A Random Sidebar

I don't normally read Red State but I found myself mentioned in this brief item which linked to a larger post by Blackfive, a former Army officer, supposedly taking me to school on counterinsurgency theory. It goes off on a little tangent that's really a classic of the politics of ressentiment:

I realize that Mr. Yglesias is hampered by a Harvard education; that is a disadvantage for anyone. Harvard was once a great institution for learning, the greatest in America; but that time has long gone. It no longer educates the complete man, and yet its reputation is such that its alumni believe themselves to be educated to the highest degree. They do not grasp that their institution has failed them.

Sure, sure. And, look, I wouldn't want to pass myself off as some kind of expert on military affairs; I'd say I'm better-informed than your average political pundit, but it's not a super-high bar. Nevertheless, if one really does want to delve into the details of my undergraduate education, it's actually true that my intense skepticism about the ability of the United States to wage a successful counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq does owe something to a college course I took on military strategy. The professor was Steven Peter Rosen, and he served in the Defense Department (in the Net Assessment office) and on the National Security Council during the Reagan administration.

He runs the Olin Institute along with Samuel Huntington. Make of that what you will. I have no idea whether or not Rosen would agree with my contemporary political opinions. The point, however, is that this picture of elite educational institutions as little islands of ignorance and lefty cocooning are substantially off-base. Introductory economics, for example, was taught by a Reagan administration official until a Bush administration official took over teaching responsibilities.

Comments

Like the man said, a Harvard education is a disadvantage for anyone.

Posted by Marshall | June 26, 2007 6:06 PM

It's easy to gin up some baseless opinions about the modern top-flight American university if you weren't smart enough to get in and actually see one for yourself.

Posted by JP | June 26, 2007 6:08 PM

I think you'll find that Rosen spends more time with Rudy Giuliani than at the Olin Institute these days.

Posted by Chris | June 26, 2007 6:08 PM

If you're going to count CEAers as Reagan administration officials, then Paul Krugman counts as one too.

Nonetheless, Harvard is probably the most conservative of the Ivies by quite some distance, these days.

Posted by Chris | June 26, 2007 6:14 PM

The whole 'Eastern liberal college' meme dates back to the freaking Civil War and it's as dopey now as it was then. Bush, Cheney, and a whole bunch of their crew went to Yale for Christ's sake. Visiting Princeton is like going to 18th century Williamsburg. The most conservative guy I ever worked for was a Dartmouth grad. Using the meme just exposes someone as an ignorant idiot.

Posted by dcbob | June 26, 2007 6:32 PM

"Nonetheless, Harvard is probably the most conservative of the Ivies by quite some distance, these days."

It depends on if you're talking about the faculty or the student body. And if it's the faculty, it depends on if you mean the law school or everyone else; Yale Law is probably more conservative than Harvard Law.

I always remember the left/right taxonomy as something like Brown on the left, followed by Columbia/Cornell/Yale, followed by Harvard, followed by Penn (Wharton), followed by Princeton and Dartmouth. All of which are almost certainly left-of-center.

I like that Rosen hasn't updated his bio since 1995, which is almost pre internet.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 26, 2007 6:34 PM

Anyone else notice that the post linked to in that quote is one long love letter to, uh, feudalism? Your average reactionary's nostalgia for "better times" usually doesn't go much deeper into the past than the Victorian era.

Dude's hardcore.

Posted by Rob | June 26, 2007 6:35 PM

This is just classic conservative philistinism. I remember discussing the importance of the "mainstream media" with a conservative and making the entirely pedestrian and obvious point that commentators on the Internet didn't have the resources to do the sort of investigative reporting that the New York Times can do, which sometimes involves huge numbers of phone calls, trips out to interview people and view conditions, and an immense commitment of resources to get a story. The guy replied "of course the Internet can do investigative reporting; look at the Dan Rather typewriter story" where someone at Little Green Footballs identified the Bush National Guard documents as forgeries.

It's almost evidence-proof. Conservatives believe that the "reality-based community" is filled with biased liars with phony credentials. The idea that there is something called "reporting" that involves actually talking to people and reading documents and finding out what really happens, or that there is something called "scholarship" that involves submitting your ideas for peer review and extensive testing, and that these methods might lead one closer to the truth than a Michelle Malkin op-ed column, is simply foreign to them.

