Just because several pundits choose to write about the same topic in the same week doesn't mean anybody knows what the hell they're talking about.

But... when three influential pundits are all saying virtually the same thing on the same day, it's likely they will at least shape media (and therefore public) perceptions.

David Brooks wrote about the new optimism in geopolitics -- "Why not freedom here?" -- in a must-read column yesterday. (Excerpted at the end of this post if you don't read the Times on general principles.)

Now Thomas Friedman and Michael Barone write essentially the same story: that, whether you wish to give Bush credit or not, the world has changed since the Iraqi elections of 30 January.

Thomas Friedman, realizing he's been beaten to the punch by fellow Timesman Brooks, avoids mention of Kuhnian paradigm shifts and speaks instead of "tipping points":

he other night on ABC's "Nightline," the host, Ted Koppel, posed an intriguing question to Malcolm Gladwell, the social scientist who wrote the path-breaking book "The Tipping Point," which is about how changes in behavior or perception can reach a critical mass and then suddenly create a whole new reality. Mr. Koppel asked: Can you know you are in the middle of a tipping point, or is it only something you can see in retrospect?

...

Mr. Koppel was raising the question because he wanted to explore whether the Iraqi elections marked a tipping point in history. I was on the same show, and in mulling over this question more I think that what's so interesting about the Middle East today is that we're actually witnessing three tipping points at once.

Which he identifies as the Iraqi elections, the Lebanese uprising against Syria, and the possibility of a real Israel-Palestinian peace. After the obligatory and obvious (and word-count padding) disclaimers about how anything can go to hell at any time, he concludes:

Nevertheless, what's happened in the last four weeks is not just important, it's remarkable. And if we can keep all three tipping points tipped, it will be incredible.

Michael Barone also uses the term "tipping point" as a hook (citing, actually, Friedman's appearance on Nightline), noting that minds are changing in a column called, uhhh, Minds Are Changing. He confesses to have been previously over-optimistic about the pace of change in Iraq...

But the spectacle of 8 million Iraqis braving terrorists to vote on January 30 seems to have moved things up to breakneck speed.

Evidence abounds. Consider what is happening in Lebanon...

eporting from Beirut last week, [the Washington Post's David Ignatius] wrote movingly of "the movement for political change that has suddenly coalesced in Lebanon and is slowly gathering force elsewhere in the Arab world."

Ignatius interviewed Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader long a critic of the United States. Jumblatt's words are striking: "It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

...

Or read Claus Christian Malzahn in Der Spiegel. "Maybe the people of Syria, Iraq, or Jordan will get the idea in their heads to free themselves from their oppressive regimes just as the East Germans did," he writes. "Just a thought for Old Europe to chew on: Bush might be right, just like Reagan was."

It is often said that the press is lazy and prone to herd-thinking, simply parroting the received wisdom of the elite urban caste.

And while the media's favorite narrative is the one they've simply repeated ad nauseum for years -- after all, that's the easiest one -- their second-favorite narrative is one of Major Change With Serious Implications.

Perhaps Brooks, Barone, and Friedman will together produce another stampede of media group-think.

And if they do, we shouldn't think necessarily that they're right; they'll just be mindlessly repeating the new buzzwords "Kuhnian paradigm shifts" and "tipping points" as they were previously repeating "quagmire" and "exit strategy" a month ago.

The evidence is still out as to whether we will see a real paradigm shift in world geopolitics; but there is a fair chance of a paradigm shift in media groupthink.

And I wouldn't complain too much about that.

A lazy, soft-headed media is still a lazy, soft-headed media, but it's about time they were soft-headed towards the possibility-- the possibility, mind you-- that freedom works.

Fourth Time a Charm? Actually, the first time, as NRO Corner writer Mark Krikonian wondered Thursday morning if 2005 might not witness a bubble of revolutions not seen since 1848.

