g r o t t o 1 1

Peeve Farm
Breeding peeves for show, not just to keep as pets
Brian Tiemann
Silicon ValleyNew York-based purveyor of a confusing mixture of Apple punditry, political bile, and sports car rentals.

btman at grotto11 dot com

Read These Too:

InstaPundit
Steven Den Beste
James Lileks
Little Green Footballs
As the Apple Turns
Entropicana
Cold Fury
Capitalist Lion
Red Letter Day
Eric S. Raymond
Tal G in Jerusalem
Aziz Poonawalla
Corsair the Rational Pirate
.clue
Ravishing Light
Rosenblog
Cartago Delenda Est



Cars without compromise.





Book Plugs:




Buy 'em and I get
money. I think.
BSD Mall




  9/6/2010 -  9/10/2010
 8/30/2010 -   9/5/2010
 8/23/2010 -  8/29/2010
 8/16/2010 -  8/22/2010
  8/9/2010 -  8/15/2010
  8/2/2010 -   8/8/2010
 7/26/2010 -   8/1/2010
 7/19/2010 -  7/25/2010
 7/12/2010 -  7/18/2010
  7/5/2010 -  7/11/2010
 6/28/2010 -   7/4/2010
 6/21/2010 -  6/27/2010
 6/14/2010 -  6/20/2010
  6/7/2010 -  6/13/2010
 5/31/2010 -   6/6/2010
 5/24/2010 -  5/30/2010
 5/17/2010 -  5/23/2010
 5/10/2010 -  5/16/2010
  5/3/2010 -   5/9/2010
 4/26/2010 -   5/2/2010
 4/19/2010 -  4/25/2010
 4/12/2010 -  4/18/2010
  4/5/2010 -  4/11/2010
 3/29/2010 -   4/4/2010
 3/22/2010 -  3/28/2010
 3/15/2010 -  3/21/2010
  3/8/2010 -  3/14/2010
  3/1/2010 -   3/7/2010
 2/22/2010 -  2/28/2010
 2/15/2010 -  2/21/2010
  2/8/2010 -  2/14/2010
  2/1/2010 -   2/7/2010
 1/25/2010 -  1/31/2010
 1/18/2010 -  1/24/2010
 1/11/2010 -  1/17/2010
  1/4/2010 -  1/10/2010
12/28/2009 -   1/3/2009
12/21/2009 - 12/27/2009
12/14/2009 - 12/20/2009
 12/7/2009 - 12/13/2009
11/30/2009 -  12/6/2009
11/23/2009 - 11/29/2009
11/16/2009 - 11/22/2009
 11/9/2009 - 11/15/2009
 11/2/2009 -  11/8/2009
10/26/2009 -  11/1/2009
10/19/2009 - 10/25/2009
10/12/2009 - 10/18/2009
 10/5/2009 - 10/11/2009
 9/28/2009 -  10/4/2009
 9/21/2009 -  9/27/2009
 9/14/2009 -  9/20/2009
  9/7/2009 -  9/13/2009
 8/31/2009 -   9/6/2009
 8/24/2009 -  8/30/2009
 8/17/2009 -  8/23/2009
 8/10/2009 -  8/16/2009
  8/3/2009 -   8/9/2009
 7/27/2009 -   8/2/2009
 7/20/2009 -  7/26/2009
 7/13/2009 -  7/19/2009
  7/6/2009 -  7/12/2009
 6/29/2009 -   7/5/2009
 6/22/2009 -  6/28/2009
 6/15/2009 -  6/21/2009
  6/8/2009 -  6/14/2009
  6/1/2009 -   6/7/2009
 5/25/2009 -  5/31/2009
 5/18/2009 -  5/24/2009
 5/11/2009 -  5/17/2009
  5/4/2009 -  5/10/2009
 4/27/2009 -   5/3/2009
 4/20/2009 -  4/26/2009
 4/13/2009 -  4/19/2009
  4/6/2009 -  4/12/2009
 3/30/2009 -   4/5/2009
 3/23/2009 -  3/29/2009
 3/16/2009 -  3/22/2009
  3/9/2009 -  3/15/2009
  3/2/2009 -   3/8/2009
 2/23/2009 -   3/1/2009
 2/16/2009 -  2/22/2009
  2/9/2009 -  2/15/2009
  2/2/2009 -   2/8/2009
 1/26/2009 -   2/1/2009
 1/19/2009 -  1/25/2009
 1/12/2009 -  1/18/2009
  1/5/2009 -  1/11/2009
12/29/2008 -   1/4/2009
12/22/2008 - 12/28/2008
12/15/2008 - 12/21/2008
 12/8/2008 - 12/14/2008
 12/1/2008 -  12/7/2008
11/24/2008 - 11/30/2008
11/17/2008 - 11/23/2008
11/10/2008 - 11/16/2008
 11/3/2008 -  11/9/2008
10/27/2008 -  11/2/2008
10/20/2008 - 10/26/2008
10/13/2008 - 10/19/2008
 10/6/2008 - 10/12/2008
 9/29/2008 -  10/5/2008
 9/22/2008 -  9/28/2008
 9/15/2008 -  9/21/2008
  9/8/2008 -  9/14/2008
  9/1/2008 -   9/7/2008
 8/25/2008 -  8/31/2008
 8/18/2008 -  8/24/2008
 8/11/2008 -  8/17/2008
  8/4/2008 -  8/10/2008
 7/28/2008 -   8/3/2008
 7/21/2008 -  7/27/2008
 7/14/2008 -  7/20/2008
  7/7/2008 -  7/13/2008
 6/30/2008 -   7/6/2008
 6/23/2008 -  6/29/2008
 6/16/2008 -  6/22/2008
  6/9/2008 -  6/15/2008
  6/2/2008 -   6/8/2008
 5/26/2008 -   6/1/2008
 5/19/2008 -  5/25/2008
 5/12/2008 -  5/18/2008
  5/5/2008 -  5/11/2008
 4/28/2008 -   5/4/2008
 4/21/2008 -  4/27/2008
 4/14/2008 -  4/20/2008
  4/7/2008 -  4/13/2008
 3/31/2008 -   4/6/2008
 3/24/2008 -  3/30/2008
 3/17/2008 -  3/23/2008
 3/10/2008 -  3/16/2008
  3/3/2008 -   3/9/2008
 2/25/2008 -   3/2/2008
 2/18/2008 -  2/24/2008
 2/11/2008 -  2/17/2008
  2/4/2008 -  2/10/2008
 1/28/2008 -   2/3/2008
 1/21/2008 -  1/27/2008
 1/14/2008 -  1/20/2008
  1/7/2008 -  1/13/2008
12/31/2007 -   1/6/2008
12/24/2007 - 12/30/2007
12/17/2007 - 12/23/2007
12/10/2007 - 12/16/2007
 12/3/2007 -  12/9/2007
11/26/2007 -  12/2/2007
11/19/2007 - 11/25/2007
11/12/2007 - 11/18/2007
 11/5/2007 - 11/11/2007
10/29/2007 -  11/4/2007
10/22/2007 - 10/28/2007
10/15/2007 - 10/21/2007
 10/8/2007 - 10/14/2007
 10/1/2007 -  10/7/2007
 9/24/2007 -  9/30/2007
 9/17/2007 -  9/23/2007
 9/10/2007 -  9/16/2007
  9/3/2007 -   9/9/2007
 8/27/2007 -   9/2/2007
 8/20/2007 -  8/26/2007
 8/13/2007 -  8/19/2007
  8/6/2007 -  8/12/2007
 7/30/2007 -   8/5/2007
 7/23/2007 -  7/29/2007
 7/16/2007 -  7/22/2007
  7/9/2007 -  7/15/2007
  7/2/2007 -   7/8/2007
 6/25/2007 -   7/1/2007
 6/18/2007 -  6/24/2007
 6/11/2007 -  6/17/2007
  6/4/2007 -  6/10/2007
 5/28/2007 -   6/3/2007
 5/21/2007 -  5/27/2007
 5/14/2007 -  5/20/2007
  5/7/2007 -  5/13/2007
 4/30/2007 -   5/6/2007
 4/23/2007 -  4/29/2007
 4/16/2007 -  4/22/2007
  4/9/2007 -  4/15/2007
  4/2/2007 -   4/8/2007
 3/26/2007 -   4/1/2007
 3/19/2007 -  3/25/2007
 3/12/2007 -  3/18/2007
  3/5/2007 -  3/11/2007
 2/26/2007 -   3/4/2007
 2/19/2007 -  2/25/2007
 2/12/2007 -  2/18/2007
  2/5/2007 -  2/11/2007
 1/29/2007 -   2/4/2007
 1/22/2007 -  1/28/2007
 1/15/2007 -  1/21/2007
  1/8/2007 -  1/14/2007
  1/1/2007 -   1/7/2007
12/25/2006 - 12/31/2006
12/18/2006 - 12/24/2006
12/11/2006 - 12/17/2006
 12/4/2006 - 12/10/2006
11/27/2006 -  12/3/2006
11/20/2006 - 11/26/2006
11/13/2006 - 11/19/2006
 11/6/2006 - 11/12/2006
10/30/2006 -  11/5/2006
10/23/2006 - 10/29/2006
10/16/2006 - 10/22/2006
 10/9/2006 - 10/15/2006
 10/2/2006 -  10/8/2006
 9/25/2006 -  10/1/2006
 9/18/2006 -  9/24/2006
 9/11/2006 -  9/17/2006
  9/4/2006 -  9/10/2006
 8/28/2006 -   9/3/2006
 8/21/2006 -  8/27/2006
 8/14/2006 -  8/20/2006
  8/7/2006 -  8/13/2006
 7/31/2006 -   8/6/2006
 7/24/2006 -  7/30/2006
 7/17/2006 -  7/23/2006
 7/10/2006 -  7/16/2006
  7/3/2006 -   7/9/2006
 6/26/2006 -   7/2/2006
 6/19/2006 -  6/25/2006
 6/12/2006 -  6/18/2006
  6/5/2006 -  6/11/2006
 5/29/2006 -   6/4/2006
 5/22/2006 -  5/28/2006
 5/15/2006 -  5/21/2006
  5/8/2006 -  5/14/2006
  5/1/2006 -   5/7/2006
 4/24/2006 -  4/30/2006
 4/17/2006 -  4/23/2006
 4/10/2006 -  4/16/2006
  4/3/2006 -   4/9/2006
 3/27/2006 -   4/2/2006
 3/20/2006 -  3/26/2006
 3/13/2006 -  3/19/2006
  3/6/2006 -  3/12/2006
 2/27/2006 -   3/5/2006
 2/20/2006 -  2/26/2006
 2/13/2006 -  2/19/2006
  2/6/2006 -  2/12/2006
 1/30/2006 -   2/5/2006
 1/23/2006 -  1/29/2006
 1/16/2006 -  1/22/2006
  1/9/2006 -  1/15/2006
  1/2/2006 -   1/8/2006
12/26/2005 -   1/1/2005
12/19/2005 - 12/25/2005
12/12/2005 - 12/18/2005
 12/5/2005 - 12/11/2005
11/28/2005 -  12/4/2005
11/21/2005 - 11/27/2005
11/14/2005 - 11/20/2005
 11/7/2005 - 11/13/2005
10/31/2005 -  11/6/2005
10/24/2005 - 10/30/2005
10/17/2005 - 10/23/2005
10/10/2005 - 10/16/2005
 10/3/2005 -  10/9/2005
 9/26/2005 -  10/2/2005
 9/19/2005 -  9/25/2005
 9/12/2005 -  9/18/2005
  9/5/2005 -  9/11/2005
 8/29/2005 -   9/4/2005
 8/22/2005 -  8/28/2005
 8/15/2005 -  8/21/2005
  8/8/2005 -  8/14/2005
  8/1/2005 -   8/7/2005
 7/25/2005 -  7/31/2005
 7/18/2005 -  7/24/2005
 7/11/2005 -  7/17/2005
  7/4/2005 -  7/10/2005
 6/27/2005 -   7/3/2005
 6/20/2005 -  6/26/2005
 6/13/2005 -  6/19/2005
  6/6/2005 -  6/12/2005
 5/30/2005 -   6/5/2005
 5/23/2005 -  5/29/2005
 5/16/2005 -  5/22/2005
  5/9/2005 -  5/15/2005
  5/2/2005 -   5/8/2005
 4/25/2005 -   5/1/2005
 4/18/2005 -  4/24/2005
 4/11/2005 -  4/17/2005
  4/4/2005 -  4/10/2005
 3/28/2005 -   4/3/2005
 3/21/2005 -  3/27/2005
 3/14/2005 -  3/20/2005
  3/7/2005 -  3/13/2005
 2/28/2005 -   3/6/2005
 2/21/2005 -  2/27/2005
 2/14/2005 -  2/20/2005
  2/7/2005 -  2/13/2005
 1/31/2005 -   2/6/2005
 1/24/2005 -  1/30/2005
 1/17/2005 -  1/23/2005
 1/10/2005 -  1/16/2005
  1/3/2005 -   1/9/2005
12/27/2004 -   1/2/2004
12/20/2004 - 12/26/2004
12/13/2004 - 12/19/2004
 12/6/2004 - 12/12/2004
11/29/2004 -  12/5/2004
11/22/2004 - 11/28/2004
11/15/2004 - 11/21/2004
 11/8/2004 - 11/14/2004
 11/1/2004 -  11/7/2004
10/25/2004 - 10/31/2004
10/18/2004 - 10/24/2004
10/11/2004 - 10/17/2004
 10/4/2004 - 10/10/2004
 9/27/2004 -  10/3/2004
 9/20/2004 -  9/26/2004
 9/13/2004 -  9/19/2004
  9/6/2004 -  9/12/2004
 8/30/2004 -   9/5/2004
 8/23/2004 -  8/29/2004
 8/16/2004 -  8/22/2004
  8/9/2004 -  8/15/2004
  8/2/2004 -   8/8/2004
 7/26/2004 -   8/1/2004
 7/19/2004 -  7/25/2004
 7/12/2004 -  7/18/2004
  7/5/2004 -  7/11/2004
 6/28/2004 -   7/4/2004
 6/21/2004 -  6/27/2004
 6/14/2004 -  6/20/2004
  6/7/2004 -  6/13/2004
 5/31/2004 -   6/6/2004
 5/24/2004 -  5/30/2004
 5/17/2004 -  5/23/2004
 5/10/2004 -  5/16/2004
  5/3/2004 -   5/9/2004
 4/26/2004 -   5/2/2004
 4/19/2004 -  4/25/2004
 4/12/2004 -  4/18/2004
  4/5/2004 -  4/11/2004
 3/29/2004 -   4/4/2004
 3/22/2004 -  3/28/2004
 3/15/2004 -  3/21/2004
  3/8/2004 -  3/14/2004
  3/1/2004 -   3/7/2004
 2/23/2004 -  2/29/2004
 2/16/2004 -  2/22/2004
  2/9/2004 -  2/15/2004
  2/2/2004 -   2/8/2004
 1/26/2004 -   2/1/2004
 1/19/2004 -  1/25/2004
 1/12/2004 -  1/18/2004
  1/5/2004 -  1/11/2004
12/29/2003 -   1/4/2004
12/22/2003 - 12/28/2003
12/15/2003 - 12/21/2003
 12/8/2003 - 12/14/2003
 12/1/2003 -  12/7/2003
11/24/2003 - 11/30/2003
11/17/2003 - 11/23/2003
11/10/2003 - 11/16/2003
 11/3/2003 -  11/9/2003
10/27/2003 -  11/2/2003
10/20/2003 - 10/26/2003
10/13/2003 - 10/19/2003
 10/6/2003 - 10/12/2003
 9/29/2003 -  10/5/2003
 9/22/2003 -  9/28/2003
 9/15/2003 -  9/21/2003
  9/8/2003 -  9/14/2003
  9/1/2003 -   9/7/2003
 8/25/2003 -  8/31/2003
 8/18/2003 -  8/24/2003
 8/11/2003 -  8/17/2003
  8/4/2003 -  8/10/2003
 7/28/2003 -   8/3/2003
 7/21/2003 -  7/27/2003
 7/14/2003 -  7/20/2003
  7/7/2003 -  7/13/2003
 6/30/2003 -   7/6/2003
 6/23/2003 -  6/29/2003
 6/16/2003 -  6/22/2003
  6/9/2003 -  6/15/2003
  6/2/2003 -   6/8/2003
 5/26/2003 -   6/1/2003
 5/19/2003 -  5/25/2003
 5/12/2003 -  5/18/2003
  5/5/2003 -  5/11/2003
 4/28/2003 -   5/4/2003
 4/21/2003 -  4/27/2003
 4/14/2003 -  4/20/2003
  4/7/2003 -  4/13/2003
 3/31/2003 -   4/6/2003
 3/24/2003 -  3/30/2003
 3/17/2003 -  3/23/2003
 3/10/2003 -  3/16/2003
  3/3/2003 -   3/9/2003
 2/24/2003 -   3/2/2003
 2/17/2003 -  2/23/2003
 2/10/2003 -  2/16/2003
  2/3/2003 -   2/9/2003
 1/27/2003 -   2/2/2003
 1/20/2003 -  1/26/2003
 1/13/2003 -  1/19/2003
  1/6/2003 -  1/12/2003
12/30/2002 -   1/5/2003
12/23/2002 - 12/29/2002
12/16/2002 - 12/22/2002
 12/9/2002 - 12/15/2002
 12/2/2002 -  12/8/2002
11/25/2002 -  12/1/2002
11/18/2002 - 11/24/2002
11/11/2002 - 11/17/2002
 11/4/2002 - 11/10/2002
10/28/2002 -  11/3/2002
10/21/2002 - 10/27/2002
10/14/2002 - 10/20/2002
 10/7/2002 - 10/13/2002
 9/30/2002 -  10/6/2002
 9/23/2002 -  9/29/2002
 9/16/2002 -  9/22/2002
  9/9/2002 -  9/15/2002
  9/2/2002 -   9/8/2002
 8/26/2002 -   9/1/2002
 8/19/2002 -  8/25/2002
 8/12/2002 -  8/18/2002
  8/5/2002 -  8/11/2002
 7/29/2002 -   8/4/2002
 7/22/2002 -  7/28/2002
 7/15/2002 -  7/21/2002
  7/8/2002 -  7/14/2002
  7/1/2002 -   7/7/2002
 6/24/2002 -  6/30/2002
 6/17/2002 -  6/23/2002
 6/10/2002 -  6/16/2002
  6/3/2002 -   6/9/2002
 5/27/2002 -   6/2/2002
 5/20/2002 -  5/26/2002
 5/13/2002 -  5/19/2002
  5/6/2002 -  5/12/2002
 4/29/2002 -   5/5/2002
 4/22/2002 -  4/28/2002
 4/15/2002 -  4/21/2002
  4/8/2002 -  4/14/2002
  4/1/2002 -   4/7/2002
 3/25/2002 -  3/31/2002
 3/18/2002 -  3/24/2002
 3/11/2002 -  3/17/2002
  3/4/2002 -  3/10/2002
 2/25/2002 -   3/3/2002
 2/18/2002 -  2/24/2002
 2/11/2002 -  2/17/2002
  2/4/2002 -  2/10/2002
 1/28/2002 -   2/3/2002
 1/21/2002 -  1/27/2002
 1/14/2002 -  1/20/2002
  1/7/2002 -  1/13/2002
12/31/2001 -   1/6/2002
12/24/2001 - 12/30/2001
12/17/2001 - 12/23/2001
Saturday, December 20, 2003
11:51 - Reasoned political discourse
http://flash.bushrecall.org/