Heck, I went to a decidedly middle or lower-tier public university, and I know damned well that a Harvard education is a very legitimate credential.

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 26, 2007 6:40 PM

if you follow the link, the poster is making a point about martial culture. regardless of how you feel about whether harvard should emulate VMI (my answer is no), the poster likely is right that harvard doesn't try to inculcate the same manly virtues (as plato might have defined them, though we could obviously haggle about that) as VMI and other military academies. the fact that MY had some military history classes at harvard doesn't really refute what the poster is asserting. put another way, the objection is not to the characterization of harvard, but rather the negative value judgment placed on that characterization. (i'm guessing MY sees it as a compliment that the poster is accusing harvard of failing to emulate VMI and other military academies (the bit about the MIT riflery squad is kinda silly -- there may no longer be a rifle squad, but i'm sure undergrads spend a lot of time playing shootemup video games that have shooting and violence to spare).)

Posted by dj superflat | June 26, 2007 6:56 PM

This guy is clearly and ass, and he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. And your certainly right about his misunderstanding of the ideological makeup of Ivy league faculty and administration.

That said, I do think, Matt, that you have a typical Ivy-leaguer perspective on what is meant by "elite" in the context of the university. I think that a lot of people who attend a school like Harvard are much too comfortable with the notion that the Ivy leagues have slid seamlessly from economic and social-class elitism into academic elitism. The truth is much, much more complicated, and it is certainly a fact that there many people at Harvard, or other Ivies, who are there because of socio-economic factors and not because of any intellectual or academic worth (not the same thing, by the way). I'll again recommend Jerome Karabel's The Chosen for anyone who's interested.

But, like I said, that's kind of tangential to what you're talking about here, and it's a discussion for another time, perhaps.

Posted by Freddie | June 26, 2007 6:57 PM

From the bio Matt links to (down at the bottom): "I graduated from the University of Chicago with a MS in Computer Science."

A graduate degree form Chicago? There must be more going on here than simple prestige envy.

Posted by Trevor | June 26, 2007 6:57 PM

That's right Matt, you can't fight! Western culture demands you fight!

Posted by mq | June 26, 2007 6:59 PM

In this post Matthew Yglesias claims that a course he took at Harvard some years back makes him an expert on whatever he he is discussing, which was kind of Blackfive's point, no? The more succinct and long-standing summation is: "You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can't tell him much."

Posted by y81 | June 26, 2007 7:02 PM

Well, I suppose this guy's agonizing prose style proves he's not burdened by an excess of education.

Posted by Julian Sanchez | June 26, 2007 7:03 PM

In this post Matthew Yglesias claims that a course he took at Harvard some years back makes him an expert on whatever he he is discussing...

In fact, in this post MY specifically says that he's not an expert. Otherwise, you nailed him.

Posted by Steve | June 26, 2007 7:06 PM

Perhaps you could wait for the surge to actually start (it only started in the last week or two) before declaring it a failure? The build up period and the execution of the strategy are two different things, but perhaps the course you mentioned didn't cover advanced topics like that.

Posted by James Robertson | June 26, 2007 7:09 PM

It's amusing to read the comments on that Grim thread and the comments here. The similarities are striking, although they say the opposite of each other. The armchair psychology and sweeping generalizations about the other side, the comfortable certainty. Very funny. I will say, however, that the Grim commenters are a little more extreme and there are zero dissenters, unlike here.

Posted by a mirror | June 26, 2007 7:12 PM

he poster is accusing harvard of failing to emulate VMI and other military academies

Ummm ... what kinda military person would want any school to emulate a "military academy"? My friends in the military consistently rib on institutions like the Citidel that play-act at being military institutions ...

I call shenanigans.

Also, everbody knows that to get a real education (with the exception of Columbia which seems to have a quite rigorous undergrad program) you go to a good state school that's not too big (e.g. one of the smaller UC schools) -- not that I'm biased (go Anteaters! Zot!) ...

