Who knew that astronauts led such soap opera lives!

I
jest. I wanted to be an astronaut for many years until I discovered
that I’m terrified of flying. And heights. And gosh darn, if space
travel doesn’t combine both of those!

But the actions of Lisa Marie Bowak sorta make me want to reconsider: Am I truly missing out on something?

Let’s trace through these events as best as we can.

What Are They For?

I’m sure most readers know why I
highlight the absurdity that is Joe Klein on a regular basis, but maybe
I should explain. The institution of Elite Punditry is premised on the
notion that there are smart people with good judgment who have the
unique ability to distill the complexity of the world, and nuance which
is potentially not present in straight news stories, into an
understandable narrative. Their role isn’t simply to opine, but to
provide guidance and analysis – tempered by that supposed good judgment
– for people who presumably have less time than they do to sort through
the all of the news of the day. And, at times, especially when they go
on the teevee on roundtable or other situations when there are a
variety of viewpoints being expressed, they are there to represent, if
not parrot, an ideological position. So, when Shields and Brooks go on
the Newshour every Friday their role is, in part, to represent the
liberal and conservative viewpoints at least in broad terms.

Klein
has failed on all of these counts. On Iraq, he failed to have, or at
least express, good judgment. On the teevee where he plays “the
liberal,” he not only didn’t take the anti-war position, he actually
took the pro-war position.

Even worse than that, he wants to
absolve himself of any responsibility, undermining the entire premise
of Elite Punditry – That Words Mean Things and They Matter. If Joe
Klein thinks there should be no accountability for the positions held
by Elite Pundits, that their influence is unimportant and irrelevant,
then it isn’t clear what exactly they’re for. His judgment sucks and
that doesn’t matter, Klein seems to think. He had a chance to take a
stand when it mattered, and he didn’t, and that doesn’t matter, Klein
seems to think.

Fine. So why the hell should anyone listen to him?

Eschaton

• Mike Stark’s diary

Daily Kos: My talk with Jonah Goldberg: He says the French were right!

Reuters from WaPo

By Daisuke Wakabayashi
Reuters
Tuesday, February 6, 2007; 3:25 PM

FORT LEWIS, Wash (Reuters) – The U.S. government began its
case against an Army officer being court-martialed for refusing
to fight in Iraq by accusing him on Tuesday of making
“disgraceful” statements and abandoning his unit.

First Lt. Ehren Watada faces up to four years in a military
prison and a dishonorable discharge if convicted on a charge of
missing movements for not deploying to Iraq and two charges of
conduct unbecoming an officer for his criticism of the war.

Watada, whose supporters say is the first commissioned Army
officer to publicly refuse to fight in Iraq, has called the war
illegal and immoral. He rejected conscientious objector status,
saying he would be willing to fight in Afghanistan.

Government and defense lawyers laid out their arguments to
a seven-member panel of officers, the equivalent of a jury in a
civilian trial, who will determine Watada’s fate.

“The accused sat comfortably in his office while the
soldiers in his unit deployed to Iraq,” said Capt. Scott Van
Sweringen, the prosecuting attorney. “The manner and content of
his statements were disgraceful.”

Watada, 28, does not deny that he refused to go to Iraq,
criticized the war and accused U.S. President George W. Bush’s
administration of deceiving the American people to enter into a
war of aggression.

“There are no real facts in dispute here,” said Watada’s
lawyer, Eric Seitz. “The only real question is why.”

The defense aims to show that Watada acted on principle and
tried to avoid a public confrontation with the Army by offering
to resign his commission or fight elsewhere.

Seitz told reporters on Monday he would consider a lighter
sentence for Watada as a victory after the military judge
limited the scope of the defense strategy.

The judge, Lt. Col. John Head, denied the defense’s motion
to argue the legality of the war, saying it was not a matter
for a military court. He also disallowed the defense’s entire
witness list as irrelevant.

The two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer stem from
public comments Watada made encouraging soldiers “to throw down
their weapons” to resist an authoritarian government at home.

Defense lawyers had intended to argue that his comments
were free speech protected by the U.S. Constitution. The judge
decided prior to the trial that there are limits to an
officer’s rights to free speech.

The military panel will decide whether Watada’s criticism
amounted to misconduct posing a danger to the loyalty,
discipline, mission and morale of the troops.

“He was acting out of his own conscience. He was not
compelling anyone to act out,” said Seitz. “At most, he engaged
in an act of civil disobedience.”

The defense is expected to present its case on Wednesday.
If a guilty verdict is returned, the trial will enter the
sentencing phase.

© 2007 Reuters