everyone who was on stage to take a seat in what used to be the audience. Okay, now you have a room full of people, what exactly are they supposed to do? Choose a reporter, someone who knows something about the topic of discussion (yes, there is a topic, it’s not free-form) and knows how to ask questions and knit a story together.

Real reporters are often the best discussion leaders. Put your DL at the front of the room, with a mike in hand. A couple of people roam the room with handheld wireless mikes to put in the face of the people who are speaking. No one lines up for a mike. Think Donahue or Oprah. The DL’s job is is to craft a story from the expertise in the room. Everyone is a source, about to be interviewed by someone who’s listening. The DL may actually call on people, so no one should get the idea that they can fall asleep or daydream. Pay attention, you might be the next speaker!

. . . And it is also generally understood that a party hardly ever goes the way it is planned or intended. This last, of course, excludes those dismal slave parties, whipped and controlled and dominated, given by ogreish professional hostesses. These are not parties at all but acts and demonstrations, about as spontaneous as peristalsis and as interesting as its end product.