Posted by DAS | June 26, 2007 7:16 PM

Steve, Matt is using the classic Harvard (and, to be fair, Yale) formulation: "Well, I'm no expert, but I did take a couhse at Hahvahd from [the world's greatest expert on whatever we are discussing] and . . . ."

A Yale man would substitute "when I was in New Haven" for "at Hahvahd." Don't ask why.

Posted by y81 | June 26, 2007 7:21 PM

It was very unfair of Matt Yglesias to inject Harvard into this conversation. Oh the arrogance! Did he really need to shove it down our throats?

Posted by Barbar | June 26, 2007 7:24 PM

Oh C'mon MY, you know very well what Rosen thinks these days. He was a college roommate of Bill Kristol and wrote several opeds supporting the lead up to the Iraq War. He's a VERY intelligent man, but also a classic (if not THE classic) academic neo-con.

Posted by Tony V | June 26, 2007 7:25 PM

The criticism of Matt doesn't seem to be by Blackfive, but by somebody named Grim, whose credentials for claiming expertise in military strategy are nowhere explained that I can find, having looked at both the Blackfive site and Grim's own site.

I claim no particular expertise in such things myself, other than what I get from reading a lot of history, and talking to a number of veterans among my circle of friends and family. I'm not going to debate the merits of Grim's notions on these issues at this time, although I might post on that later tonight if I have time. I will observe, however, that every single thing on Grim's website not dealing with military strategy is obviously looney.

Posted by rea | June 26, 2007 7:31 PM

The fact that most of our "liberal" media (Russert, Matthews, Klein, etc.) in their hearts probably agree with Blackfive's definition of the "complete man" explains a lot.

Posted by vanya | June 26, 2007 7:32 PM

Too much French Matt: ressentiment. ;-)

Posted by Sean-Paul Kelley | June 26, 2007 7:54 PM

Perhaps you could wait for the surge to actually start (it only started in the last week or two) before declaring it a failure?

Perhaps none of us buy this "the surge doesn't start until we say it starts" business. Then again, if you haven't noticed by now that the date when we're allowed to decide if the war is going well is an eternally moving target, I suspect you never will.

Posted by Steve | June 26, 2007 8:02 PM

This particular comment brings one to the whole Atlantic blogger bunch. They all seem to have degrees form Harvard, and as far as I can tell, have a sum total time spent in non media employment, what Blackfive would call a real job in the real world, of zero minutes. I guess whoever runs the Atlantic knows what he wants his magazine to be like.

The ressentiment stuff is wrong though. Ressentiment means that the writer in question is secretly cowed by MY's awesome Harvard intellect or education and therefore feels the need to lash out on that score. I don't think so, most guys like that are perfectly sincere, he really means what he says and he really thinks that MY is a complete, would starve to death in the Garden of Eden without adult supervision, idiot. 'Contempt' would be a better word here than 'ressentiment'.

His sincerity doesn't mean he's right though.

Posted by j mct | June 26, 2007 8:23 PM

I kicked the computer's ass at Risk like four straight times on an old Macintosh in 1990. At the world's foremost once-Methodist now-liberal-arts university in Central Texas! So don't tell me about counterinsurgencies when Irkutsk was at risk!

Posted by norbizness | June 26, 2007 8:42 PM

Harvard does, of course, suck.

But it was curious to see the lack of conection of the military objectives to any political ones in the post linked.

This seems to me be the fundamental flaw in all of the talk anyway.

Blackfive and Grim may know their manuals and whatnot but they seem deficient in the higher art of war.

Posted by Armando | June 26, 2007 9:02 PM

Wow. Browsing the "educating the whole man" link, I ran across the amazing tidbit that the South is the true reposititory of "Western High Culture." ROFL.

Fascinating. The Confederacy resembled feudal Russia, which suffered a violent Marxist revolution, far more than it resembled the industrialized world, which avoided that catastrophe. Thankfully, "Western" cultures came to their collective senses and politically stripped the capitalists' of their most abusive powers.

Had the Southern TREASON been allowed to stand, the Confederacy would've most likely undergone a violent Marxist revolution too. Instead of Billy Jim Bob, try saying Boris Yuri Stanislav with a charming Southern drawl.

