I DO NOT WANT YOU TO READ ME THE SPEECH OBAMA IS GOING TO GIVE IN AN HOUR.

There is a reason I’m watching the Convention on television. TO WATCH OBAMA GIVE HIS ACCEPTANCE SPEECH — not hear it from you before he’s even walked onto the stage.

You bastards are like a guy in line at the theater who loudly proclaims the ending of the movie.

Off to C-SPAN for me.

An aside: Can anyone confirm that all those little flags the delegates are waving are union-made? Can’t be shipping our flag-making to China any more!

But another news item of immense import surfaced today as well: the agreement by the Iraqi and American governments on a deadline for the withdrawal of most U.S. troops by 2011.

Now, aside from the groundbreaking nature of this agreement, I would like to suggest a possible impact on the presidential election.

Given that a large part of the campaign (aside from the economy) is centered around foreign policy (especially Iraq, Afghanistan and, more recently, Georgia), does this agreement not, in some respects, take the issue of when to bring the troops home off the table?

And, if so, does that not hurt Obama more than McCain? As it is, Obama has been able to hammer McCain on his judgment in sending troops to Iraq (while Obama opposed it in the first place) and his (out of context) comment about remaining in Iraq for a hundred years. By losing this as an issue, Obama loses one of his most effective talking points and the motivation for some of his supporters to work so diligently for the campaign.

Hopefully, I am overestimating the impact this agreement will have on the campaign, but it should be interesting to watch unfold.

For the conspiracy theorists out there: Does this also not smack of a President Bush playing politics with the war?

Joe lied to me. He said parking would be a breeze on Saturday. Fortunately, there was a breeze as we walked from 7th Street to the Convention Center on 2nd.

We couldn’t get into the main exhibition hall because we didn’t have credentials (oh-so-Democratic!), so we headed over to another hall to scour all the booths and peer into the delegate registration areas looking for extra convention bags. I “stole” five or six delegate convention bags — the bags given to delegates commemorating the Convention and filled with schwag — at the Convention in 2004. This time, we either got there too late and they’d been hauled away the extras or they learned from last year not to leave them out. Either way, we couldn’t find any with which to, as Misty said on Twitter, abscond.

After failing to sticky-finger any bags, we wandered among the rows of Democratic organization tables, where they hawked T-shirts, buttons and god-knows-what-else. We didn’t see Joe, who was supposed to be manning the HDCC table, but we did see the abandoned TFN table — they took down their table prematurely not knowing that today would be packed.

We headed to the main exhibit hall entrance to try to see what was going on. A guy offered us Guest Passes, so we walked a quarter-mile through the Convention Center to get to the guest entrance only to find that it was a big-screen feed from the main hall. Motherfucker.

They started the ceremonies and then broke in with Hillary Clinton’s concession speech (finally!), but the feed kept dying, Hillary kept freezing on the screen and the audio went dead repeatedly. We finally headed home.

Now we’re drinking at Dolce Vita and considering heading to the Helio Sequence show at Mohawk.

There’s been a lot of, frankly, ridiculous prophesying that Obama or Clinton will show up, but that has finally been put to rest by Obama tapping Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine (he with the eyebrow) to attend on his behalf and Clinton’s all-but-certain withdrawal from the race on Saturday. Still, some people just never give up hope (it took him until the Clinton campaign announced its ending to get the picture).

Along with the convention there always comes a host of parties thrown by legislators, lobbyists, supporters of presidential candidates and, well, bloggers. While the Texas “‘netroots” (or “Texroots”) may not be the powerful political force they believe themselves to be, I’m certain they’re fun to get drunk with. Personally, I want to see Vince Leibowitz table-dance.

While I’d like to say that I will attend the Blogger’s Caucus or one of the many other parties, I can’t guarantee anything. See, after I have my double whiskey and three beers at Dolce Vita on the way home from work (usually between four and six) each day, I rarely want to venture out once I get home.