(top)
This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

Wait, no-- actually it is funny.



Probably not for the intended reasons, though.

I'm sure it'll win over voters by the legion.

Friday, December 19, 2003
18:33 - Sorry, we're only budgeted for 30 polygons
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031219/480/nyr10412192112

(top)
CapLion isn't wild about this, but I think I could really get used to it:



Remember what Libeskind's original proposal looked like? It was essentially just a big spire, like a knitting needle jabbed into the sky. This new design is apparently the result of a big pitched battle between Libeskind and David Childs, Larry Silverstein's own chief architect, and the result is something that actually has some interior space and a more prismatic aspect. Yeah, it's tapered still, and has those sharp icy edges that look like someone's a little bit impatient for cities to start looking like Bicentennial Man-- but it could be (and was) a whole lot worse. This design even evokes the WTC a little. Not much. But a little.

What I don't like, though, are those new secondary office buildings-- the things that look like they were hacked off of the Fortress of Solitude with a machete. The tower-- okay, the tower can be futuristic and post-modern and wind-powered, whatever. But these other buildings look like they're trying to force the issue. They don't look like New York one bit. San Diego, maybe, but not New York.

Maybe it's just because none of the other buildings around there are blue. They're all stone and cement, and don't spend all their time reflecting the sky like utopian structures from the 80s. The WTC was like a solid block of concrete. (Which is part of the silly appeal of this.) This thing looks fragile. And as determined as they are to eschew surface detail of any kind whatsoever, the secondary office blocks are going to look like cheesy raytraced CG models even when you're standing at street level and looking up at them. Look at the other buildings all around them. They all have something from the 19th century in them, even the most modern ones. But the new proposals are from the "blend into the sky" school of design, which I thought had gone out of style years ago.

Nonetheless, I'm not going to complain much. I'm no New Yorker, so I won't presume to know what really "fits" the skyline; but I could get used to this. And we can be thankful that they're calling it the "Freedom Tower", rather than, say, the "World Cultural Center" (which is what that other finalist, the monstrosity made of two spidery ghost-towers of piping with a mysterious blob embedded between them, would have been). And it'll be tall as freakin' hell.

It'll send the right message.


15:42 - Built like a brick... spider-hole
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch%2edb&command=vie

(top)
Hey, Arab World? You thought those pictures of Saddam's dental exam were humiliating? You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Based on my own recent work in Iraq, I know that Saddam Hussein’s last place of refuge was a septic tank.

During my tour in Iraq, I managed 75 reconstruction projects with the 4th Infantry Division in the “Sunni Triangle” near to where Saddam was captured. These projects included sewage disposal and sewage treatment systems, along with the refurbishment and construction of many septic tank systems. The cramped underground chamber next to the hut where Saddam had been hiding matches a common septic tank design found everywhere in Iraq.

...

The location of the hole near a hut only reinforces the idea that this was originally a locally-built septic tank. Most likely, the hole was emptied of sewage and the dirt bottom expanded horizontally to allow for better hiding.

This is supported by the reaction of news reporters who had crawled into the hiding hole. They all mention the terrible stench of the place. Also, a nearby ditch had recently been put to use as a latrine, which indicates that the septic tank for the hut was not available.

From everything seen, it is apparent that Saddam had converted the septic tank of the hut where he lived into a bolt-hole to hide in if coalition forces approached. It turns out to be an unbelievably fitting form of irony. Saddam was found cowering in a septic tank like the vermin he is.

I'm reminded of a scene from Schindler's List. (Anybody who's seen it can probably guess which scene I mean.) It's nice to see the shoe on the other foot once or twice in history, isn't it?


13:27 - Quick, find a culprit! ...No, another one!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1108537,00.html

(top)
Tim Blair links to this unintentionally hilarious Guardian column, in which Polly Toynbee freely admits to having been duped by a variant of the Nigerian spam/con game.

But it wasn't about the £200. Not long afterwards my bank received a letter with a perfect copy of my signature, giving my bank account numbers, asking for £1,000 to be transferred at once to a bank in Osaka, Japan. Luckily, the bank thought to ring me up and query it. It turned out that a host of recent scams had asked for money to be transferred to Japan and the police had alerted all banks. It took me a little while to work out how they got my signature and my bank details, but then it clicked. Sure enough, when I reported it to the police, they laughed. They knew the Sandra letters very well and the real purpose was to sting the victim's bank account. It happened again last week when my bank got another request for a £1,000 transfer to Japan and I do feel a fool. Looking back at the letters now, I can see it all. For heaven's sake, she even said both her parents had died of the ebola flesh-eating virus.

Then look where she lays the blame for it:

The NCIS claims most of the scams orginate from Nigeria or the large global Nigerian diaspora. It began small-time in the 60s and mushroomed in the 90s, with large bundles of air-mails from Nigeria; two years ago it moved on to email. Why from there? "Clever, educated people with a long history as expert traders and dealers, they don't see it as criminal but as business. And they may think westerners deserve all they get."

The line between honest and dishonest business is easily blurred. We point fingers at Nigeria, this richest and best-educated country in Africa that should be a mighty power had it not been so catastrophically misgoverned, with legendary corruption. Yet what kind of global honesty is promoted, what model of good capitalism and good government? The US is about to hold another election that will be largely bought and sold by business and oil interests. Think of the corruption that US and UK conservatives carelessly unleashed upon the former Soviet Union in the name of extreme free market ideology.

The image of capitalism now being spread about the world is cowboy stuff: little gleaned from America extols the virtue of regulation, restraint and control. We reap from the third world what we sow: if some Nigerians learned lessons in capitalism from global oil companies that helped corrupt and despoil that land, it is hardly surpising they absorbed some of the Texan oil values that now rule the White House. Alas, the querulous, navel-gazing and increasingly non-internationalist EU seems in no mood at present to offer a different and better face of capitalism to the world.

I get it. The real crooks here are thieving cowboyish oil barons... like George Bush. And the careless "capitalism" they're sifting out all over the world. Instead of the very reassuring mantra regulation, restraint and control. (Eeew.)

I've got an alternate view of what's to blame for the Nigerian scam. How about: Members of a Western society that's grown to loathe itself so much for its success, and yet who are so guiltily greedy for more, that they're willing to undertake an ostensibly "charitable" cause-- even a patently illegal or immoral one-- to try to alleviate their consciences? The people falling for these things think that through an act of charity to an unfairly put-upon Third Worlder at the mercy of Western imperialism, they're puttin' one over on the Man, and yet making a tidy sum at the same time-- yet they'd never admit it to the authorities. As Toynbee herself says, "After all, who would admit they agreed to launder Bin Laden's cash?"

It's ingenious in its design: it targets Westerners who are a) rich, b) greedy, c) dense, and d) guilt-ridden. Sounds like your typical Leftist do-gooder to me.

"Rampant capitalism" isn't the problem here-- a lack of accountability is. One can only admire the practitioners' skills in efficiently seeking out ripe targets. Sure, what they're doing isn't business-- they're just committing fraud, and in the presence of actual police efficacy and enforcement they'd be doing time right now. But the country treats this as an industry, and so these guys look at themselves as entrepreneurs. Their rationale is probably along the lines of "We're entertainers. We play our targets like instruments, and make music that sounds like cha-ching, cha-ching." If their country doesn't treat them as criminals, they won't treat themselves as criminals. Time for some good old-fashioned cultural imperialism, eh?

(This line of reasoning, incidentally, ought to appeal to people who say that the West "created" terrorism, and that the victims in the WTC were simply asking for it by being so arrogantly high up in the air. For a more ethically sound argument, how's this: The scammers are criminals, and they must be dealt with so that even the stupid need fear no scam.)

By contrast, check out commenter "Wallace" at Blair's place:

My email to the rube "Ms. Toynbee"...who by the way is so dumb as to leave her email address in html "tag" format so that every spammer in the world can reach her.

I'm in the oil business in Texas where our values include honesty, business on a hand shake basis and loyalty. Like most self absorbed European journalists, repeating jingoistic blather, it is obvious that you know nothing of what you speak. And by the way, most European journalists worth anything more than a pence have learned by now that the "cowboy" reference to anyone in the U.S. is taken as a compliment.

And at least we're not dumb enough to fall for a basic con game.

The worst tactical mistake someone can make is to imagine himself or herself so much more intelligent and moral than the opposition that the opposition isn't even worth listening to. Examination usually shows the opposite to be true.

Wednesday, December 17, 2003
22:08 - "The very last stroke of the War"

(top)
Apparently there are quite a lot of Iraqis, Zeyad included, who are experiencing an odd sort of let-down feeling following the capture of Saddam. In most cases it's not because they liked Saddam at all, or because they equated Saddam with their national pride; it's because Saddam looked so pathetic. "That was the tyrant we were so afraid of all these years?"

In the words of LGF commenter Malice:

Even those who hated Saddam feel saddened by his surrender. It makes sense when you think about it. He kept the whole country in a state of terrible fear for 30 years, but yet he was afraid to fight and die at the end. Wouldn't you also feel betrayed and sickened at your own cowardice for not standing up to him? Wouldn't you feel that such a weak man could have obviously been overthrown at any time, and that your people may have suffered for the last 30 years for nothing?

I suppose it's kind of like that feeling that you get in the NCAA tournament - when the team that beats your team gets crushed in the next round. You hated them for knocking your boys out, but then you cheered for them to legitimize your own team's failure. When they get spanked, you realize that your team sucked all along.

Yeah. And to anguish another metaphor...

This wasn't the Valar driving Morgoth to his uttermost refuge in Angband, hewing his legs from under him as he pleaded for mercy, and dragging him out in chains, as some have painted it. Sure, the parallels are all there in context-- but those video images make plain that whereas even a chained-up Morgoth needed to be kept at bay by a vengeful and snickering Tulkas poking him in the back of the head every couple of steps, this Saddam clearly didn't. Docile as a cow.

What it reminds me of, in the Tolkien context, is the end of the Scouring of the Shire: Wormtongue slitting a bedraggled Saruman's throat from behind, while the hobbits watched aghast. Though they were brandishing shovels and hoes and ready for a fight, this kind of anticlimax would have made them all wonder-- how come we didn't stand up to Sharkey sooner? Is this all there was to him?

I haven't seen the Return of the King movie yet, but I know that the Scouring of the Shire was cut from it-- reportedly because Jackson didn't like it. To him it felt wrong, somehow-- too unbalanced, too anticlimactic, too depressingly banal an end for such an epic story. (I kinda see that point. Kinda.) And perhaps that's what's going on here; the thirty-year-old tale of horror that has been Iraq deserves a more crashing-chords-and-fanfares kind of ending, a blow-up-the-load-bearing-boss ending where the good guys have to race to safety before the last Tikriti palace caves in on them. Not this-- a Star Trek ending, where a few red-shirts dig the blinking and disoriented fugitive out of a cave, babbling incoherently, delusional, unlikely even to provide any kind of satisfaction to his victims who can't even get him to understand that he's lost.

It's as though we'd caught Hitler, and he'd turned out to a quiet little man who enjoyed chess and painting Alpine scenes and who personally wouldn't hurt a fly, and when confronted with his crimes merely smiled beatifically and asked what the weather was like. Prison or execution-- neither end would have felt right. Like with the Japanese leaders who never truly accepted defeat, even in the Nuremberg trials, the only thing was to swallow the bitter pill of knowledge that this was the best we were going to get.

I guess that's the nature of dealing with power-mad dictators. You can't deal with them as you would normal human beings-- they're too far gone. You'll never get satisfaction, no matter how well things go.