And no, my pseudonym is Finnish, thank-you-very-much.

Posted by Jalmari | June 26, 2007 9:07 PM

If you had a complete education and were a whole man, you would be, like Norman and Normanson, advocating wholesale slaughter of the Iranians.

Your sympathy for the brown Muslims proves that you are an ignoramus blowhard.

Posted by gregor | June 26, 2007 9:19 PM

If you had a complete education and were a whole man, you would be, like Norman and Normanson, advocating wholesale slaughter of the Iranians.

Your sympathy for the brown Muslims proves that you are an ignoramus blowhard.

Posted by gregor | June 26, 2007 9:19 PM

If you had a complete education and were a whole man, you would be, like Norman and Normanson, advocating wholesale slaughter of the Iranians.

Your sympathy for the brown Muslims proves that you are an ignoramus blowhard.

Posted by gregor | June 26, 2007 9:19 PM

If you had a complete education and were a whole man, you would be, like Norman and Normanson, advocating wholesale slaughter of the Iranians.

Your sympathy for the brown Muslims proves that you are an ignoramus blowhard.

Posted by gregor | June 26, 2007 9:19 PM

I think Matthew's posts here reveal the shortcomings of a Harvard education to a far greater extent than what Blackfive said. And I mean that in a helpful way.

Reason is no substitute for Knowledge of how a chainsaw actually works. Even if you are a top expert on a subject, it is difficult to blog on even just that one subject for days on end without making errors. Much less to address 15 unfamilar topics du jour, day in and day out.

The flaw lies in the blog construct itself -- which appears designed more as an instrument for broadcasting unchallenged propaganda (see Instapundit) rather than a forum for hammering out good policy based on robust review of all available facts.

The failing carries over to the mainstream newsmedia. The people of this country are supposed to be the ultimate sovereigns. But can you imagine ANY effective organization -- the military, corporations, hospitals etc -- being run in the way in which we conduct political discussions in this country?

Can you imagine any military leader or corporate CEO avoiding disaster if he received information the way it is presented by the NEw York TImes??
A barrage of random pieces of info of doubtful relevance with important facts covered up when said facts are contrary to editorial policy?

Or if Boardroom meetings were conducted in the style of the Rush Limbaugh show?
If decisions were rigged with cherry-picked info
the way they are presented on Fox News? If proposals were evaluated --not on their merits and on the facts -- but on basis of who could shout the loudest slurs and the most creative lies?

Posted by Don Williams | June 26, 2007 9:24 PM

Don Williams writes:

"Can you imagine any military leader or corporate CEO avoiding disaster if he received information the way it is presented by the NEw York TImes??"

Could it be any more of a disaster than what our beloved Commander in Chief has wrought?

Whatever the limits of the blog form, apparently the ones faced by our elite and our government were profoundly greater.

Posted by Armando | June 26, 2007 9:46 PM

It wasn't Blackfive (owner of two college degrees) who "edumacated" you, he was busy constructing another dolchstosslegende post. It was some Bush deadender named Grim. I find it fascinating that men who worship the Kagans hate the institutions that employ them and support their scholarship.
These milblogs seem to devote 50% of their time arguing the US is winning in Iraq and the other 50% of the time blaming the left for losing Iraq. They are such true believers that can't grasp the contradiction.

Do Ivy-league ROTC graduates count as complete men?
What if L. Pearce Williams was their adviser?

Posted by Pat | June 26, 2007 10:14 PM

Medieval values were honor, freedom, revenge, blood debt, and sometimes piety.

I prefer liberty, fraternity, and equality.

Posted by stm177 | June 26, 2007 10:39 PM

A graduate degree form Chicago? There must be more going on here than simple prestige envy.

This isn't here nor there re:this discussion, but having received my BA from Chicago in 2005, I can assure you this isn't the case, for a variety of reasons / in a variety of ways. Not for all of them/us, of course, but it's there.

Posted by Quarterican | June 26, 2007 10:47 PM

Considering how U Chicago is supposed to make Cornell, Johns Hopkins and MIT look like 24 Hour Party People, maybe he's bitter at the living for their souls being alive.