Posted by: Ace at 10:02 PM | Comments (19)
Post contains 809 words, total size 5 kb.

Regarding FoxNews' large number of viewers:

TheyÂ’re giving their ideological audience what that ideological audience wants. They bought into a belief system that canÂ’t be challenged by any evidence to the contrary. -- Bill Moyers

From the adulatory interview everyone's linking.

He does say something I think most of us would agree with:

But thereÂ’s no institution more immune to criticism than the media.

But of course by that he means that the New York Times has just been too gosh-darn easy on the Bush Administration.

He also veers off into Michael Moore territory:

There are always a lot of people who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth. In this case, a majority of voters knew exactly what you’re saying, yet voted for him none the less. They did so for one of two reasons. First, Bush had America scared to death. And fear was the dominant issue in that campaign, not moral values. Second, many of Bush’s supporters buy into the belief system that he and his allies have propounded. And in that belief system — which is supported by Fox News and talk radio — no evidence to the contrary can be permitted.

Ideologues embrace a worldview that cannot be changed because they admit no evidence to the contrary. The Washington Post had a story about a study recently about how even if what people first hear turns out to be wrong, they still tend to believe itÂ’s true. ThatÂ’s because, if it fits their value system, they donÂ’t change it after they learn itÂ’s not true. ItÂ’s a weird phenomenon. IÂ’d also say conservatives have never been more politically dominant and more intellectually and morally bankrupt. Because of that they can keep their troops believing the Big Lie. The Big Lie is that the threat of Al Qaeda is greater to us than the threat of low wages, environmental pollution, the growing inequality in America, or the terrible failure of the Bush policies on schools. People just didnÂ’t want the uncomfortable truth to disturb the comfortable lie.

Hey, nitwit, let me explain something to you. Low wages, etc., have been problems in this country since its founding, and furthermore, we have been addressing these problems (to the extent they are problems, rather than bugaboos imagined by leftists like you) by incrementalist reforms.

On the other hand, the threat of suddenly being killed by terrorists is a rather new phenomenon, and does not readily admit to an incrementalist approach.

Does this simpering red-diaper baby really imagine that he is non-ideological? If Bill Moyers isn't an ideologue on the left, who the hell would be?

You can read the rest of it, but it's more of the same.

Posted by: Ace at 07:23 PM | Comments (39)
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.

Big spoilers-- at least there are spoilers if you didn't know the film would feature 1) light sabres 2) space battles 3) dorky-looking Imperial droids and 4) Anakin ending up looking like a Deadite captain from Army of Darkness.

Do we still care? I don't, really, and yet there is still some hopeful eight-year-old kid inside of me hoping that maybe Lucas gets one right for a change, instead of producing another tech-heavy Willow.

Amish provides the link.

Coming Soon Trailers: Haiku contest winners to be announced late tonight or early tomorrow.

Hopefully, Jeff Gannon will respond to our questions by early next week, as I just sent him out the questions I'd like him to answer.

And then, sadly, the Jeff Gannon banner will come down.

We cannot mourn him forever. We must find the mettle to soldier on without him, else we tarnish his memory with our cowardice.

Posted by: Ace at 06:46 PM | Comments (7)
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

In '92, '96, 2000, and 2004, the BEA has overprojected the rate of GDP growth for the last quarter before the election when a Democrat was the incumbent, and underprojected the rate of growth when a Republican was the incumbent.

Granted, this is a tiny sample size. It's difficult to get animated about what could very well be a normal run of chance.

Still, it is interesting. I'm not ready to cry "Conspiracy!," but if one suspects, as I do, that the majority of bureaucrats working in Washington are Democrats (often of a liberal stripe), then one does begin to wonder, just a bit, if a partisan pessimism creeps into their analyses when a Republican is in office, and a partisan optimism helps goose the numbers when a Democrat is in office.

One of the mis-projections is trivial; just one tenth of one percent. But two others are substantial-- a half a percent, and one time (in 1992, amidst claims that George Bush the Elder had put the economy into the toilet for the foreseeable future), .7%.