Tuesday, December 16, 2003
20:20 - Blame Kris

(top)

In a hole in the ground there lived a dictator.

Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing to sit down on or to eat: it was a spider-hole, and that means discomfort.

Not my fault. I'm serious.

Oooh, ooh-- What did the spider say to the rat? "Can I share your hole? Mine's infested."

(If you groaned, that one's Kris' too.)

Monday, December 15, 2003
17:25 - Something Pleasant
http://www.somethingawful.com/

(top)
Now this is something I'm glad to see. Zack "Geist Editor" Parsons of SomethingAwful.com is a class act:

Many of you, including me, may not be too keen on the war in Iraq. Don't let petty politics stand in the way of your human empathy for your fellow goon and your fellow American. In case you still don't want to send in money, keep in mind we're going to repeatedly nag you about this like National Public Radio until our goal is met! Besides, buying armor plates for some guys who are going to get shot at it is so much cooler than a freaking tote bag!

Donate via paypal to armor-donation@somethingawful.com and keep watching this post throughout the day for updates on the amount of money we have raised.

That's the kind of rooting-for-the-common-good I've been seeing so painfully little of. Thanks, SomethingAwful.

More to the point, thanks, SomethingAwful patrons:

Current Amount Donated: $8,278.04

Jeezum crow!


16:53 - Theater of the surreal

(top)
Oh, man. This is rich. Edited for content.

From: support@supportwebsite.com
Subject: Fake ID for Muslims
Date: December 15, 2003 4:32:46 PM PST
To: ***
Reply-To: support@supportwebsite.com

Need a fake license to get into the nude bar and see some p***y?

Visit www.souvenirids.com

Travel and fly on planes under any name!

Get job at preschool if convicted molester!

www.photoidcards.com Do it now!

 CALL 24 HOURS 206-202-1672
Here my voice I am from Iraq. My Muslim brothers I am here to service you. Praise Ala!

This is not spam. You signed up as Arab decent person looking for new identity information for new mission.

Wow. Iraq the free, eh? This isn't because I signed up for one of those Arabic translation sites a few weeks ago to translate that page put up by the supposed al-Qaeda hackers who perpetrated those DOS attacks, is it?

I'm also having trouble with "Arab decent person" in this context.

As Apu said, "It is good to see you are learning a trade"...

Sunday, December 14, 2003
21:13 - Le malaise existential

(top)
You know, I've been weirdly irritable all day over the news of Saddam's capture. Every news report just makes me frown more, and grit my teeth more, and rub my forehead in more pain.

Why? Probably because of things like this (via LGF): an entry, not unrepresentative of the whole, at the official blog of the Democratic National Committee.

Well, tha capture of Sadaam takes the ‘failure to capture’ issue off the table.

Now that the economy is picking up (mall was packed yesterday), Iraq is getting better, prescription drugs on the way, education spending at an all-time high, no further terrorist attacks—what is left?

Oh, yes, the capture of Bin Laden.

If that happens, we are completely sunk.

Yeah? You wouldn't be sunk if you could bring yourself to express approval of just one extremely good thing that America does, in spite of the fact that it's a Republican who did it.

Has life in the post-9/11 world really become so petty? Can a victory this profound really mean nothing more to the Democrats than a big setback on their road back to power?

I've felt saddened all day by things like this (and there were dishearteningly many). It means that I can no longer even pretend to sympathize with the goals of the Democratic party, because those goals seem to have devolved into nothing more noble than getting into power. As a Democratic voter on most issues and in most elections for the first seven years of my voting eligibility, I feel heartsick that this is what the party has reduced itself to. I mean, they were honestly hoping we wouldn't catch Saddam, for God's sake.

I feel no vindictive joy over what now seems to be the imminent death or splitting-up of the Democrats. Rather, I feel as though the country's left arm has become paralyzed. Sure, I agree more with what the right arm does these days, and more so each day. But balance is crucial to this country's operation. Each party needs the other in order to remain hungry and to operate efficiently toward goals that are universally in the interest of America. On the one-dimensional political axis that we use, flawed as it may be, the two-party system is more than a means of creating busy-work for the country's political machine: it's the fundamental balancing act that invariably drags public opinion back to the center, rather than allowing it to swing to one of the bizarre poles and transform America into a Nazi Germany or a USSR or a Talibanistan.

I fear that following the catastrophe that will be the Democrats' bid for the White House in 2004, the party will splinter; surely a new party will arise in its place, probably bearing the same name, but in the interim we'll be badly unbalanced as a nation, without surety in where our moral compasses point. Half the country's people will still feel as though the current administration doesn't represent them, but they won't have anything to call themselves-- and that's when groups like International A.N.S.W.E.R. and the denizens of IndyMedia and Democratic Underground will have their chance to make a serious bid for the niche left vacant in people's hearts by what had been the Democratic Party.

I honestly don't want to see things get to that point. If more Democrats can rally to Lieberman's call:

Hallelujah, praise the Lord. This is something that I have been advocating and praying for for more than twelve years, since the Gulf War of 1991. Saddam Hussein was a homicidal maniac, a brutal dictator, who wanted to dominate the Arab world and was supporting terrorists.

He caused the death of more than a million people, including 460 Americans who went to overthrow him. This is a day of glory for the American military, a day of rejoicing for the Iraqi people, and a day of triumph and joy for anyone in the world who cares about freedom, human rights, and peace. . . .

This news also makes clear the choice the Democrats face next year. If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison, and the world would be a more dangerous place.

... then there might be a chance for sanity to prevail. But unless more people remember that this country is firmly at war, and has been for two years and three months, and that today's achievement is a victory in that war more major than any invasion or nominal overthrow-- that it makes the world far safer and freer of brutal dictators whose defiance inspires terrorism against the West than it was before-- then yes, Virginia, I'm afraid you're sunk.

This world is not so dismal a place. Let's learn to appreciate days like today for what they truly are.


10:08 - Hoo-rah

(top)
Watching Bush's speech on CNN just now:

We have a message this afternoon for the Iraqi people:

You're welcome.

Okay, maybe not quite. But I wish.

UPDATE: Lemme get this straight. The "car bomb" that blew up outside the Palestine Hotel was actually a police car full of jerry-cans of gasoline, which were ignited by a bullet that had been fired into the air in celebration and had fallen back down?

The BBC and Reuters are rapidly running out of things to be happy about.

And someone's really got to popularize a better method of celebrating things in the Arab world.


Saturday, December 13, 2003
02:29 - Greetings, comrade, from the Nerve Center

(top)
How do I get myself into these things?

Last night I jumped at the opportunity to see a concert in downtown San Francisco-- a concert of Prof. Peter Schickele and the music of P.D.Q. Bach. I'd never seen it visually before, and in that lies its charm-- without the visuals I'd never really understood the appeal. Classical music-- with weird instruments! And the occasional unexpected bizarre chord or odd lyric! Huzzah! But it makes much more sense live. The guy's pushing 70, but he still makes quite an acrobatic little show of it-- he's a bearded little gnome of a man, and his absent-minded-professor act is the centerpiece of the whole show. None of it comes across on CD.

We enjoyed the show in the Davies Symphony Hall just off Van Ness, right across from City Hall. Gorgeous building, gorgeous concert hall. (The pipe organ in back is made of glass, for God's sake.) And when the good Professor came stomping in with a rickety wooden ladder which he used to clamber up onto stage, we knew it was gonna rock.

But that was only part of what made the evening so entertaining. See, I got to enjoy the concert-- and the car trips up to the city and back-- in the company of a friend, Van (who is generally pretty open-minded and willing to listen to reasoned arguments, for a world-traveling Europhile who intends to stay in academia for the rest of his life) and a friend of his... from France. This friend, whom I'll call Jean-Marie-Françoise-Sainte-Jacques for short, is a college student who has apparently lived here for most of his life, judging by his almost completely Valley-ified accent (in which only a vague sort of clipped timbre can be detected); and yet he's as close as I've ever seen to a dyed-in-the-wool French Socialist of the haughtiest caliber. It was quite the experience.

The first clue I had that the trip would be this interesting was when Van mentioned that the guy we were waiting for was a "Frenchman". (Van, refreshingly enough, has little more appreciation for the French than I do.) After the obligatory Sid Hoffman/Sid Fwenchman jokes, and after introductions were made, we piled into Jean's Jetta and headed north along 280.

The Jetta, it turned out, was intentionally bought as a political statement. "If you want a good example of this stupid American capitalist system," he said, "Car dealers always have this one car on the lot that's got like no features, which they can point to in the ads to say Look, these are the kinds of prices we have-- so they can get you onto the lot and then try to sell you a more expensive car. But I insisted on taking the teaser car; I don't need anything more than the basic transportation, so I got to screw with their system."

I was immediately fascinated. I sat silently in the back seat, imagining what the ideal car lot would be like in the Worker's Paradise. Oh yes: you might get lured onto the lot by the blue Lada, but the red Lada would prove irresistible.

All the way up the peninsula, Jean regaled us with P.D.Q. Bach music from his Discman, punctuating every odd chord or choral trick with a gush of praise for the man's sheer comedic genius. "Why hasn't this been published outside the U.S.?" he wondered. "There's hardly anything in it that even has any English lyrics. They could sell this in France or Germany without any trouble. Or someone else could do this sort of stuff." Uh huh, I chuckled to myself. Could is such a wonderful word.

Driving into San Francisco on 101 from the south, Jean sniffily pointed out how bad the traffic was and how dingy and run-down the city looked. "And this is the nicest city in the country," agreed Van. Jean simply exhaled huskily.

We reached the parking garage, parked, and walked out into the rain to grab a quick bite to eat before the 8:00 concert. The block of Hayes between Franklin and Gough is full of little cafés; we walked to the end, and saw a place across the intersection called the Pendragon Grill. As we neared it, though, both Van and Jean slowed their steps-- they'd seen the big American flag and eagle painted on the wall between the sidewalk and the awning. "On second thought, that place looks pretty scary," they muttered to each other, and turned on their heels to find another, less American place to eat, like "Absinthe" on the near side of the street. (If we hadn't found a suitable place, like the nearby little hole-in-the-wall staffed by Chinese folks who served Italian-style sandwiches and French baked goods under paintings of bare-breasted Hindu goddesses by some inept local artist, I would have gone back to the Pendragon just out of spite. But there was no need. I pictured what that would have been like. "It's okay-- they're with me," I'd have said, making the secret VRWC hand gesture which gained me entrance to this hive of jingoistic running dogs who dare to profane the sacred Market Street zone with their presence.)

Through dinner, I tried plying the humor. "Somehow I'd be just as happy if we had a resurgence of the kind of art that we used to think of as Art," I said, gesturing at the yellow-and-gold piece covering the wall behind me with the title Woman Birthing Herself. "There comes a time when you have to wonder whether postmodernity can be carried just a hair too far, y'know?" They smirked and nodded. There would be far too much ground to cover for me to try to make any real progress with these guys in one night, but I thought I'd at least try to plant a few seeds.

We went into the concert hall, where paintings of identical-looking clusters of flowers were prominently sold at the concession booth. My esteemed companions immediately took to mocking the paintings' pretentiousness, unoriginality, unimaginativeness-- at least the meme seemed to have stuck, I guess.

We ascended a flight of delicately-lit stairs circling the rounded inner sanctum of the concert hall. The broad curving window wall faced directly upon the San Francisco City Hall building, a gorgeous neoclassical structure that looks rather like the Capitol except with lots of gold leaf and an azure finish on the dome. It's stunningly beautiful, as a matter of fact. We all stopped at the window to admire it, between two tall Christmas trees hung with cards signed by local kids.

After a moment, Jean piped up. "It's really an un-American architecture, isn't it?" Van agreed, and Jean continued. "It's like something European. Look at those colonnades... that dome... it's really beautiful. Nothing American about it." We turned to go. He dug in one last stroke: "Good for them."

You've never been to Washington D.C., have you? I thought really loudly to his retreating back.

The concert got started inauspiciously enough. The assistant to the Professor warmed up the crowd by making derisive statements about "Mr. Schwartza-- whatever his name is," which elicited a chorus of hisses from the three rapidly filling tiers of seats; then, when Schickele took the stage, he opened with a description of George W. Bush's upcoming book (Profiles in Courage, which covers some of Bush's most admired historical figures, such as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Attila the Hun, and so on), which he would purportedly be presenting at the University of Southern North Dakota "just as soon as the troops come home from Iraq". (Next Thursday, we're led to believe, he said.) Appreciative chortles all around. Likewise when Schickele introduced the "Freedom Horns".

In the intermission, while Van was in the bathroom, Jean tried to ply me with disgusted observations regarding "Altria", a company whose logo adorned one of the art exhibits advertised in the program booklet. "It's a front for Philip Morris," he said. "This company has gone around buying companies like Kraft, Nabisco, Maxwell House, Oreo... now you can't even give your kids a candy bar without the money going to fund cigarettes." I tried to humor him by making fun of the company's logo (which looks even dumber in grayscale), but he was not to be deterred from his main point, which I neglected to point out was rather silly in light of the fact that America is far and away more smoke-free than, say, France. He ranted on for a few more minutes about the evil of Philip Morris, its intransigence, the necessity for its destruction, Jean's inability to find any products he was comfortable buying anymore, and so on. Finally I said, "I guess it'd be better if those products didn't exist at all, then, huh?" He winced. "I dunno," he snapped, and settled sullenly into his seat to wait for Van to get back.

The concert went on. At last it ended, and we thronged out with the happy crowds of old rich bourgeoisie, against which we looked like ragamuffins off the street. (The usher, on showing us into our nosebleed seats, had welcomed us through the doors by saying, "Can I help you guys find your seats? Um.. I mean... gentlemen?") We found our way back to the car, snickering over the worst of the puns. (How are piccolos made? They're cooked over a bonfire on a Sicilian beach, in a cauldron filled with olive oil, in what's known as the Mediterranean Flute Fry.) One of the long, rambling stories about the finding of a certain P.D.Q. Bach piece had ended up with the Professor standing in a room in a building that was being demolished; at one end of the room was a safe with the door standing open; next to it there was an Indian woman who appeared to be hiding something in the folds of her robes. Deciding which to search first, Schickele decided, "better the safe than the saari." Groans and giggles alike had ensued, of course; but in retrospect, Jean said, "I was wondering why he said Indian woman. I was thinking, is this the kind of racism that's normal in New York, but that he wouldn't realize isn't welcome here in California?" Phew. I'd hate to see this guy watching South Park.

As we drove back down 101, after Van had idly remarked about Canada being "just like a State, except bigger and cleaner," Jean burst out with "I really envy Canada's political stability. There's only been one political party in power for like ten years now, and even though the current PM is more conservative than the previous one, they're still from the same party-- so same-sex marriage will still be passed and so on. There's no actual opposition to worry about." Uhhhh... huh. "Yeah, I hate those damn opposing viewpoint things," I growled from the back seat. Jean visibly recoiled, but went on. "At least they get to accomplish things without having to argue so much." Or words to that effect. (It's over a day ago now; the memories are losing their coherence in my synapses. "That's stability for ya," I said, and settled back into my seat to let my mind wander far away from the People's Republic of San Francisco. I was only dimly aware of the conversation's turn a few minutes later, when Jean expressed dismay at the fact that there was a mall called "Fashion Island"-- including locations bearing the same name in Los Angeles, no less. "I mean," he said, "I can see fashion in San Francisco... but Los Angeles?" I tried to interject something about 'Scuse me, I sorta thought there was this thing about, like, all those movie stars and stuff in LA?, but they had already moved on to the next topic.