Posted by Reality Man | June 26, 2007 11:03 PM

I went to Harvard and my sister is currently a freshman at Chicago. I regard her school as having the more impressive academic environment.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 26, 2007 11:52 PM

I think that's great Neil. I imagine you will remove Harvard from your resume, or update your resume with your regard towards Chicago.

Matt, I think your anecdote about introductory econ is telling, because all of the economists tell us how dangerous the world is because so many people took econ 101 and never took another econ course.

Similarly saying that you in fact took one course in military strategy is in many ways very similar to saying that you are basically pretty ignorant about military strategy.

Or do you think that my taking a course in logic means I am capable of discussing philosophy or understanding or realistically participating in a discussion of philosophy?

As you said yesterday, you are a snob. You're also very sheltered and very privileged and it comes through loud and clear in many many many of your opinions.

Not so much wonkish punditry as just a bunch of stereotyping.

Question authority Matt. Put your Harvard education to use.

Posted by jerry | June 27, 2007 12:37 AM

Claiming that serving in combat is a prerequisite for wise decision-making on the application of military force to international relations is like claiming that a gerbil is an expert on the economics pet stores.

In most cases on the linked blogs, the poster's service is his/her only claim to validity, so it makes sense that they want it to be a prerequisite.

That theamericanscene.com blog is pretty interesting, though.....

Posted by vorkosigan1 | June 27, 2007 12:38 AM

Question authority Matt.

Uh, jerry? I think the people running the war are the relevant authority here. On account of they're in control of an army and all. Just saying.

Anyway, isn't it rather well established that any superior performance by students of Presitigious University X is almost all a selection effect, with maybe a bit of a bonus from networking? Which means the savvy Harvard student knows that his resume is a valuable signaling method, even if the Chicago kids worked harder. Maybe the optimal custom would be to list all the schools you were admitted to (and use the contrast with your alma matter to show good judgment)!

Posted by Trevor | June 27, 2007 12:49 AM

My deepest apolgies for the multiple copies of my post above.

I don't know how that happened.

Posted by gregor | June 27, 2007 1:02 AM

Matt does a fine job of questioning the people running the war.

But those aren't the authorities I was referring to.

I am referring to the environment that shaped Matt and shaped his hidden biases.

And I'm not attacking Matt for being biased or having biases. We all do. We are human. It's the nature or nurture thing.

I am saying that for someone that says he is a snob, and comes from Harvard, and doesn't care too much for national parks or trees or non-urban things, and that blithely says that Edwards' house is tacky, I am saying Matt clearly could be helped with a large does of check out the mirror bub.

With Matt's background questioning the Administration is easy. The hard part is questioning his own assumptions and those of the organizations he affiliates with.

This is not to say that Matt must become some sort of contrarian Democrat either. But I'm not terribly impressed with a pundit that has had one course on military strategy, and while not every that has served is not a military strategist either, I would certainly put many of their real world experiences on a par if not higher than Matt's experiences.

Matt's a pretty bright guy with a good education, but much of his punditry is "informed" with a large helping of inexperience and naivete.

Posted by jerry | June 27, 2007 1:32 AM

It's funny how Steven Peter Rosen uses his middle name as part of his working moniker. How many well-adjusted people do that?! Rather like "Sarah Jessica Parker" or "Philip Seymour Hoffman".

Posted by nbt | June 27, 2007 1:51 AM

Blackfive cheers the burning of Muhammad-effigies.

Any idiot who supports this nonsense can't have any valuable opinion on counter-insurgency in Iraq. We are talking about a moral-degenerate here, not someone who is going to help us solve a very difficult military and *cultural* problem.

Posted by SAO | June 27, 2007 6:37 AM

Have there actually been enough "successful" Western counter-insurgencies as to form a valid sample size?

Posted by El Cid | June 27, 2007 6:38 AM

It's funny how Steven Peter Rosen uses his middle name as part of his working moniker. How many well-adjusted people do that?! Rather like "Sarah Jessica Parker" or "Philip Seymour Hoffman".

Not to defend the guy, but I'm sure it's just because there's another writer named Stephen Rosen and he need to distinguish himself in library catalogs etc. Kinda like the two authors John Saul and John Ralston Saul.