Probably nothing to get excited about... still, it's an interesting little historical nugget dug up by a blogger, and it represents original reportage of a sort. So I'm happy to link it.

Posted by: Ace at 06:13 PM | Comments (5)
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

Can you lose your tenure for just being an f'n' douchebag?

And... Video of Maurice "Moonbat" Hinchey on Hannity and Colmes.

Get a load of this guy.

Update-- Churchill Will Go Quietly... For $10 Million: Otherwise he'll sue you and everyone you know and work with, Jerky-Boyz style.

Thanks to JimW.

Posted by: Ace at 10:21 AM | Comments (26)
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Overstated, perhaps, but two interesting stories suggest that Syria might have made its last consequence-free mistake.

From World Net Daily:

'U.S. will get Syria out by May'

Former Lebanese PM says war in Iraq will allow his country to be free

By Aaron Klein

JERUSALEM -- The U.S. led war against terrorism and its advances in Iraq and Afghanistan have enhanced the climate in the Middle East and will enable the international community to force Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon likely by May, former Lebanese Prime Minister Michel Aoun told WorldNetDaily today in an exclusive interview.

"The U.S. and EU are backing us in our movement to free Lebanon," said Aoun, speaking to WND from France. "They are interfering through diplomacy and threats of sanctions, and the situation is such today that Syria must comply. If the U.S. and Europe follow through, Syria will be obliged to withdraw before Lebanese elections in May."

Without offering a timeline, Syria announced Wednesday it will withdraw its troops from Lebanon to the eastern Bekaa Valley....

"The U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have changed the Middle East. Not only the attacks to oust the rulers of those countries, but the consequences of the attacks changed things as well. They are democratizing the region and this will put pressure on [Syrian President Bashar] Assad to follow through," said Aoun.

"All these changes in the Middle East make obsolete the previous ways of Syria in dealing with Lebanon and Syria's involvement with political terrorism, which is not accepted anymore."

Meanwhile, a reader of TKS says...

...that the Iraqi forces are being built up to eventually take action against Syria. He adds the military action would be associated with Syria's refusal to police the border with Iraq to prevent terrorists and Baathists from entering Iraq.

This oddly echoes Kevin McCullough’s Pentagon source who said yesterday, “Likely, Syria's meddling in Iraq and the upcoming Lebanese elections will provide sufficient trigger for some "coalition" action. That action may well have an "Iraqi" face.”

The liberals may bleat, but a couple of points:

1) Europe actually seems to give a rat's ass about Lebanon's freedom, largely because France has always viewed itself as the protector of Lebanon's Christians. They might even pony up peace-keepers to keep order as the Syrian army departs.

2) It would not take a land invasion to drive Syria from Lebanon, should it come to that. Airstrikes on their troops should encourage them to depart as soon as humanly possible.

3) We wouldn't have to invade or occupy Syria, which we don't consider a threat like Iraq or Iran at this point; simply driving Syrian from Lebanon, and perhaps hitting military targets within Syria, would be enough. Not all military action needs to be a full-scale Iraq-style invasion and occupation (and reconstruction); American airpower can make life miserable for an intransigent regime.

I don't agree with Pat Buchanan much these days, but I do agree with his critique that Bush has to stop "warning" countries and threatening consequences unless he's actually prepared to do so-- unless he wants to see his credibility fall to nearly UN-levels.

Perhaps Bush agrees, and is putting out these sorts of low-key, unofficial threats out there to let Damascus know we're serious... or that we soon might be.

Related: David Brooks catches a bad case of optimism in a must-read column:

This is the most powerful question in the world today: Why not here? People in Eastern Europe looked at people in Western Europe and asked, Why not here? People in Ukraine looked at people in Georgia and asked, Why not here? People around the Arab world look at voters in Iraq and ask, Why not here?