Said topic was a tirade on Jean's part about some tutoring program sponsored by UC Berkeley, which competed with the tutoring program he himself was participating in on the side now that classes at De Anza have let out for the term. Apparently, from what I picked up, the evil UC can afford to pay its tutors $14.50 per hour, whereas the community college can only afford more like $10. The tutors had gone on strike, evidently; and Jean said that the UC had reached a deal with them. But apparently the deal was struck too late for the tutors to call off their strike, so it went ahead as planned-- "And now," Jean fumed, "The evil capitalistic UC gets to gloat that it has the moral high ground because the tutors went on strike even after the deal was agreed upon." Somewhere deep in my nose a tiny little violin played a sad, sad tune upon a thin silky hair. The evil capitalistic UC Berkeley. I love that concept.

Finally we arrived back home, and Jean took his leave. There wasn't much to say. I'd done my part-- tried to bridge the gap, though I'd given no reason for them to suspect that there was a gap at all, by (for instance) pointing to a poster taped to a lamppost south of Market that said Free government-run health care for everybody, and intoning "Free health care for some, miniature American flags for others!" .... but it was clear that I was some kind of stubborn kook who refused to see the light embraced by this enlightened 19-year-old. And the fact that I have friends who treat the word "capitalist" as a good thing would only ensure that I'd be hitchhiking home.

If nothing at all else, I can take comfort in the fact that one day this guy will have to get a job. And if he loathes America so much, there's clearly no reason for him to have come here to go to community college, is there? Surely there are ample opportunities elsewhere.

But no P.D.Q. Bach. Isn't that a bitch?

Thursday, December 11, 2003
10:49 - Can we get an "amen"?
http://donaldsensing.com/2003_12_01_archive.html#107109864088011111

(top)
Via InstaPundit:



I don't want to take any more static from well-meaning friends who think that anybody who watches Fox News is a brainless dupe because Fox is so hopelessly slanted.

Because if, as it seems, Fox is the only news service to cover this rally, and even organs like the New York Times bury news of it in tiny little one-sentence "even as" comments in the tailings of a story about 2 GIs being killed (Glenn has it), I'd say it's obvious whose side most of the news services are on, and what Fox is actually about.

Slant me, baby.

Wednesday, December 10, 2003
00:25 - Get 'em up against the wall...
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1690&mode=thread&order=0

(top)
Via LGF, where the news has been getting both far more encouraging (e.g. the anti-terrorism protests in Iraq) and more bleak, comes this:

Likewise, in Iraq, both the violent resistance and the so far fence-sitting Shia clerics are learning that the U.S. only understands force. The White House decided to have "elections" in June, not because proconsul Bremer suddenly remembered that Iraq belonged to Iraqis, but because the tenacious armed resistance was beginning to threaten Bush's 2004 election.

The rising death toll of American soldiers finally got the White House to set a date for "elections" in Iraq. But the White House is still trying to get away with a sham process in which proconsul Bremer will get the final word about who gets elected to the new Iraqi National Assembly. (It's an American tradition -- sham elections -- and who better than Bush to know it.)

The Shia leadership's insistence, in the teeth of White House opposition, on real and free one-person-one-vote elections, is embarrassing to the U.S. It is exposing the hypocrisy of Washington's claim to "export democracy." But Washington's capacity to absorb embarrassment is infinite. The Shia clerics are likely to discover that only when their threats become dead serious will the U.S. cave in.

Given how much the Pentagon wants to maintain Iraq as a new vassal state and a strategic military base, threats probably won't be enough. The Shia leadership will have to demonstrate a capacity for organizing effective resistance.

Here, too, the lesson of the steel tariffs is not without merit. While Iraqis have every right to shoot and kill occupation soldiers, that isn't necessary the most effective way to influence George Bush. Quite a few of the people who fund Bush's election campaign are involved in the latest corporate gold rush ("reconstruction") in Iraq. Attacking their interests might be a quicker way to get the president into listening mode. The lives of American soldiers are dear, but four more years in the White House are priceless.

This, and Eminem writing songs encouraging the assassination of the President, and Ted Rall actively encouraging the Iraqi insurgents to kill Americans, and regular protests in our cities' streets increasingly brazenly waving the banners of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden as righteous martyrs lying however futilely across America's senseless path of destruction... where's it all leading?

It's getting harder and harder to imagine that these kinds of sentiments-- that our troops' lives and even those of the domestic and foreign reconstruction contractors are nothing more than casino chips to be stacked on Red and cast against Bush a year from now-- are the province of the wacked-out far Left. These ideas are seeing currency in longer and larger and more reputable-looking articles, graduating day by day from the fuming and incoherent message-boards where they were espoused with the same swaggering adolescent bravado that typically accompanies a righteous frag in Quake, and gaining in linguistic dexterity and intellectual "rigor" with each new medium it infects. By the time next year's election rolls around, how far will the one-upmanship have gotten? With another year of this seemingly out-of-control feedback loop of hatred and bile to come, where one's sincerity is judged upon how much he hates Bush and to what lengths he's willing to go to unseat him... what are the campaign ads going to look like?

If they don't openly endorse assassination on prime-time TV by that time, I'll be very pleasantly surprised. But I worry about how far they will go.

Sooner or later, one of these people will in fact legitimately commit treason. More accurately, hundreds and thousands of people will push well into the realm of the definition of the word, seeing no reason to stop the advance of their rhetoric, and the authorities will do nothing to stop it-- because they know full well that the most vitriolic of the Leftists are on a hair-trigger to accuse anyone who calls them on it of McCarthyism, fascist police-statism, and crushing of dissent. They'll continue to do so well beyond the point where what they're doing can, in fact, no longer legitimately be called "dissent".

But it'll have to crack sooner or later. Something will happen, someone will finally go too far, and out will come the billy clubs. And what then?

The revolutionaries will have their martyrs. They'll have their righteous cause (Look! Crushing of dissent, just like we've been saying all along!). They'll have the spark, and they've been busily piling up the tinder now for three years.

They're itching for real, honest-to-God Revolution. And they may well get it.

"John Locke" in the LGF comments:

If violence will advance their cause, and Ash is clearly advocating that, have they not abandoned the democratic process, the rule of law, and the protection conferred by civilized discourse?
Josh is exactly right, these power-crazed rhetorical nihilists are hell-bent on forcing a violent showdown. That will be the end of them, and their leaders know it, but the evolution of their rhetoric and the script of their fantasy ideology both require a violent climax.

It's a terrible choice that we who would be the defenders against such a Revolution face: a) tolerate the affronts of the revolutionaries to the point where they're actively causing damage to our country and its citizens and soldiers, out of fear of the consequences if we... b) fight to put them down, thereby becoming everything they accuse the Right of having been all along.

And honestly, I have no idea which choice I find more palatable.

Both choices suck, from my perspective. But from the Left's perspective, both choices are winners.

This is what spurs them on.

They know they can't lose. Either they get free rein to pursue whatever mad goals they want, or they get the excuse to rise up in violent self-defensive war. Either way they get what they want-- whether by extortion, holding us hostage to our scruples, or by justified violence once they've pushed those scruples into the margins. Either way works.

(The fact that these are precisely the reasons why terrorism works-- it depends on the West's insistence upon fairness and unwillingness to tackle declared threats sensibly and effectively, things terrorists can always count on-- is what makes these people's tactics all the more galling. They learn from the best.)

There's got to be a third choice. It's got to be real, and it's got to be the one we as a country choose, because it's the only way we can remain a unified nation, I fear. Either of the first two choices would change America forever, and for the worse. There has to be a third way out that doesn't give away the farm.

* Bush could resign. But no, that gives away the farm-- it appeases the Left and assumes unearned blame for what in more sober eyes has been a great success, not a bloody failure.

* We could catch Saddam, and he could reveal incontrovertible proof of complicity in Islamic terrorism, plus active French and German and Russian subversions of US interests and UN mandates, eternally shaming them before the world and vindicating the US. But that's just a pipe dream.

* Iraq could stabilize, a pacifist Democrat could win the White House, Britney Spears could have some sex scandal or something, and the war could leave the public radar screen, and the Left would gradually lose steam and fade from the streets. But that too would give away the farm-- another 9/11 would be our reward for the inevitably decreased vigilance.

I don't know. All ways out of this mess look bleak or unrealistic, and I genuinely fear for what the coming months will bring.


14:42 - Payday
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/archives/2003_12_01_healingiraq_archive.html#1071079

(top)
Will someone please explain to the popular Western media that this is important for America and the world to see?



"Our people are for the reconstruction", reads the sign. And "Terrorism is humanity's shame". How much more clearly does it need to be spelled out before the anti-war protesters realize what they've been doing? Just how deeply ironic it is that while they fill the streets of their own home countries to try to stop the war and the occupation, these people in Iraq are just as fervently in favor of them?

This is such elementary stuff to understand. "To bribed Arab stations:Killing Iraqis and destroying their civil facilities is NOT resistance". Does this mean nothing to our domestic Left? Are you listening, Ted Rall, you bastard?

Someone explain to the AP and Reuters that this is an extremely beautiful picture:



And while you're at it, explain to France, Germany, and Russia that if they don't want to put their soldiers' lives on the line to free these Iraqis, or even to just contribute money to the reconstruction, American taxpayers have no interest in lining the pockets of their corporate contractors. We paid for this war; we are paying for the reconstruction. We're not paying to reconstruct Europe's economy too. Go fish.

My disgust with European greed and arrogance knows no bounds today.

UPDATE: Hey, Reuters: Y'think maybe this looks like something you should think about covering?



Nah, I know-- the answer's in your slogan: No. Now.

Tuesday, December 9, 2003
18:10 - Dear Santa

(top)
A couple of gift ideas, in case anybody should happen to be interested:

"Hunger is the Best Pickle." — Benjamin Franklin
Grafton Four Star Cheddar

If these are anywhere near as good as they sound (particularly together), CapLion gets to be my personal Jesus.


11:02 - Please Update Your Slogans

(top)
The other night in the parking lot at Home Depot, on my way back to my car with a cartload of 2x4s, I passed a parked car whose back window was full of weird little banners, stuffed animals, and other gaudy items. In pride of place was a large sheet that said, in big colorful letters:

Economy?
RECALL BUSH

If only I'd had a piece of paper, a pen, and some tape on hand, I'd have scribbled up a note that said HELP STOP THE RECOVERY or something and taped it below her sign. But I didn't. Ah well-- lessons learned for the future.

It's like people who still drive around with "Dukakis '88" bumper stickers on. C'mon-- read the news, will ya?

Monday, December 8, 2003
01:42 - Talk about freedom not being free...
http://WWW.nicedoggie.net/archives/003455.html#003455

(top)
I'm continuing my long series of e-mails with that person I mentioned some time ago, dancing ever so gently around the fact that he and I are about as politically diametrically opposed as two people can be. I have only to read his online journal (in which he links with goggle-eyed sycophancy to this piece of Eric Blumrich-spewed drivel) to know where he stands; he as yet doesn't know where I come down, because he only knows me through a pseudonym, and I fear that should the veneer slip, the game will be well and truly up.

My missives to him are always long, carefully thought out, and studiously apolitical. Every attempt he makes to draw me into a snicker of agreement at Bush's stupidity or the evil of the born-again Christian South, I deflect it by subtly changing the subject. Sometimes I can't resist a tiny little dig at the more outrageous of his claims (such as that he is risking arrest and imprisonment for the very crime of disagreeing with the administration, to which I said merely, "Yeah, I'm sure they're casing you out even as we speak. Sigh."), but so far the extent of my attempts at wearing him down have been of a much more roundabout nature.

To wit, I've been setting little rhetorical traps. I let him go off on a tirade about how stupid the people are around him, how ignorant they must be to have these red-white-and-blue bumper stickers and to actually be proud of the fact that the President came from their home state, or how benighted and unworthy of fair consideration their views obviously must be. And then I respond by saying simply that I make it a point not to judge people so quickly. That every human being's life is a story, full of years and years of decisions and rational choices and love and fear and joy and death and dreams. I talked about how I deal with maddening SUV drivers on cell phones: I remind myself that some woman driving a $50,000 SUV has to have arrived at that financial position through some means or other, and that means is unlikely to be that of barking idiocy. You don't get to drive Cadillacs wearing suede suits by being a feckless moron; you don't get to pull down a six-figure salary by accident. And in any case, who among us hasn't made the odd mistake in traffic-- pulled out into an intersection briefly, mistakenly, a few feet before stomping on the brake upon realization that it was the left-turn arrow that went green and not the straight-through light? I give each person the benefit of the doubt, at least until I can determine more fully whether the person is really in fact a dunce and unworthy of my attention-- unless I'm in their blind spot.

Thus do I sow the idea that to dismiss huge swathes of the population as too stupid to live is just a trifle contemptuous. There's more rationality in the world than one might think who sees the majority of the country laid out against one's political leanings, and far more people are rational on the micro level, seen up close, than are irrational. Henry Rollins put it this way: "The powers that be, that make up all these TV shows, are under this weird misconception that we're stupid. They think you're *dumb*, they think I'm *dumb*-- that's just so much bullshit. No one's *dumb*, man. They just get dumb media. This being 1998 in this country, you can't be dumb-- if you're dumb you're dead. You just can't even hack it if you're stupid. You know? You can be *stupid*, but you're gonna be reeeal tough, to still be alive. If you've done eight years working Burger King, you may be a dumb motherfucker, but you're one tough sonuvabitch."

And it may be working. He's agreeing with the things I say, finding reason in them, and no hostility or evil. If I come at this from a few other tacks-- like, say, the ones Bill Whittle uses in laying his foundations of credibility-- I'll eventually have tricked him into believing the tenets of what I believe, at which point I'll break the horrible news.

I hope he'll take it well.

Anyway, in the meantime, the ammunition builds itself up with hardly any human labor necessary. BC at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler winds up and takes a big swing at the socialist paradise that is 35-hour-workweek France-- but his work is already done for him, by this article which demonstrates just what a travesty it's all been. If anyone doubts the monstrous nature of the State as a beast that grows to feed itself all the more the larger and more powerful it becomes, we've got the proof right in front of us: the French PM has said himself that France is on a one-way course to becoming a vast Holiday on the Riviera for the well-to-do... but a hideous totalitarian wasteland for the lower-class plebs who were supposed to be the beneficiaries of socialism in the first place.

Though France has gotten the most attention for its short week, it has company in Europe. Since the 1940s, Europeans have expanded their annual time off by about one week, said Lawrence Jeffrey Johnson, chief economist of employment trends for the International Labour Organization, a branch of the United Nations.

In the United States, a 40-hour workweek is standard and the government doesn't regulate vacation time.

"The U.S. labor market is much more flexible that way, to allow people to work out individual accommodations in how they want to organize their lives," said Paul Swaim, an economist specializing in labor market issues for the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

And you know what? I had never before even considered an idea like "the government regulating vacation time". Absurd! What business does the government have in telling my company when it can (and must) bar me from working? Lately I've been thinking a lot about how I demand the right to fail because without it there is no right to succeed... but it seems that in France, even the right to succeed-- the right to put in the hours you want to put in, to go above and beyond duty, to work two or three jobs, to write a book in one's off-hours, the right to claw your way up through your own teeth-gritted efforts-- is denied its citizens. Isn't that the worst of both worlds?

In France, says the article, nobody even wants to work what extra hours they're allowed to, because earning more money just gets them taxed at ridiculously high levels. So why bother? Never mind that this is tantamount to the State punishing the achievements of the best, the brightest, and the hardest-working-- the ones whose efforts have given us the automobile, the airplane, the transistor, and a million other advances that could never have come about if not for the allure of monetary reward and personal acclaim for reaching beyond the State's expectation of a person's mathematically-calculated ideal work output.