Not that it matters if I show up. I’m no big Texas political personality. In fact, I’ve only ever broken one story (this, obviously, doesn’t count because it was IRL rather than online), and most of the blogosphere probably still resents me for running Ray McMurrey‘s unsuccessful campaign against Rick Noriega (our campaign still being the best thing to ever happen to Rick).

So, maybe I’ll make it to a party — especially the Blogger’s Caucus — and maybe I won’t. No biggie. I’ll get drunk either way and no one will miss me.

UPDATE: Yes, that is a picture of me on the cover of this magazine.

Lt. Col. Edith A Disler, an associate professor of English and deputy head of the Department of English at the Air Force Academy, argues that the Air Force is attempting to reassert its masculinity through language.

Essentially, she argues that two prominent, rather recent linguistic changes or additions have intentionally excluded women serving in the Air Force.

After deeming the Air Force a support service (rather than a mainly combat service; which I would argue is correct in our current conflicts aside from the Close Air Support they provide allied ground troops), she writes:

Women have long and proudly served in almost any support function one can name — the types of functions dominant in the Air Force today. In the face of this reality, its feminine implications, and leadership’s sense that “Congress doesn’t see what the Air Force is bringing to the fight,” inhabitants of the E-ring have engaged a stealthy and powerful weapon of choice — language — to consciously instantiate reification of the male elite. Such language cloaks women in the Air Force as assuredly as our enemies and potential enemies cloak their women in conservative Islamic dress. Sadly, the use of the term “wingman” is just the start.

I’m not certain that it’s a conscious decision on the part of the Air Force leadership to exclude women through the use of language. I do think they should have taken into consideration the diversity of the force, though. There’s no excuse for the Air Force leadership to have missed the implications of such uses of language. But I don’t think it was malicious.

She does make a good point when she says this, though:

Were you to attempt to attract my attention by calling out, “Hey there, airman,” I would assume that a young enlisted member was nearby and I would neither lift my head nor break my stride. Further, as a lieutenant colonel, I consider myself an airman neither by rank nor by sex.

I don’t want to quote too much more because I want those of you who, like me, enjoy the study of language to read the article yourselves, but I did want to add this:

Lt. Col. Disler recounts watching a video that encouraged airmen to turn in other airmen they witnessed perpetrating a rape:

The video implores its viewers to “take care of your wingman.” Apparently the leadership didn’t know that they’d perpetrated a double entendre of the grandest proportion. In the parlance of today’s 20-somethings, a man who knows that another male is a sexual predator and facilitates that predatory nature is known as a “wingman.” Enter the term into your search engine of choice and you will learn that a “wingman” is a man who occupies the attentions of less attractive women so that his “pilot” can target, as it were, the attractive ones. In the Air Force video, the airman rapist, a man, is known by a friend, a man, to be a sexual predator — the enabler is thus the “wingman” of popular American culture.

. . .

At best, the leadership is out of touch with the societal surround of the demographic at which the film was targeted: 19-25 year olds. At worst, the leadership has created a nefarious subtext. Overtly, the leadership is sending a message of teamwork; covertly, however, the Air Force video invokes a term — “wingman” — peculiar to the overwhelmingly male-dominated fighter aircraft community, thereby reinforcing predatory “work hard, play hard” behaviors consistent with the “flyboy” myth of the fighter pilot. In lieu of the term “wingman,” the leadership could easily have invoked a plethora of more widely known, or at least non-gendered, terms that denote teamwork and mutual concern. Instead, the leadership chose a term from the Air Force community statistically least populated by women, nepotistically retaining delusions of self-made grandeur in hopes of fending off threats to the service’s masculinity.

I agree, I agree. I do think the Air Force leadership is out of touch with the civilian world, and especially the age group she mentions — just like the civilian world is almost completely out of touch with the military subculture. I also think that this argument (that the Air Force used a loaded word in the video that will/would likely result in ridicule rather than instruction) is stronger than her first (that the Air Force is consciously making malicious decisions in their use of language).