Posted by Ryan | June 27, 2007 7:02 AM

"Sarah Jessica Parker" or "Philip Seymour Hoffman".

Or perhaps, to differentiate your name form others with the same, as per the Screen Actors Guild's regulations?

Posted by SAO | June 27, 2007 7:13 AM

jerry: In a post where Matt says his opinions about military strategy were influenced most not by some military-hatin' hippies but by learning from a famous conservative military expert, you tell him to "question authority." When asked what you mean by this, despite all your talk about "hidden biases," the only specific things you can point to are Matt's opinion that John Edwards' house is tacky and... your opinion that Matt should learn more about military strategy. Guh?

I'd say MY's punditry is a lot more "informed" (by which I mean, grounded in facts, logic, and reason rather than irrational emotional prejudice) than most out there. You say, to Matt: "You're also very sheltered and very privileged and it comes through loud and clear in many many many of your opinions." We're all biased, yes, but give some examples of those biases interfering with Matt's analysis and opinion of a meaningful issue (John Edwards' house and "non-urban things" just aren't cutting it).

Posted by algernon | June 27, 2007 7:39 AM

ps- not saying you're wrong, just saying you haven't come anywhere close to proving your point and have been notably thin on examples

Posted by algernon | June 27, 2007 7:41 AM

Don Williams says Can you imagine any military leader or corporate CEO avoiding disaster if he received information the way it is presented by the NEw York TImes?? A barrage of random pieces of info of doubtful relevance with important facts covered up when said facts are contrary to editorial policy?

Don, have you ever worked in the corporate world? I find this not only easy to imagine, I've sat through such presentations and reports too many times. The idea that CEOs are godlike incarnations of competence, foresight and leadership is one of the more pernicious pieces of common wisdom that goes unquestioned our elite.

Posted by vanya | June 27, 2007 8:00 AM

Re vanya's "Don, have you ever worked in the corporate world?"
--------
yes.

And while there are dishonest executives and rampant incompetence in some companies --see Enron -- try comparing a decent 10-K report with the bullshit that the news media reports to the voters of this country.

Do the voters -- the shareholders of this nation --realize that the Bush/Cheney management has been making up revenue shortfalls by raiding the pension fund -- i.e, by stealing $4 Trillion from Social Security/Medicare?

Do the voters realize that the pension funds are greatly underfunded relative to obligations?

One of the most hysterically funny aspects of the Enron affair was the sight of Congressmen criticizing Enron for its accounting. The deceitful nature of the federal government's accounting has been known for decades -- to be met with bland indifference by COngress.

Do the voters realize that the CEO is looting this enterprise for the benefit of a few powerful shareholders -- and that the voters are going to be left holding an empty shell?

Posted by Don Williams | June 27, 2007 8:45 AM

The "if you went to school X you are just a victim of lefty brainwashing" meme is pretty prevalent, and (mostly) false. Yes, there's a general liberal vibe; yes, there's a loud but small minority of students who seem to spend their time marching in solidarity with the native Huhus of Semaphore and bemoaning how Western logic is colonizing their minds; but most of the students spend most of their time learning actual stuff. Most of their learning time, that is -- simple ignorance is a bigger issue than contamination by the cooties of Left Ivory Towerism.

(As a Berkeley grad, I get this from *everybody*. Nobody remembers that John Yoo works there.)

Posted by fzz | June 27, 2007 9:37 AM

Do the voters realize that the CEO is looting this enterprise for the benefit of a few powerful shareholders -- and that the voters are going to be left holding an empty shell?

How do you know this? Did you, perhaps, read it in a newspaper?

I don't think the NYT can be held accountable for people not reading. Indeed, I'm sure they'd be happy if people read more.

Posted by THS | June 27, 2007 10:39 AM

Dude, you majored in PHILOSOPHY.

Posted by Korha | June 27, 2007 10:43 AM

I worked at Harvard. Does that make me l33t too?

Posted by jg | June 27, 2007 11:52 AM

It's amusing to read the comments on that Grim thread and the comments here. The similarities are striking, although they say the opposite of each other. The armchair psychology and sweeping generalizations about the other side...