That's what freedom is. Not merely the ability to travel from place to place without having one's papers inspected everywhere. Not merely the ability to speak one's mind in the village square without fearing the Gestapo. Not merely the ability to cast a vote in a public election. I'm talking about much more visceral, psychological, human concepts. The things we don't even think about as "basic human rights" anymore, because they're so deeply ingrained into what we expect out of life.

Freedom is the ability to try a new career just because it sounds fun.

Freedom is the ability to watch whatever TV shows we want, without having to worry about Beavis being stopped from saying "Fire" or South Park from making fun of Mohammed because of some pressure group donning the mantle of the Offended-American.

Freedom is the desire to own a house and a plot of land, to build a deck out back, and to build a fire in the fireplace while scoffing at rumors of attempts by the city government to fine and tax those things away.

Freedom is the ability to train for a private pilot's license, volunteer for the Civil Air Patrol to do drug interdiction at the San Diego border zone (freeing up law enforcement to handle anti-terrorism activities), strap on a .44 revolver, and fly to another State just so you can enjoy sitting on the tarmac in your own piece of sovereign territory, immune from the gun-control laws of whatever State you landed in (until, at least, you set foot on the asphalt).

And freedom is the ability to obtain the means to pay for all these things by putting in the effort of two-and-a-half European workers in their proletarian paradises; pounding away on overtime hours and in second jobs into the wee hours, working evenings and weekends and holidays, not merely putting in the time, but excelling at making new things to contribute to the employer's financial well-being, and in so doing creating out of thin air the inventions that will define the technological advancements of the coming decades.

Sylvain M'Boussa, 30, was recently leaving the "Big Sky" mall in Ivry, a gritty suburb on the outskirts of Paris, with his wife and small children in tow. They had shopped at Carrefours, the French answer to Wal-Mart. M'Boussa, who works as a dispatcher for a messenger service, said the short workweek is great for his family life but disastrous for his wallet.

"I can't save money. I'm thinking of leaving France" to seek better opportunities in Canada or elsewhere, he said. "There, maybe you wouldn't get good health care or pension benefits, but at least for those who want to succeed, there are real opportunities. Here, you're just blocked."

Leaving aside the remark about "good health care", and omitting to note that Canada's prime minister flew to the US for his own surgery last year, and that all the prepaid health care in France's non-air-conditioned hospitals could do nothing to stem the deaths of 15,000 elderly citizens during the course of the heat wave this past summer...

Canada's a place that gets it-- at least, more so than France does. But Canada would do well to remember that, as France's example so vividly illustrates, once one feeds the Beast, it only grows larger; it never stays static or shrinks once its job is done. It must justify its own existence, and once given the tether it so badly desires, it never voluntarily comes back to the post where it's tied.

It's so easy to treat a defense of this concept of "freedom" as the simple, jingoistic rantings of a Montana survivalist. Yet how else to respond to such clear and obvious vindications of that very conviction?

As Whittle says,

Those that fear American power in the future might stop to consider that if current trends continue, we will – again – have no need to go forth into the world, because what good ideas that do come from outside our borders – and they are legion – are cooked up by individuals who almost universally want to come to America because here we admire and respect innovation, here ingenuity is rewarded – in cash! – rather than strangled and buried under ever-thickening, Kudzu-like mats of bureaucracy.

It’s like oil loading itself on tankers and making their way to Galveston, or entire counties of prime farmland cutting themselves into sod and stowing away in container ships, to be opened and unfurled in Long Beach harbor complete with sheep and shepherds.

We've got something good going on here, and I'd hate to see it allowed to wither because we'd somehow managed to convince ourselves that the Beast was friendly after all.


16:41 - Reinstall the Internet
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/25/

(top)
Now here's a meme that's grown some unexpected legs...



Such was J.R.R. Tolkien's legacy; and perhaps it would not have displeased him.

Shyeah.


10:48 - Double-take

(top)
Sometimes I wonder whether those History Channel shows are written by people with more of a sense of irony and humor than they usually let on.

Yesterday, the narrator on one of the Pearl Harbor shows, when discussing the events leading up to the Rape of Nanking, said: "The Japanese people thought that they were freeing the Manchurians from the chains of colonialism. They also believed that Japan needed Manchuria's rich material resources to help build their empire."

Delivered perfectly straight, without further embellishment, and giving way immediately to the next historical point.

I don't know whether I'd prefer it if it were intentional or fortuitous...

Saturday, December 6, 2003
11:00 - The F-bomb
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/43544.htm

(top)
The obvious question one must ask: Is this what the Democrats are reduced to?

Sen. Kerry (Mass.) used the undeleted expletive to express his frustration and anger over how the Iraq issue has hurt him because he voted for the war resolution while Democratic front-runner Howard Dean has soared by opposing it.

"I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, 'I'm against everything'? Sure. Did I expect George Bush to f - - - it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did," Kerry told the youth-oriented magazine.

Brookings Institution presidential scholar Stephen Hess said he can't recall another candidate attacking a president with X-rated language in a public interview.

"It's so unnecessary," Hess said. "In a way it's a kind of pandering [by Kerry] to a group he sees as hip . . . I think John Kerry is going to regret saying this."

You know what? I don't think Bush has a thing to worry about next year.

At least not from the Democrats.

Friday, December 5, 2003
17:12 - There's a frightening thought
http://www.nypost.com/business/12500.htm

(top)
Steve Jobs in charge of Disney?

It could happen, if rumors were legally binding. Sent by Mark:

As far as the entertainment industry and Wall Street would be concerned, the most welcome second-in-charge and nominal successor to Eisner could be none other than Steven Paul Jobs - head of Apple Computer and Pixar,and the guy who currently has Disney over one massive barrel.

"That one's been around for a while," says a Disney spokesperson.

Indeed. But sources out in the land of warmth say speculation that the Disney Co. would be forced to offer Jobs a position - if only a seat on the board - intensified this week, as soon as Roy Disney's keister had cleared the company parking lot.

But there are problems, naturally.

For one thing, Eisner apparently doesn't much like Jobs, either.

And the famously independent Jobs, who founded Apple Computer in his family's garage, apparently has been returning the dislike ever since Eisner accused Apple in Washington of abetting video piracy.

Yeah, that's okay-- nobody likes Eisner these days.

I just have to wonder... let's say Jobs does to Eisner what he did to Amelio: comes into the company as an outside voice, a bit of consulting help; then he turns up on the Board of Directors; then he makes a subtle little gesture with his head, and the former CEO is booted out, making way for the Steve to step in. Let's say this happens at Disney. What would happen to the product? We could be certain that the company's direction would change, in some way; it would be unlike Steve not to instigate major upheavals. But which direction would it jump? Would Disney throw even more weight behind the glorious golden future of 3D animation, bowing to Jobs' Pixar experience? Would this simply further seal the fate of Disney's 2D feature business?

Maybe not. Jobs' philosophy has always been one of "Do what you do best, and be better than anybody else at it". It's not about the promotion of one particular technology or product; it's about having a pool of talent at a company coming together as more than the sum of its parts, creating new things out of pure synergy. In Apple's case, that means making supah-sweet computers and iPods, led by the likes of Jonathan Ive and Avie Tevanian, the best minds in their respective businesses. For Pixar, it's about leading the 3D charge not through superior technology, but through Lasseter's story vision, making movies that are stories first and 3D animation second; Pixar movies are helped by looking great, but without the writing they'd be nothing.

So maybe Jobs leading Disney would be one of the best possible scenarios for those hoping the 2D feature animation business isn't dead. Maybe he'd recognize that nobody on earth understands the grandeur possible in traditional animation better than Disney's animators do, and he'd have the personality presence to channel that expertise in the way that it once was done.

And if not, it's not like the trajectory they're currently on could be much more dismal...

Thursday, December 4, 2003
17:01 - Turkeygate
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012856.php

(top)
WaPo:

President Bush's Baghdad turkey was for looking, not for eating.

In the most widely published image from his Thanksgiving day trip to Baghdad, the beaming president is wearing an Army workout jacket and surrounded by soldiers as he cradles a huge platter laden with a golden-brown turkey.

The bird is so perfect it looks as if it came from a food magazine, with bunches of grapes and other trimmings completing a Norman Rockwell image that evokes bounty and security in one of the most dangerous parts of the world.

But as a small sign of the many ways the White House maximized the impact of the 21/2-hour stop at the Baghdad airport, administration officials said yesterday that Bush picked up a decoration, not a serving plate.

Officials said they did not know the turkey would be there or that Bush would pick it up. A contractor had roasted and primped the turkey to adorn the buffet line, while the 600 soldiers were served from cafeteria-style steam trays, the officials said. They said the bird was not placed there in anticipation of Bush's stealthy visit, and military sources said a trophy turkey is a standard feature of holiday chow lines.

To paraphrase Arthur Dent: Would it save a lot of time if I just went ahead and went mad now?

I'm racking my brains to come up with a word to use in place of the woefully inadequate "pathetic". But all I can think to do is to bear down on that very word, to turn to its florid definition and history in the OED, and ponder its meaning on all levels of interpretation and etymology. Pathetic. There is no more appropriate word.

What must it be like in the breakrooms of these news offices? Editors hunched glumly around metal folding tables, drinking coffee, heads propped in hands as they moan to each other about their collective failure to come up with a sufficiently explosive scandal with which to detonate the Bush Administration?

What level of despair must there be among the senior editors, for them to conclude that it's worth a shot to run a story on whether the turkey that Bush posed with was the one they carved the soldiers' portions from or not?

I can take some solace, I suppose, that I don't live in England, where this is how the enlightened elite saw the event.

Bush's standing rose in a poll conducted immediately after the trip. Administration officials said the presidential stop provided a morale boost that troops in Iraq are still talking about, and helped reassure Iraqis about U.S. intentions.

Nevertheless, the foray has opened new credibility questions for a White House that has dealt with issues as small as who placed the "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the aircraft carrier Bush used to proclaim the end of major combat operations in Iraq, and as major as assertions about Saddam Hussein's arsenal of unconventional weapons and his ability to threaten the United States...

The trip was pulled off in total secrecy -- only a few Bush aides and reporters knew about it in advance, and they were allowed to discuss it only on secure phone lines. Reporters covering the Thanksgiving program in Baghdad were not allowed to report the event until after Air Force One had left.

Some of the reporters left behind at Crawford Middle School, where they work when Bush is staying at his Texas ranch, felt they had been deceived by White House accounts of what Bush would be doing on Thanksgiving.

Hey, guys? Ever notice how the only people for whom this event "raises questions" are those who would benefit from a Bush takedown? Notice how you never seem to hear these kinds of ludicrous complaints from, say, the soldiers or the Iraqis?

Or don't they count?

Pathetic. It's the only word for it. This is what our news media is reduced to.

Pathetic.


13:17 - "I like puppies! And space travel! And chocolate!"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104800,00.html

(top)
Wasn't it just Tuesday when I said that I hoped Bush would "give a speech where he says 'I like puppies' or something, just so we can watch the protesters' reaction: Hah! Well, we hate puppies! Down with puppies!"?

Well, shut my mouth:

President Bush (search) wants to send Americans back to the moon — and may leave a permanent presence there — in a bold new vision for space exploration, administration officials said yesterday.

The return to the moon would be for the purpose of technological advancements in technology, including energy exploration and testing a military rocket engine.

And a permanent presence likely will include robots and communication satellites.

But beyond the nuts and bolts, Bush's call for a to return to space would give Americans something new to hope for - amid a period of permanent anxiety about terrorism. It would also help move NASA beyond last February's space shuttle Columbia disaster.

Sources said the president may also give the go-ahead to pursue a manned trip to Mars - a long range goal.

Let the countdown begin to the protesters-- who used to get misty over NASA's every idealistic accomplishment-- taking to the streets waving NO TO BUSH'S SPACE IMPERIALISM and NO BLOOD FOR MOON ROCKS banners: T minus twelve, eleven, ten...

Wednesday, December 3, 2003
15:50 - Dig harder, Andrew
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34291.html

(top)
Damien sends me this Register article in which Andrew Orlowski, with the help of several adroit readers, has unearthed a scandalous secret: iTunes/AAC DRM places restrictions on consumers. Oh me, oh my.

Johansen posted his code on Friday a week ago, but the discussions were rumbling on well into Thanksgiving: the remarkable thing being how people who had happily bought iTunes music without realizing that they were guinea pigs for a much larger social engineering experiment were now cottoning on. What seemed like a friction-free source of happiness one day, looked like a noose the next.

How so?

Well, by observing the time honored BBC tradition - that there are only two, and never more than two sides to an argument - Apple's alliance with the RIAA has been welcomed in the public prints as an honest compromise. On one side, there are P2P file swappers, on the other, are the pigopolists who want to lock down your music forever.

It's an appealing, but absurd reduction, however; one that's flawed by the amount of ideology that's already baked-in to the argument. As Register readers pointed out, the issue is one of who owns, or has rights to use our common culture. That means stuff we created ourselves, and only we can decide is worth sharing. And as many of you pointed out, what we call the "entertainment industry" today is merely a distributor, much like the Victorian canal owners were in the last century, in Britain. The smarter Bridgewaters bought into the upcoming railways, while the dumber canal owners didn't, and died a natural death. Today's pigopolists don't "own" the culture simply by claiming that their exclusivity is based on technology - that's a social contract we don't buy, and history, in most cases, is on our side.

So for Apple to pop up and grant the dying RIAA members a $99c toll on each song - when the distribution costs are zero, and when the RIAA is so manifestly corrupt - is a pill many find hard to swallow.

I don't know what it is he's trying to say here-- that Apple shouldn't be charging money for songs? That they should sell music but shouldn't have to give any of the money to the RIAA? That they can collect a profit but the song files should have no DRM? I thought we'd been through all this before.

His readers-- not, mind you, what he calls the "Apple Taliban" who have the nerve to suggest that QTFairUse doesn't really present much more of a vulnerability to iTunes' saleability than re-recording using an analog line-in cable-- come across as bitter basement pundits:

"I'm glad to see the system is being challenged, not being a user of ITunes I didn't realize there were copying limitations on the files. For the life of me I can't figure out why on earth ANYONE would be willing to spend $1.00 per song and get nothing more than a file. This seems to me that the consumer is being screwed royally by the RIAA. It works like this: I end up paying $15-20 dollars for a CD and get no physical product. The record company gets to sell it for the same price but pays nothing for manufacturing and distribution. No middle men to speak of, the public gets hosed. But that's what they've been doing for years anyway. Just curious, does the artists cut increase with online distribution? Support the artists but boycott the RIAA and overpriced online music."

Of course he's not an iTunes user, but he's all too willing to call it "overpriced". Look, genius, you have two options: pay money for legal music that follows well-established rules of commerce, or get it on KaZaA for free. It's obvious which you'd prefer, but if your threshold for making the move to purchased digital music is "When it's free", then you've bifurcated yourself from the rest of the music-buying community, along with the rest of the file-swappers. These two camps will fluctuate in relative size until one wins. But they won't merge. Purchased music won't become "too cheap to meter". The RIAA won't shrivel up and disappear. If you're not willing to compromise, well then, good on you for holding on to your principles, whatever they are.

But thanks to the connivance of get-rich-quick computer companies, who have this year tried to market DRM, the dying industries have an opportunity: not only to control the distribution of popular culture, but of course its price, too. And remember, most of that $99c goes back to the pigopolists. Even seasoned music industry executives are championing models that allow music to be shared, and that give the artists their fair due. The Apple-RIAA pact closes such arguments, both parties argue, all in the sake of 'convenience'.