Thomas Kuhn famously argued that science advances not gradually but in jolts, through a series of raw and jagged paradigm shifts. Somebody sees a problem differently, and suddenly everybody's vantage point changes.

"Why not here?" is a Kuhnian question, and as you open the newspaper these days, you see it flitting around the world like a thought contagion. Wherever it is asked, people seem to feel that the rules have changed. New possibilities have opened up.

...

Stephen Sestanovich of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote an important essay for this page a few weeks ago, arguing that American diplomacy is often most effective when it pursues not an incrementalist but a "maximalist" agenda, leaping over allies and making the crude, bold, vantage-shifting proposal - like pushing for the reunification of Germany when most everyone else was trying to preserve the so-called stability of the Warsaw Pact.

I was skeptical of Bush's full-throated call to place freedom and democracy at the heart of American foreign policy, and I guess I remain so.

But I guess we'll just have to see, won't we?

Read the whole thing. I don't think I've excerpted the best parts, because most of the essay is "best parts."

Posted by: Ace at 10:15 PM | Comments (12)
Post contains 828 words, total size 5 kb.

I always thought it would be difficult to switch from a guest to a host. That's why I think Ann Coulter doesn't have a show yet.

I hope Michelle does well. I'm sure we'll all be watching.

Video Update: Trey Jackson has video of Michelle's guest-hosting spot.

Posted by: Ace at 04:59 PM | Comments (12)
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently Keith "Dog With An Unfunny Bone" Olbermann has been dedicating show after show to savaging our Immortal Hero, Jeff Gannon, the same as he beat various dead horses such as all that "Republican vote fraud" in Florida and Ohio you haven't been hearing about (because no one watches Keith Olbermann).

An unknown commenter points out that Drudge has taken a little dig at Not-Funny Keith:

CABLE NEWS RACE
THURS., FEB 24, 2005

FNC O'REILLY 2,181,000 [VIEWERS]
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,622,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,386,000
FNC BRIT HUME 1,318,000
...
and at the very bottom of the list:
MNSBC OLBERMANN/GANNON 208,000

Heh, heh.

But then again, perhaps Olbermann will soon get better ratings.

After all, a wise man once said: "With Jeff Gannon, all things are possible."

Jeff Gannon: REAL Ultimate Power Update: Well, it was only a matter of time. In the spirit of the web-classic Ninjas: REAL Ultimate Power comes this work of devotion to Jeff Gannon:

Hi, this post is all about Jeff Gannon, REAL JEFF GANNON. This post is awesome. I'm a left-wing blogger, and I can't stop thinking about Jeff Gannon. This guy is cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet.

Facts:

1. Jeff Gannon is a mammal.
2. Jeff Gannon makes out with right-wing extremist guys ALL the time.
3. The purpose of Jeff Gannon is to flip out and ask crazy questions at press conferences.

Posted by: Ace at 04:42 PM | Comments (14)
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

Although the military has put off funding the next phase of development for its unmanned, armed robotic kill-copter, they're still doing some tests on weapons systems.

And Boeing has just weaponized one of its special-forces unmanned copters, too.

Link Fixed. Thanks, Tall Dave.

Loose sh*t.

Posted by: Ace at 04:34 PM | Comments (4)
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

Chiefly due to increased optimism about the elections some said would never be held, and would never work:

Australia said it would dispatch 450 new troops to Iraq -- more than double the number of its forces now deployed in the country....

Portugal could send back almost as many troops as it had earlier deployed in Iraq....

Poland, which withdrew 700 of its 2,400 troops this month and said it would withdraw the rest this year, is now sending a general to Washington to discuss how to restructure the Polish mission to contribute to training.

The Ukraine, Macedonia, and the Netherlands are also considering taking a greater role in training Iraqi forces and police.

Strategery Fever-- Catch It!

Posted by: Ace at 01:52 PM | Comments (10)
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.