But see, it actually matters which of the two groups has beliefs that accurately track the world and provide a good guide to the consequences of our actions. That is, it actually matters which group is *right*, not just the tone of their conversation.

So sick of the "all those bloggers are extremists" school of comfortable above-it-all piety.

Posted by mq | June 27, 2007 12:17 PM

Instead of Billy Jim Bob, try saying Boris Yuri Stanislav with a charming Southern drawl.

I fail to understand why a communist revolution in the American south would have resulted in the Russians coming to power there. Russians and Communists aren't the same thing.

Posted by John | June 27, 2007 12:35 PM

Re "How do you know this? Did you, perhaps, read it in a newspaper?"
---------
Actually , NO. I discovered it by looking at the data tables in the back of Bush's 2002 Budget and his 2007 budget.

Seeing , for example, that when Bush leaves office, he will leave a federal debt that is almost $4 Trillion more than what he promised back in Feb 2001.

That most of that debt consists of $4 Trillion in worthless IOUS that Bush gave to the Trust Funds for Social Security/Medicare as he took out $4 Trillion in real money.

I say "worthless" because I don't see the value of a retiree holding an "asset" that says the retiree gets back the $200,000 he paid into his Social Security/Medicare account provided he first pays off the $200,000 Bush IOU that his account is now holding as its only "asset".

No, I did NOT read the above information in the New York Times -- in fact, I sent the above info to the New York Times and it was ignored.

In fact, I PREDICTED the above situation would occur back in March 2001, sent that Prediction to the New York Times and saw it ignored. Maybe the fact that the New York Times owners benefitted greatly from Bush's $2 TRillion tax cut had something to do with it.

In May 2001, I posted an article titled "Why is New York Times Helping Bush Mislead America re: Tax Cut " on a leftist blog called smirkingchimp.com and then cross-posted the same article on the right wing Free Republic. The comments posted by rightwingers in the ensuing debate shows just how two-faced the right can be re "fiscal conservatism"
See http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Bmastiff+%22smirkingchimp%22+&fr=yfp-t-501&u=www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b152be33754.htm&w=bmastiff+smirkingchimp&d=QUrUmernO4MI&icp=1&.intl=us

EVERYTHING I predicted has come to pass -- but in an even worst way.

Posted by Don Williams | June 27, 2007 2:39 PM

I realize that Mr. Yglesias is hampered by a Harvard education; that is a disadvantage for anyone. Harvard was once a great institution for learning, the greatest in America; but that time has long gone.

Perhaps if this fellow had gone to Harvard, he would have learned how to use semicolons properly.

Posted by Thlayli | June 27, 2007 5:38 PM

Uh... Go Buckeyes!?

Posted by Matthew Struhar | June 27, 2007 6:39 PM

Everyone knows Harvard is the Northwestern of the East. ;)

Posted by Derek Scruggs | June 27, 2007 9:12 PM

After reading the comments I feel like I just watched a succession of dogs pissing on the same spot.

And what's with the complete man thing? Is that that some sort of DL code for gay?

Posted by betaman | June 27, 2007 9:26 PM

"Matt's a pretty bright guy with a good education, but much of his punditry is "informed" with a large helping of inexperience and naivete."

Matt, go dig some ditches so you can have some real world experience then come back and start posting again.

Really?

To look at this another way, remove Matt's name in the above quote and insert "George Bush" or "Dick Cheney"...these guys running our military into the ground with zero time served between them.

Posted by Mike P | June 27, 2007 10:11 PM

Well, I guess if you can't go to Cornell, Harvard's a half-decent backup plan.

Seriously, though, military science is a science of sorts, but it isn't rocket science, if you know what I mean. It's quite possible to develop an informed opinion without being a member of the War College.

Posted by mike in dc | June 28, 2007 9:33 AM

RedState is utterly unreadable since the immigration debate got going. Please stay away.

Posted by Former Red State Reader | June 28, 2007 12:27 PM

Wow, and here I thought Ward Churchill was Harvards expert on military history.....sheesh

Posted by r4d20 | June 28, 2007 7:42 PM