I will agree that, on some level, these are conscious decisions, especially in the case of the rape video. “Wingman” is probably used more by civilian college-age males than Air Force personnel (given that pilots are a fairly small percentage of the force). However, again, I don’t believe it is malicious.

And I love her closing:

Words create our worlds — hostile worlds, gentle worlds, artistic worlds and militaristic worlds. The words “duty, honor, country,” “integrity, service, excellence,” “selflessness,” and “sacrifice” invoke worlds that demand devotion enough, without ranking maleness above femaleness or killing above reluctance to kill.

Read the whole thing and let me know what you think.

Conservatives such as Noonan hoped that 9/11 would bring back the best of the 1940s and ’50s, playing Pearl Harbor to a new era of patriotism and solidarity. Many on the left feared that it would restore the worst of the same era, returning us to the shackles of censorship and conformism, jingoism and Joe McCarthy. But as far as Hollywood is concerned, another decade entirely seems to have slouched round again: the paranoid, cynical, end-of-empire 1970s.

He then goes through many film genres and compares recent films to those made in the ’70s. He even gives shout-outs to some of my favorite television shows: The Wire and Battlestar Galactica.

. . . [T]he first great revisionist sci-fi serial, Battlestar Galactica, helmed by an ex–Star Trek writer and featuring enough sex, violence, and religious fanaticism to set Gene Roddenberry spinning in his grave.

Most important, though, is that he questions the reason we have returned to such a style:

This last reality brings us to the question of how authentic our back-to-the-’70s moment really is. The Vietnam War was a cultural phenomenon in part because it couldn’t help being one—there was no way for Americans to keep the war at arm’s length, not with more than 50,000 dead, a million deployed over the course of the war, and every able-bodied teen and twentysomething at risk of conscription. In contrast, the Iraq War, a lower-casualty conflict fought by an all-volunteer military, takes place at a greater distance from the everyday lives of those Americans who don’t have a family member deployed overseas. The objective correlatives needed for a truly pessimistic era simply don’t exist for many Americans today. The last time around, we were participants; this time, we’re voyeurs.

It’s an interesting view. Read it yourself.

In other news, the Supreme Court has just ruled “that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.” This is just bad public policy that hurts the poor, minorities, the elderly and the disabled. Ugh.

Army Gen. David Petraeus, the four-star general who led troops in Iraq for the past year, will be nominated by President Bush to be the next commander of U.S. Central Command, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.

Gates said he expected Petraeus to make the shift in late summer or early fall. The Pentagon chief also announced that Bush will nominate Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno to replace Petraeus in Baghdad.

Central Command oversees the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

. . .

At a hastily arranged Pentagon news conference, Gates said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other problems in the Central Command area of responsibility, demand knowledge of how to fight counterinsurgencies as well as other unconventional conflicts.

“I don’t know anybody in the U.S. military better qualified to lead that effort,” he said, referring to Petraeus.

Asked if moving Petraeus from the Iraq command could interrupt momentum against the insurgency, Gates said that by waiting until late summer or early fall he hoped to “ensure plenty of time to prepare for a good handoff.” He said it also would help that Odierno has had experience as “Petraeus’ right-hand man” over the last year.

If confirmed by the Senate, Petraeus would replace Navy Adm. William Fallon, who abruptly stepped down in March after a magazine reported that he was at odds with President Bush over Iran policy. Fallon said the report, while not true, had become a distraction.

[Emphasis Mine]

A truer statement than Secretary Gates’ I could not make.

Some of my favorite COIN bloggers, though, disagree with Gen. Petraeus’ appointment — and its possible after-effects.

You (Obama) lifted your finger to your face, and you, you know, “scratched.” Sure, it might have looked innocent enough. Faces itch sometimes, whatever. But we know what you were doing. We know why you used your middle finger to do it. Mr. Obama, you Flipped the Bird. And, on behalf of Hillary Clinton—obviously, the intended recipient of your crude gesture—we are Very Offended.

Please. Say it ain’t so.

[Columbia Journalism Review]