But at what cost does this convenience come?

For a Steve Jobs, relaxing in his Austin Powers Peninsular pad, downloading Fleetwood Mac from one expensive gadget to another expensive gadget must seem the very embodiment of friction-free futurism. Bully for him. But for readers such as Gene Mosher, enjoyment of our culture represents a very inconvenience. Let's hear it in full, once again -

. . .
I'll be damned in hell before I accept the notion that I and my ancestors who love to listen to the audio arts are in any sense guilty of anything that is illegal, wrong, evil, immoral or improper.

Remember when we smirked at Tommy Lee Jones in Men In Black when he held up that little mini-disc thing which he said would replace CDs, and ruefully sighed that he'd have to buy The White Album again?

Damn "pigopolists".

I suppose this is the shining alternative, right?

As with so much Apple technology, iTunes DRM is a matter of learning to stop worrying and love the bomb. Stop fighting the pulsing rhythm of IT and become a citizen of Camazotz. Or, if you prefer, just quit trying to second-guess the system and find a way to get something for nothing. iTunes' DRM is less restrictive than any of the WMA-based schemes, and if even that's not good enough to wean you from KaZaA, then we can't expect that anything will. But in a couple years, when everybody's enjoying their legit digital music, which they bought for less than it would have cost on CD, guess what: they will be in the position that PC-based gamers are in now relative to Mac users. Having accepted a modest sacrifice, they're now the mainstream... and the holdouts have the look of crazed basement-dwelling Luddites. You wouldn't want that to happen, would you?

God damn, I'm tired today.

Tuesday, December 2, 2003
23:47 - Ukiah, say it ain't so
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/Stories/0,1413,91~3085~1802340,00.html

(top)
This is my hometown. This is my high school.

Billed as "The Wheels of Justice Bus Tour," a brightly decorated school bus will roll into Mendocino County on Thursday, Dec. 4, bringing speakers who have recently been to war zones in the Middle East. Having seen and lived with war, terror, and occupation in Iraq and Palestine, participants in the Wheels of Justice offer first-hand witness about the actual effects of war and occupation on people abroad and Americans at home.

"The bus is really a mobile classroom," says Ceylon Mooney, the tour's national coordinator. "It comes complete with teachers and a wide range of instructional materials: videos, photographs, essays, fact sheets, etc."

Several events are planned in Ukiah and Fort Bragg. The bus will spend Thursday afternoon at Ukiah High School. At lunchtime, in an event sponsored by the Ukiah High Progressive Club, bus tour speakers will talk with students and faculty. The bus will remain on campus throughout the afternoon.

At 7 p.m. on Thursday, Dec. 4, a presentation and discussion will be held at the Ukiah City Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue. The following day, the bus will travel to Fort Bragg, for a presentation at the Town Hall, on the corner of Laurel and Main Streets. These two evening events are free and open to the public.

Commenting on the upcoming events, Gordon Miles, UUSD social studies teacher said, "From a teacher's perspective, any time we encounter an alternate perspective based on experience, it challenges our ways of thinking. At the same time, our students will challenge their assumptions. This can only lead to greater understanding."

Among the speakers traveling with the bus when it arrives in Mendocino County is John Farrell, 28, an organizer with Voices in the Wilderness in Chicago. Farrell recently spent a month in Iraq interviewing ordinary Iraqis on the street and in their homes, talking with U.S. soldiers about their experiences, and witnessing the violence and tensions in Iraqi neighborhoods.

Another speaker, Lauren Anzaldo, is a 24-year-old resident of Pensacola, Fla. She spent two months this summer living and working as an ESL teacher in Jenin, Palestine. A member of the International Solidarity Movement, her presentation will focus on the effects of the "Security Wall" under construction in Palestine, on the day-to-day life of families in Jenin, and on the possibility of peace between Israel and Palestine.

I loved Ukiah for all the first eighteen years of my life. It's an island of apolitical, agricultural sanity between the well-understood turmoil of San Francisco and the pot-heavy air of Humboldt County. Ukiah High School is large, comparatively wealthy, well-staffed with talented teachers, and designed like an outdoor-oriented junior college with lawns and benches and angular stucco walls that come as close as possible to being Good Architectural Design from the 70s. When I pass through there for Memorial Day each year, the sentiments on the roadsides are genuine. It's still, to the best of my knowledge, one of the best places in all of California.

I thought I knew the Ukiah Daily Journal better than to expect its reporters not to understand that the country Jenin is in-- not to mention the "quote-unquote" "Security" "Wall" "quote-unquote"-- is not called "Palestine".

...Then again, on second thought, the paper's been full of howlers all my life. I still remember how they reported my friend Eric's loss at our fifth grade spelling bee. The BBC's got nothing on the Journal's "sexing up" of events.

Par for the course, then.

Via LGF, one place where I never expected to see the name of my beloved hometown. Charles has the lowdown on who the organizers of this event in fact are.


23:29 - "We're all different!" "I'm not!"

(top)
So in the spirit of playing nice with our overseas allies and partners, Bush is repealing the steel tariffs, which were an ugly thing that all the conservative bloggers hated. And wouldn't you know it, according to NPR's news, the Giant Puppet Brigade is protesting, demanding a continuation of the tariffs.

Why don't they just cut to the chase? Why not just carry huge banners that say WE HATE BUSH NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES!

I can't wait to see W give a speech where he says "I like puppies" or something, just so we can watch the protesters' reaction: Hah! Well, we hate puppies! Down with puppies!

Sheesh.

09:42 - Going after the coveted "kindergartner" demographic
http://www.kucinich.us/endorsements/endorsements/grandfather_twilight.php

(top)
Chances are that this man will actually be standing behind a podium and debating with actual Presidential candidates ahead of the upcoming election.

I met Grandfather Twilight for the first time in 1975. We became friends and he often visited my studio, where he helped me create a picture book (Grandfather Twilight, Philomel Books, 1984). Yet when he spoke out recently, endorsing Dennis Kucinich for President, I was stunned. For in all the time I have known him, Mr. Twilight has spoken very few words. His is a quiet wisdom. So quiet, in fact, that teachers and parents still remark on the hush that comes over children whenever they hear his story...

The audience will be enraptured. If just to hear what comes out of his mouth next.

Don't forget to send each other Kucinich e-cards this Solstice season.

Fer cryin' out loud...

Monday, December 1, 2003
10:03 - Too funny
http://broc7.blogspot.com/2003_11_23_broc7_archive.html#home

(top)
Via Cold Fury-- everybody's linking this, and I'm powerless to resist joining the fun. But I'm going to do it by simply quoting Patterico's post:

INCREDIBLY STUPID COLUMN EXPOSED, OR, WHY YOU SHOULD THINK TWICE WHEN YOU'RE THE ONLY GUY IN THE WORLD WITH AN AMAZING INSIGHT: Hahahahahahaha. A guy named Wayne Madsen at a leftist site called CounterPunch has an entire column making fun of George Bush for supposedly forcing military personnel to eat that famous Thanksgiving dinner at 6 a.m.The only problem, as Brian O'Connell points out, is that they ate the dinner at 6 p.m.

Based on his sloppy mistake about the time, Madsen writes a whole piece mocking the supposed 6 a.m. dinner. In the process, he makes plenty of idiotic statements. For example, he claims that

our military men and women were downing turkey, stuffing, cranberry sauce, pumpkin pie, and non-alcoholic beer at a time when most people would be eating eggs, bacon, grits, home fries, and toast.

He also says:

I would have thought most of the troops, many of whom are support personnel who work relatively normal working hours, would have been more surprised when they were ordered to get up before sunrise to eat Thanksgiving dinner between 6:00 and 7:30 A.M.

Madsen is proud that he is the only guy who figured this out. He says that "the abysmal and sycophantic Washington and New York press corps seems to have completely missed the Thanksgiving 'breakfast dinner.'" So why does he think nobody else remarked on the unusual timing of the dinner?

Chalk that up to the fact that most people in the media never saw a military chow line or experienced reveille in their lives. So it would certainly go over their heads that troops would be ordered out of bed to eat turkey and stuffing before the crack of dawn.

Or, Mr. Madsen, you could chalk it up to the fact that you are an idiot.

This is rich. Hurry and look before they figure out how stupid they were and take it down. Maybe one of you computer-savvy types can even save us a screen shot, to preserve the evidence. That way we can all laugh at this imbecile for years to come.

I've long since grown tired of the people who think it's some great insight to say how stupid Bush is. These are people who, if they were to take it upon themselves to actually research the things the man has done and accomplished in the last year alone, even if they disagreed with his policies, would be forced to admit that whatever else the man is, he's not some Epsilon-Minus chimpanzee. Hell, I'm even having these arguments in my dreams-- about twenty minutes before I woke up this morning, I was telling someone, slowly and carefully, that "He's the President of the United States. You don't get to be the President of the United States by being a moron. That's how you get to be a guy working at a dry cleaner." And the fact that these people haven't done such research and continue braying the same tired non-arguments means they're simply not worth debating. I'm not going to call them "idiots" in return, because there's no point.

But oh, how sweet it is to see it proved.

Sunday, November 30, 2003
21:17 - Go back to your bonfire

(top)
So SomethingAwful, in its inimitable way, is playing to what we know its audience to be in the following way:

Lately I've been thinking about the 2004 election. After all, the first primaries are coming up with remarkable speed. With any luck, Ol' Dubya will be out of the White House pretty soon. But in the meantime, I think it's high time we stop bemoaning the fact that we have a juvenile power-mad redneck as our current President and start enjoying the privileges this affords us. After all, we may have been the most powerful nation in the world under Clinton, and sure, we may have even felt like the most powerful nation in the world under Clinton. But did we get to act like the most powerful nation in the world under Clinton? I think not, unless you take "like the most powerful nation in the world" to mean "diplomatically and reasonably." But that's not what having power is all about. Having power is about making the people who don't have power feel like they don't have power. So as long as Bush is pissing off every other country in the world to the point where our allies are taking to the streets and burning him in effigy, let's make the most of it. Since we already look like jerks, we might as well be jerks. It's time to tell the other nations of the world that we're not acting like this because we're stupid. We're acting like this because we can, dammit!

Setting aside for a moment whether the disaffected college-age youths who were toppling the effigies represent "our allies" or not, I have to ask: Where's the honor in being in these countries' good graces?

These are countries that, "represented" by their unelected delegations in the EU, thought that there might be something worth investigating about how 59% of their polling publics had concluded that Israel was the world's biggest threat to peace and how anti-Semitic attacks and slanderous hatred seem to be occurring at a rate not seen there since the late 1930s; so they commissioned a study to find out where all this Jew-hatred could possibly be coming from. Then, when the independent body returned its findings that the attacks were primarily being perpetrated by young immigrant Muslims, the EU in its infinite wisdom buried the report for fear of offending young immigrant Muslims. In other words, fuck the Jews-- they've had their moment of sympathy.

And they call us the simplistic racists. Bunch of bloodthirsty, unrepentant, unreconstructed Nazis over there, the lot of them. (Or at least, 59% of them.) They haven't learned a goddamned thing from the past century.

I don't want these people's approval.

And I especially don't want them getting any ideas about "having power".

Thursday, November 27, 2003
00:19 - Now there's an undisclosed location
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/27/international/27WIRE-BUSH.html?hp

(top)
Via Instapundit-- you just gotta love this...

In a stunning mission conducted under enormous secrecy, President Bush flew into Baghdad today aboard Air Force One to have dinner with United States officials and a group of astonished American troops.

His trip _ the first ever to Iraq by an American president _ had been kept a matter of absolute secrecy by the White House, which had said that he would be spending the Thanksgiving weekend at his ranch outside Crawford, Tex. . . .

The presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, appearing on CNN, called it ``a perfectly executed plan'' that would be ``one of the major moments in his biography.'' It would have provided ``an incredible thrill'' for the American.

Mr. Bush sneaked out of Crawford on Wednesday in an unmarked car, then flew to Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, where a few advisers and a small number of reporters sworn to secrecy joined him. They then flew on to Baghdad International Airport, arriving around dusk.

...

"We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost of casualties, defeat a ruthless dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins," the president said, prompting a standing ovation and cheers.

He also had a message for the people of Iraq: "The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone forever," he said, and pledged the help of the United States and its coalition partners, saying "we will stay until the job is done. I'm confident we will succeed."

Wearing an exercise jacket with a 1st Armored Division patch, Bush stood in a chow line and dished out sweet potatoes and corn for Thanksgiving dinner and posed with a platter of fresh-baked turkey.

It reads like a parody. If this were early April, I'd certainly be doing a double-take. But no, this is just the way it's done these days.

First he does a tailhook landing on a carrier to show the flyboys that he's willing to undergo the same dangers that they do every day. Now he's following the flight-path of the DHL jet that got RPG'd on its approach a few days ago.

One would have thought he'd tone down these stunts, under pressure from the Agent Smiths surrounding him. But noooo. I wonder if even Democratic Underground hates Bush as much as whatever hapless schmoe is responsible for directing this man's security does.

But I'm sure it's all just an empty gesture, that all the soldiers see through to its hollow, shallow roots. Just politicking; just grandstanding, just baby-kissing.

Whatever. You know what? These are epic times. Not just terrible, fearful times-- epic times. And I'm not complaining one bit that there's a guy in office who's willing to put some good things into this chapter of future history books to go along with the bad ones.

Wednesday, November 26, 2003
16:36 - Clippy's been de-res'ed!

(top)
This is what happens when you run Microsoft Office and that Matrix screensaver on the same Windows machine, and they fight for the same piece of memory:



Now if only I could simply stretch out my gloved hand and decompile Clippy into a vertical stream of unidentifiable amber ASCII characters, and hold him there until I squint behind my little oval sunglasses and with a barely perceptible gesture I break the loose bindings that hold his virtual entity together and he dissolves into the digital continuum...

Monday, November 24, 2003
18:06 - Dum dum dum dum dum
http://www.southparkstudios.com/down/guide.html?id=712

(top)
By the way... I'm sure quite a few people saw last week's South Park episode, and I'm sure that the lesson it taught-- in light of the "Let's Make Fun of Islam (coughandalltheotherreligionstoocough)" episode that caused all the furor a Thursday or two ago-- was not lost on them.

Namely, that this one made fun of the Mormons... for about 21 minutes. Then, in the final sixty seconds, Trey and Matt spun around and whapped the audience in the face with a two-by-four.

You've got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we appreciate South Park so much. Yeah, anybody can make fun of the Mormons, say the duo (I believe Trey was brought up Mormon-- and hell, he's done it before). But it takes being willing to shake up the audience and alienate the people who are lulled into that dum-dum-dum-dum-dum-stupor to turn around and point out the obvious, practical, real-world significance of whatever topic they're skewering this week. The lesson, as always, is quit being such a dumbass, get your head out of the clouds, and come join us in the real world.

And even without the turnaround at the end, in any case, I'd have a hard time imagining the Mormons getting up in arms over this episode. If they didn't do so over Trey's 1997 masterwork, they won't now.

Though if Trey and Matt ever go after the Scientologists, now...


11:29 - Now that's redwood

(top)
Behold! The partially-finished deck.



It's already serving a gallant purpose: providing a clean, level surface at the same level as the kitchen floor, so one can traverse the six feet to the hot tub without walking through mud or going down and up steps. It's all Thompsonized, too, and the water seal brings out that deep rich redness all the more. This deck rocks.

