Brooks blathers on today (sub.). Something about Blair and people named Huntington and Macmurray, and "Westphalian systems." It's so tedious. And then, in one fell swoop, Brooks sums The World up:

There has been a sharp rise in the number of people who think it’s insane to try to export our values into alien cultures. Instead of emphasizing our common community, people are more likely to emphasize the distances and conflicts between cultures. Whether the subject is immigration, trade or foreign affairs, there is a greater desire to build separation fences because differences in values seem deeply rooted and impossible to erase.

No, Brooks. It's not all that stuff that's got everyone all worked up.

All people want is for the United States to stop bombing other countries for no reason.

That's it. That's what people think is insane. Very simple.

It has nothing to do with "exporting our values," unless somehow you think dropping bombs on people for no reason is an effective way of exporting our values.

Oh, and something funny in the Brooks column today; a one-liner from the editors, at the end:

Paul Krugman is on vacation.

It's as if they're saying, "Sorry, this is all we've got for you."

Graffiti is illegal. Thinking about graffiti shouldn't be. And yet here in NYC, a City Council member is going after "criminal" college students participating in a class called Geek Graffiti:

Parsons The New School for Design can expect a call from anti-graffiti crusader Peter Vallone Jr....who this week introduced new legislation targeting graffiti vandals...Mr. Vallone said he considers the language on the class site an invitation to break the law.

"He'll be giving his students As, but we'll be giving them A misdemeanors," Mr. Vallone said. He is going to contact Parsons to complain about the course, he said.

If you're not familiar, Parsons is a prestigious NYC design school, graduating fashionistas such as Donna Karan, Marc Jacobs, and Tom Ford.

From the course description, it's clearly an intellectual exercise, exploring the meaning of graffiti in our culture. Students are expected to get their ideas out in the public domain, receiving an automatic "A" if they get some fame -- front page of digg or youtube, for example.

(Has Vallone handed everyone in class a "A" already?)

The students are expected NOT to break any laws in this class:

Graffiti by its very definition is illegal. In this course we will not be breaking any laws but we will be thinking very hard about what could be possible if we did. Projects will be built, prototyped, and presented as "concepts". Students are not expected to implement their projects in the city but are required to justify where, why, and how they would ideally exist.

Clearly there's a difference between promoting or encouraging graffiti, and exploring, in an academic environment, the meaning of graffiti as a means of expression in an urban setting.

Not sure if, with everything going on in New York City, these students really need to be the target of some politician's grandstanding.

One of the GOP Gang of Eleven already capitulates:

But when asked how he would react to a “negative report” by Gen. David Petraeus in the fall, LaHood left open the possibility that he would continue to support the current course. “It depends on what Petraeus says. I mean if we are making some progress and we need to move ahead more aggressively — it will — for me, it’s going to depend on what he says in terms of where we’re at and what the way forward looks like in terms of success.”

Didn't matter. Bush wasn't listening anyway.

You're either with him or against him.

Doubt this will amount to anything:

Eleven moderate House Republicans had an unannounced meeting with president and his top aides at the White House yesterday...They said the meeting was a very blunt discussion. Bush was reportedly told that the war is unsustainable without public support and is having a corrosive effect on G-O-P political fortunes.

NBC seems to be making a big deal about this tonight. Bush apparently being told the war is lost, and everyone knows it.

I'm sure they were met with platitudes, one-liners about winning and new strategies.

Perhaps these GOPs will realize the futility of it all.

You're either with him or against him.

A new feature here, perhaps...highlighting why the Republican candidates for President are not only wrong, but, just really, really dumb.

Today's edition: Romney.

(Note: You may be asking, does this post contribute to the perception that the netroots are only capable of mindless, vitriolic partisan attacks? Does this not stoop to the level of our opponents?

Yes. I believe it does.)

Sigh. Why do I read this stuff?

In this moment, the commander in chief has a clear plan -- to apply more military force in and around Baghdad in hopes of suppressing the sectarian violence and creating space for the Iraqi politicians...

Is this really a "clear strategy"? More like a short-term tactic. And in any case, it won't work. We all know that. Not enough troops, and the insurgency simply lays low until we stop surging.

The Democratic-controlled Congress, on the other hand, lacks agreement on any such plan.

Last I checked, the Congress did "agree" on a plan -- they passed a bill the President vetoed. Unless Broder thinks Congressional "agreement" implies unanimity. Of course, it does not.

Come September, when Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, says that he will be able to judge whether the new tactics and the nearly 30,000 additional troops have turned the tide in the effort to reduce the carnage in Baghdad, different political forces will prevail.

Ah, only one Friedman Unit away from knowing whether or not we're winning in Iraq!

And what, oh what, do we tell the families of the Americans that will inevitably be killed while the Friedman Units tick away...?