It's going to rock all the more when the secondary, raised portion is done. All that's complete at the moment is part of the truss, but when it's finished, it'll be a quarter-circle jutting out over the planter box, where there will be a tree and lots of planted items. And it's 25 inches or so up off the ground. The vertical variation in this backyard is going to be what makes it cool. Especially once the sunken areas are done, with all their landscaping and flagstones and gazebos and things.

It's really taking shape now...


11:23 - I love it here

(top)
Last night I finished the book and submitted the last five AR chapters.

And just as I'm ready to step blinking back out into the sunlight, I discover that it's November. How the hell did that happen?

Now I have to wear a jacket when I walk Capri at 2:00 AM. But as I pass the long open swath where the power lines are strung, I can hear the weird yelping howl of coyotes, howlign all night somewhere up in the Almaden Valley. If I listen, I can even hear them from my bedroom window.

Right here in the middle of Silicon Valley, and I can hear coyotes from my house.

November or not, I love this place.

Wednesday, November 19, 2003
17:42 - Speechifying
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031119-1.html

(top)
I know it's difficult to judge how good an orator a given President is by the content of any particular speech, because they're all written by hired teams of wordsmiths, and the President is just the vehicle (right?).

But part of me just likes believing that Bush wrote stuff like this himself:

It was pointed out to me that the last noted American to visit London stayed in a glass box dangling over the Thames. (Laughter.) A few might have been happy to provide similar arrangements for me. (Laughter.) I thank Her Majesty the Queen for interceding. (Laughter.) We're honored to be staying at her house.

Americans traveling to England always observe more similarities to our country than differences. I've been here only a short time, but I've noticed that the tradition of free speech -- exercised with enthusiasm -- (laughter) -- is alive and well here in London. We have that at home, too. They now have that right in Baghdad, as well. (Applause.)

And that's just the start. There are plenty more "(Laughter)"s before the piece is out.


11:34 - One for the ages
http://www.porphyrogenitus.net/archives/week_2003_11_16.html#001819

(top)
Via Cold Fury-- this is quite possibly the funniest damned thing I've seen all month: a story related by Porphyrogenitus' uncle in Iraq.

A squad of Marines were driving up the highway between Basra and Baghdad. They came upon an Iraqi soldier badly injured and unconscious.

Nearby, on the opposite side of the road, was an American Marine in a similar but less serious state. The Marine was conscious and alert.

As first aid was given to both men, the Marine was asked what had happened. The Marine reported; “I was heavily armed and moving north along the highway. Coming south was a heavily armed Iraqi soldier.”

“What happened then?” the corpsman asked.

“I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein was a miserable ass hole, and he yelled back: ‘Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton are miserable ass holes’.

“We were standing there shaking hands when a truck hit us.”

Beauty, eh?


11:04 - Why I fear for the future of a great ally
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1087591,00.html

(top)
From The Guardian's page of letters from what seem to be deliciously cherry-picked celebrity sources to George W. Bush on the occasion of his arrival in Britain:

Dear George,

I would just like to say how much I hate you. You have done nothing positive in your whole time as president. You are the reason for the poverty in the Middle East. You have no idea what you are doing. You're killing loads of people, and that is not excluding your own nation too. There are still lots of very poor people in America, and they are getting poorer.

You keep making excuses about Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, but all you were in Iraq for was the oil. Saddam had been there for 30 years, so why is it only now you decided to act? You keep talking about September 11 when all you do is bomb other countries and give Israel lots of money. It is a very bad idea that you have come over here.

I don't want to grow up in a country which is so influenced by you and your policies.
Mickey (12)

How goddamned sad is that?


UPDATE: Oh, and the last time I saw something like this, it was on the Ar-Rahman list.


Tuesday, November 18, 2003
00:17 - What a turkey sandwich was truly meant to be

(top)




...What?


16:36 - NIMBY

(top)
So at what point do we declare that the second Kristallnacht has occurred?

Obviously Jewish high schools or the Israeli embassy in France getting torched hasn't qualified. Nor has all the anti-Semitic graffiti at Rutgers and other enlightened universities, or on WWI memorials in France.

So how about the Holocaust Museum in Terre Haute getting firebombed and burned to the ground?

The last fifty years have been but an uneasy respite, everybody. Round Two is upon us.

Monday, November 17, 2003
09:58 - Look what's done

(top)
Here's what we finished this weekend.


Yay!

The deck's in two sections (so far-- a third, raised one will straddle the planter box where it sweeps diagonally across the left segment), and we did the first one Saturday and the other one yesterday. The first one-- directly between the hot tub and the door-- was just a simple rectangular truss, which we bracketed down onto the beams footed in concrete. The other piece, though, was more complex-- sort of a "U" shape, which we partially constructed on top of the hot tub, then moved into position, and then held up at a twisty oblique angle-- huffing and puffing-- by one of us while the other fired in deck screws at a rate that would make one think what it would be like if Legolas were a carpenter.

Then a generous slathering of Thompson's, and then some planks laid down so Capri can get out into the yard without breaking his legs. (He has not been happy with the recent developments in his backyard. It'll get better soon, trust me...)

Just another couple of days' worth of work, and the planking will be down. And oh, what a psychological coup that will be.


09:38 - Braaaaaaiiiins

(top)
Okay... so like, I was up till well past 4:00 AM last night doing author review on the most hideously mutant chapter ever-- a combination of three previously submitted chapters, which I had to stitch together with new text and illustrations and somehow form into a coherent whole. I don't remember any of it, so I may or may not have been successful. Either way, I haven't had much sleep this weekend at all. As you'll probably hear once I get a certain post written.

So if anybody needs me, I'll... uh, be right here pretending I feel like a normal human being.

Saturday, November 15, 2003
13:46 - Oh, that evidence
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103176,00.html

(top)
You know... it seems to me that the administration could have saved itself an awful lot of grief by simply releasing information like this before its entire integrity was called into question.

Friday, November 14, 2003
10:55 - Enough old-food mockery to go 'round
http://www.candyboots.com/wwcards.html

(top)
This lady soooo wants to be Lileks.

Reading it is like reading Cracked magazine when your subscription to MAD has run out, but even Cracked had the occasional funny morsel.

...Okay, no, it didn't. But this site is good for a chuckle or three.

Thursday, November 13, 2003
11:24 - How To Do It
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/11/12/national0350

(top)
Wesley Clark's going to show us all up by catching Osama bin Laden.

Alan: Hello children!

Jackie: Hello!

Wesley: Hello!

GC: Hello!

Alan: Well, last week we showed you how to be a gynaecologist, and this week on "How to do it", we're gonna learn how to play the flute, how to split the atom, how to construct box-girder bridges...

Jackie: Super!

Alan: ...and how to catch the notorious terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, but first here's Jackie to tell you how to rid the world of all known diseases.

Jackie: Hello Alan!

Alan: Hello Jackie!

Jackie: Well first of all, become a doctor and discover a marvellous cure for something and then, when the medical world really starts to take notice of you, you can jolly well tell them what to do and make sure they get everything right, so that there'll never be diseases anymore.

Alan: Thanks Jackie, that was great!

GC: Fantastic!

Alan: Now, how to play the flute. Well, you blow in one end and move your fingers up and down the outside.

GC: Great Alan! Now, we have Wesley, who will tell us how to catch Osama bin Laden!

Wesley: Right-- you talk to the Saudis, and you pressure them to jolly well help us out, and then we take their crack Saudi commandos to where Osama is hiding out on the Pakistani border and we run up and catch him!

GC: That's just wonderful, Wesley! Well, next week we'll be showing you how black and white people can live together in peace and harmony and Alan will be over in Moscow showing you how to reconcile the Russians and the Chinese. Till then, cheerio!

Alan: Bye!

Jackie: Bye bye!

Wesley: Bye!

GC: Bye!


09:57 - I knew this was coming
http://forum.ymuk.net/showthread.php?s=bfe6ade06c1048559f54f788e3253a92&threadid=580

(top)
Just what I wanted to wake up to. Via LGF:

The episode of South Park broadcast on 10th October 2003 at 11.40 pm featured the Prophets Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) portrayed as ridiculous super-heroes struggling to defeat David Blaine! It's not funny and it's not clever!

I beg to differ. It was hysterical. As was the portrayal of Buddha, Confucius, Vishnu, and Aquaman, similarly powerful and relevant-to-modern-life superheroes.

Is a tiny bit of respect really too much to ask? Will the kuffar soon be using the name of the Last Prophet (pbuh) as a swear word, in the same way that they already abuse the name of Jesus (pbuh)? It is part of our aqeedah to defend the Prophets! Or will we stand by silently?

You'll stand by silently as long as we stand by silently as you call us kuffar, understand? One day you'll learn (as the West did) that satire is a form of speech... and speech is protected by laws higher than religious ones in this and other enlightened countries. You don't like it, there are plenty of countries where that is not the case. Move already, and Muhammad you.

Make your feelings clear to Channel 4. Please bombard them with calls and e-mails, making the following points:

I'm sure the network that produces "Brass Eye" (with comic episodes painting Britain as a nation of deranged pedophiles) will leap right into action and start belting out the apologies. But then, it wouldn't be the first time.

* The episode of South Park entitled 'Super Best Friends' was deeply hurtful to Muslims.

Bets on how long it'll be between South Park getting censored and the BBC banning all appearances of pork, music, scantily-clad women, and Jews? Anyone?

* Yes, we are aware that 'South Park' is intended to be offensive and is certainly not pretending to be a factual representation. But this programme was deliberately offensive to all Muslims by subjecting no less than three of their most respected prophets to ridicule - Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all).

Wear a fucking helmet. You don't see the Jews and the Christians getting all worked up about this, do you? What about Buddhists? What about Aquaman fans? I know they're out there.

The whole point of the episode was to mock all religions equally, by satirizing each one's holiest figure. I know you'd love to think Trey and Matt were trying to lay on some kind of blasphemous Muslim triple-whammy by involving Muhammad, Moses, and Jesus, but how is it their fault if you claim all these guys as prophets?

LIving in the kuffar's country means living by the kuffar's rules. What's that? You want Western nations' luxury but you want your hosts to adopt your customs? Tough titties. Welcome to the 21st century.

And if Islam is so fragile that it needs to be defended against stuff like South Park, I consider that a bug, not a feature. That's not really what you mean to suggest, is it?

* To Muslims it is very important never to make any pictorial representations of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). It is therefore very upsetting for Muslim viewers that in this programme Muhammad (pbuh) was drawn in cartoon form, with a face and speaking role. The cartoon portrayed Muhammad in a ridiculous and offensive manner. He carried a rifle and amongst other things was made to fly around shooting fire from his fingers at a statue brought to life.

Yeah, doesn't that suck? They showed Muhammad saving the world along with his fellow religious figures. Blasphemy! He had a face and spoke. Fie!

Get it through your heads: South Park isn't produced by Muslims, so there's only one sin involved here: your watching it. Turn the damn thing off if your eyes are so sensitive.

* To ridicule the Prophet Muhammad is infinitely more hurtful to a Muslim than any insult that could be directed against them personally. The Qur'an says, "The prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves" (33:6).

The Book of Brian says, "Laugh at yourself, yea, or else the world laughs at you" (12:19). What? You say my book doesn't have legitimacy with you? Well, what a fucking coincidence.

* Channel 4 should have been aware of the hurt this would cause to Muslim viewers. This programme demonstrates a complete lack of respect on the part of Channel 4 and the programme's makers.

I'm sure I merely missed the outcry from this country's hundreds of millions of Christians over the fact that South Park features Jesus as a recurring character who hosts his own cable-access talk show, and Satan as the gay lover of Saddam Hussein, or the uproar from the Jewish community over the depiction of Moses as the MCP from Tron who thrives on soap sculptures and macaroni pictures made by Jewish kids. What about all the episodes that mock gay people, the disabled, old people, and so on and so on? Are you more important than those groups-- or are they just less easily offended?

In any case, the Falwellian fundamentalists in this country at least have the decency to simply forbid their kids from watching blasphemous filth like South Park and The Simpsons, rather than trying to gratuitously ruin it for all the millions of people who do enjoy them.

(Aside: Anybody happen to know what the line was that they had to change in the "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein" episode of Family Guy so they could show it on Adult Swim? Just wondering.)

* Channel 4 consciously chose to trample on the feelings of Muslims in the name of entertainment. Is this how much they respect their Muslim viewers? There is no excuse for this, and those responsible should not hide behind anti-censorship arguments. Muslims have no objection to people expressing disagreement with the teachings of the prophets. However, to ridicule these deeply beloved figures is totally gratuitous.

Yes. That's called South Park. Feel free to not watch it. I'm sure there are some nice televangelists or porn channels that you can watch instead, huh? What's that-- you choose not to watch those channels? Amazing. A practicable solution right within your grasp.

Stupid kids burning down their houses ruined Beavis & Butt-head for the rest of us. I'll be damned if I stand around and watch it happen again in the name of "tolerance".

* Channel 4 should apologise for the offence caused to its Muslim viewers and should review its policies to ensure that in future it shows greater sensitivity and respect.

How about I come over to your house and point out how all the furniture sucks, how it's too hot, and how your roommates offend me-- and demand that you change them all to please me?

No? I wonder why that might be?

Though I suppose if I brought enough of my friends that we outnumbered you in your own house, then you wouldn't have much of a choice, now would you?

Do something and let others know.

Flash: South Park fans often are armed. Don't piss 'em off.

Wednesday, November 12, 2003
18:52 - Criticism only applies to the guy on the spot

(top)
Mark made the following comment in e-mail, regarding Al Gore's speech and his new-found reverence for civil liberties and non-intrusive government policies on search and seizure:

<snarky>
Al Gore didn't happen to disavow key escrow in that speech to MoveOn
did he?
</snarky>

Afterall, if we're going to get upset about the feds being able to get
a court order to look at someone's library records ("Hmm, Officer
Friday, he checked out 'Jihad for Dummies' and '101 Explosive
Household Chemicals'...") wouldn't we get upset about the feds being
able to use their key to snoop on my encrypted cell phone
conversations with my wife?

To be fair I'm sure the Bush administration and the Feds in general
would love to have key escrow, but for the man who was the last
administration's point man on key escrow to come out as a poster boy
for civil liberty strikes me as Gore simply looking for a handy bat to
beat Bush with.

Yes. Funny, I've been noticing a few other items like that lately-- such as this one, pointed out by Stephen Green:

Here's the problem:

The "quasi-hypnotic influence" of television in America has fostered a complacent nation that is a danger to democracy, former Vice President Al Gore said Tuesday.

Here's the solution:

Former US Vice President Al Gore is reportedly planning to start a liberal TV network to challenge the rise of conservative media.

Uh, Al. . .

Pot, meet kettle, indeed. Now, the more of these cases I see, the more it's clear that there are certain issues that just won't ever be solved on partisan grounds; for example, people huff and puff about Bush being hostile to gay marriage. But in so doing, they seem to conveniently forget which President it was who signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

Issues like these are going to be decided in the court of public opinion, on a state-by-state basis, as the American people collectively shift one way or the other. (In the latter example, it's only a matter of time before gay marriage is a reality-- and not because any President puts his rubber stamp on it, but because a majority of Americans in the various States decide that it's worth backing through their elected representatives.) Politicians, whatever their stripe, often succumb to certain kinds of temptations to power-- and yet it's only the one who's currently under the microscope who gets dinged for it. The ones holding the microscope know this all too well-- they know what they can get away with, because what do they have to lose if someone calls them on it?


17:46 - Ladies and Gentlemen, the Loyal Opposition
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclicktext/20031112/cm_ucru/whywefigh

(top)
1. Read.
2. Weep.

NEW YORK--Dear Recruit:

Thank you for joining the Iraqi resistance forces. You have been issued an AK-47 rifle, rocket-propelled grenade launcher and an address where you can pick up supplies of bombs and remote-controlled mines. Please let your cell leader know if you require additional materiel for use against the Americans.

You are joining a broad and diverse coalition dedicated to one principle: Iraq for Iraqis. Our leaders include generals of President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s secular government as well as fundamentalist Islamists. We are Sunni and Shia, Iraqi and foreign, Arab and Kurdish. Though we differ on what kind of future our country should have after liberation and many of us suffered under Saddam, we are fighting side by side because there is no dignity under the brutal and oppressive jackboot of the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority or their Vichyite lapdogs on the Governing Council, headed by embezzler Ahmed Chalabi.

Because we destroyed our weapons of mass destruction, we were unable to defend ourselves against the American invasion. This was their plan all along. Now our only option is guerilla warfare: we must kill as many Americans as possible at a minimum risk to ourselves. As the Afghan resistance to the Soviets and the Americans' own revolution against our former colonial masters the British have proven, it will only be a matter of time before the U.S. occupation forces become demoralized. As casualties and expenditures rise, the costs will outweigh the economic and political benefits of occupation. Soon the American public will note that the anticipated five-year price tag of $500 billion, with a probable loss of some 4,000 lives and 10,000 wounded, is not a reasonable price to pay to get our 2.5 million barrels of oil flowing to the West each month. This net increase, of just 0.23 percent of total OPEC (news - web sites) production, will not reduce U.S. gasoline prices. At an average of 35 attacks each day, an hour does not pass without an American soldier coming under fire somewhere in Iraq. Ultimately the American public will pressure their leaders to withdraw their harried troops from our country.

It is inevitable. Our goal is to make that day come sooner rather than later.

This from Ted Rall, who if you questioned his patriotism would fly into a fury.

What is the matter with these people?

(Via Emperor Misha I.)

UPDATE: Oh yes, and lest I neglect to point it out, this was written on Veterans' Day. I'd been expecting to see throngs of brain-donors staging their usual anti-war protests against the veterans' parades, but I guess they were too smart to pick a fight with a bunch of people who had been trained in various forms of unarmed combat. Pity.

However, Rall's thing is, if anything, worse.


Tuesday, November 11, 2003
16:56 - Talk about "embedded journalists"

(top)
Via LGF:

AL-JAZEERA CORRESPONDENT SATTAR KARIN ADMITTED THAT HIS OFFICE IN THE MAHMOUDIYA, BABIL PROVINCE OF IRAQ HAS BEEN USED TO COORDINATE ATTACKS AGAINST COALITION FORCES. TWO SYRIAN NATIONALS WERE ALSO INVOLVED. (AL-SABAH, IRAQ, 11/9/03)

Maybe we should sic our own reporters on them and have 'em duke it out.

Operation Desert Fox™ for real this time!


13:20 - "I invented homeland security"
http://www.moveon.org/gore/speech2.html

(top)
After reading the text of the Gore speech (at Aziz's suggestion), yes, I acknowledge the many explicit details he outlines regarding the Patriot Act and its political overtones. But you know... I noticed something else about this speech. Namely, that it's probably not quite what MoveOn.org was expecting; their lavish praise of it (which is mostly what I was pointing at in my earlier post) has to have followed a few sideling glances and furrowed brows from those in the audience.

Gore's stance, in a nutshell, is that our efforts at shoring up homeland security are insufficient. That the moves we've made are secretive at best (if we give them the benefit of the doubt) and, at worst, smack of the gulag. His biggest beef is with the search-and-seizure and arrest-without-trial parts of the Patriot Act.

And you know, he's not going to get a whole helluva lot of argument from me on that. I don't like those parts of the Patriot Act any more than the next guy. A case can be made for their necessity in a shadow war, yes, and it's been pointed out that the infamous "library records snooping" clause that Gore flashes for the camera has never actually been invoked. But still, that's small comfort for the civil libertarians in the audience.

But that's just it. Gore's speech is designed to appeal to those for whom civil liberties and security are both paramount goals, and seeks to find a better balance between them than what's currently on the books.

Where Civil Liberties are concerned, they have taken us much farther down the road toward an intrusive, “Big Brother”-style government – toward the dangers prophesized by George Orwell in his book “1984” – than anyone ever thought would be possible in the United States of America.

Hmm. Anti-big-government. Anti-Big-Brother. Anti-Orwellian-Nation.

Sounds to me like he's more conservative than Bush in this speech.

I don't know what MoveOn.org initially thought of this speech-- obviously they lapped it up, because it was delivered in front of them directly, and was a broadside straight at Bush. But they must have realized at some point that what they were applauding was a libertarian's call-to-arms... not the self-blaming, dictator-supporting, Stalin-apologist agenda that's at the corner of the International-ANSWER-style Left that's usually so well represented at MoveOn.org.

This is why I think the 2004 election is going to be so interesting. To beat Bush, the Democrats are going to have to find ammo that will serve them. The economy apparently is no longer in their quiver. Iraq is not gaining traction as enough of a "failure" for the American people to blame Bush for it. What's left? Security and individual liberty... and in order to beat Bush, the Democrats have to effectively be better at both of those things than the Republicans are.

Can they stump for smaller, less invasive government and better, more effective security against terrorism without selling out the entire rest of their statist, centralist platform? Can they pursue these goals without, in effect, becoming Republicans?


10:40 - Dissension amid the cabal?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language=printer

(top)
So, conspiracy-mongers: the Joozineks control all media and politics, and rule the world by proxy, right? And Bush is just a puppet on strings fighting a client war for Sharon against all his Arab neighbors? And all wealthy Jews are a part of the secret cult that directs the world's finances and keeps America rich, the Middle East poor, and the Republicans in power?

Well, then-- what to do about George Soros' $15.5 million in donations to MoveOn.org and others, intended to oust Bush?

Is Soros cruising to get his ass busted down by the International Zionist Conspiracy? Or is this all just part of some evil scheme that's just too complex for mere mortals to comprehend?

Soros has the right to give his money to whomever he wants to (Campaign Finance Reform Act notwithstanding). But you know... that's the point, isn't it?

Monday, November 10, 2003
15:38 - The Easily Impressed Orphans

(top)
MoveOn.org calls this speech by Al Gore "remarkable":

"I want to challenge the Bush Administration’s implicit assumption that we have to give up many of our traditional freedoms in order to be safe from terrorists.

Because it is simply not true.

In fact, in my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama Bin Laden.

In both cases, the Administration has attacked the wrong target.

In both cases they have recklessly put our country in grave and unnecessary danger, while avoiding and neglecting obvious and much more important challenges that would actually help to protect the country.

In both cases, the administration has fostered false impressions and misled the nation with superficial, emotional and manipulative presentations that are not worthy of American Democracy.

In both cases they have exploited public fears for partisan political gain and postured themselves as bold defenders of our country while actually weakening not strengthening America."

According to MoveOn.org, Gore was "not mincing words". Well, if he's trying to make Religious Reich salsa, he's going to have to mince these words a little bit finer, because I don't see anything "remarkable" or "damning" or even "new" here. Just more expansive rhetoric about all the freedoms we've given up, though I've yet to hear anybody actually be able to name one way in which Americans are less free than we were before 9/11. I guess Gore must have listed some in his speech (the e-mail links to a streaming webcast version of it, which I'm not going to waste time watching), but MoveOn.org doesn't seem to have seen fit to have listed any in this call-to-arms-- preferring instead to use this vague and spurious digest, with its implicit assumptions of decimated civil liberties, as its above-the-fold banner.

The rest of the e-mail encapsulating it fairly pees on itself with glee over how amazing the speech was. Guys, just a note... the more you do this, the more people look at you with pity rather than with sympathy.

Sunday, November 9, 2003
01:41 - Who is this moron?

(top)
As I was driving to the movie, NPR was airing some guy in a darkened soundstage reading headlines off a sheet of paper and reciting their details in as snarky a tone as possible. I have no idea who this joker was, because there was no station ID or anything in the fifteen minutes that my radio was tuned to him... but I'd love to know if he was someone I should have known about beforehand. Sunday evening, 7:00-8:00 hour? San Jose area, KQED?

He started out by reading the usual encouraging news about chaos and disorder in Iraq, reading all the administration's statements in Epsilon-minus voices, and peppering it with his own recommendation, which was "Get our troops back home, right now. But hey, that's just me." Great. Noted.

He went on to talk about "some stories of our Homeland Security forces on the march," which I thought were going to be lurid reports of our Ashcroftian Gestapo running amok and arresting shopkeepers and filmmakers on flimsy pretenses. But no... as a matter of fact, the most heinous story he came up with was a group of police who had been hired to guard a Texas power plant against possible terrorist activity. Instead, it turns out the cops had spent their shifts-- for the better part of a year-- fishing in a pond at the facility. This clown read the story and its unfolding details-- the cops kept fishing even after they'd been ordered to stop, they covered for their colleagues who wanted to fish-- against a backdrop of mocking music and in a tone of deep puffed-up indignation, except where he read the police chief's statement in a know-nothing Texan accent, even though the statement itself (talking about how the department is very disappointed in the actions of its officers and will take whatever corrective means are necessary) was completely unimpeachable in its content.

He then also noted a story about how security guards at Lawrence Livermore Labs had lost a set of keys, and now they'll have to change all the locks. "'Because of redundant security systems, the increase to risk of security breach is minimal; and in any case there is no evidence of a security breach.' Yeah, well, how would they know?" Great. Real insightful commentary there, whoever you are.

Then he switched gears, moving on to making fun of Fox, who had just announced criminal prosecution against an employee who circulated an e-mail containing the salaries of all the upper-level employees. His tone was, "Those dastardly power-grubbing executives! How dare they-- who do they think they are, treating this simple e-mail as cause for criminal prosecution?" Never mind the fact that this kind of incident would be grounds for termination and possibly prosecution at any company, but the fact that it was Fox... now, damn. That's comedy gold!

He proceeded to read an apology e-mail sent out by the execs to the employees, which apologized for the distraction caused by the original e-mail and its consequences; but of course, this was worth mocking, so he played that "I'm so sorry" song in the background.

"The company said it feared that the e-mail would spark a storm of executives asking to renegotiate their salaries, in light of the information contained in the e-mail. Oh, now we all know executives would never do something like that!"

By this stage I was in the parking lot and he still hadn't announced his name, so I shut off the car in disgust. What is this? Who decided this was insightful commentary? Whose idea was it to give this guy, whoever he is, an hour-long slot on Sunday prime-time on NPR?

The way he was going, he'd have sneered over reports of a low-pressure system moving into the area if he could have somehow blamed the Republicans.

UPDATE: Harry Shearer? Dear God, nooooo...

I swear, Hollywood's starting to look like the end of the 70s version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.


Thursday, November 6, 2003
17:49 - Oh.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/134264p-119598c.html

(top)
I'd wondered why, in all the back-and-forth over whether Pvt. Jessica Lynch had been tormented while in captivity in Iraq, or whether she had been expertly cared for until the 'Merican stormtroopers burst in firing blanks while the cameramen filmed, Lynch herself had never said a word about what had happened.

Well, now she has an authorized biography out, so I guess we know.

"Jessi lost three hours," Bragg wrote. "She lost them in the snapping bones, in the crash of the Humvee, in the torment her enemies inflicted on her after she was pulled from it."

The scars on Lynch's battered body and the medical records indicate she was anally raped, and "fill in the blanks of what Jessi lived through on the morning of March 23, 2003," Bragg wrote.

"The records do not tell whether her captors assaulted her almost lifeless, broken body after she was lifted from the wreckage, or if they assaulted her and then broke her bones into splinters until she was almost dead."

But, after all, it's just "filling in the blanks". So expect Indymedia and DU to leap to the fore with the charges of conspiracy and propaganda.

It does fill in an awful lot of blanks, though.

(Via LGF.)


11:05 - Sanity spreads

(top)
Fawaz Turki, writing in the Arab News, says he was wrong all along to oppose the war in Iraq.

Is it too early to adopt a revisionist view of the US war in Iraq and for this column to admit its mistake in having vehemently opposed it from the outset?

At issue here is whether the Iraqi people have benefited from the overthrow of the Baathist regime and whether the American occupation will eventually benefit their country even more. I’m convinced — and berate me here from your patriotic bleachers, if you must — that what we have seen in the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates in recent months may turn out to be the most serendipitous event in its modern history.

Let the fatwas ring forth. But you know... sometimes all it takes is a single voice to be raised, for others to realize that it's okay. Someone has to be the first.

Via InstaPundit, who also links to this post at Healing Iraq which is as worthy of a read as that "Andrea vs. Mohammad" radio clip from March was.

First, I have to explain to some western idealists that public demonstrations is an alien idea to the majority of Iraqis. We have been forced to demonstrate in favour of Saddam, the Ba'ath, Palestine, and Arab nationalism for 3 decades. Just to give you an idea on how that was like for us; party members would surround colleges, schools, and govt. offices. They block all outlets and shove people into buses which head to wherever the demonstrations are to be held. You simply cannot refuse to demonstrate. I remember hiding in the toilet back in high school whenever the buses came into the park to herd us to the demos. It wasn't a pleasant experience I can tell you. Once I got stuck and had to shout anti-imperialist slogans at one of these rallies just two years ago. You don't have the slightest idea of what it is like to live your life daily in fear.

Now today, we are facing terrorist and violent threats against our nurseries, schools, colleges, hospitals, clinics, oil pipelines, power stations, water purification systems, and other civilian facilities. If you think that a peaceful demonstration would deter those criminals from doing harm to us, then you are 100% wrong. Do you think the Syrians/Saudis/Iranians/Yemenis/Sudanese would simply say 'Oh look, the Iraqis don't want us there, lets go home and leave the Americans and Iraqis work it out'? Or if you think we should go out and face the dangers just to prove to you -paranoid Americans sitting in your ivory towers watching tv- that we do not support the terrorists, then you are wrong again.

You see a handful of teenagers dancing in front of the camera celebrating dead Americans, and you judge an entire people, you start whining about pulling the troops out of Iraq and giving the Iraqis what they deserve. Are you people really so close-minded? It is the fault of your news agencies that show you what they want, its certainly not ours. If you want us to go out and cry for your dead soldiers and wave American flags, then don't count on it either. We are losing way too many innocent Iraqis daily to be grieving over dead soldiers who have actually made a decision to come here. What about the thousands of dead Iraqis who were not as lucky to have a choice? Did you cry for them?

Sooner or later it will dawn on the Left that they've grown so complacent about the assumption that they speak for the "common man" and are "open-minded", that they've become the elitists who heap contempt upon the average Joe and suck up powdered propaganda through the nose.


10:48 - Blood Money

(top)
So I was all set to write some snarky post about how NPR should turn down the $200 million gift they just received-- from the widow of Ray Kroc, the McDonald's magnate. Sure, it's enough money to run the network for like two years... but it's money that comes from that bastion of evil American corporate imperialism, carrying our filthy culture into places that don't want it (like Jordan, where they lined up literally for miles outside the door when the first Golden Arches opened).

But, of course, Scrappleface is way ahead of me.

Dammit, I just get up too late in the morning.

Tuesday, November 4, 2003
13:01 - This here's what America's all about

(top)
'Tis the season, it seems, to Fisk poetry, or at least overanalyze it. And as I was driving in to work this morning, Weird Al's "The Biggest Ball of Twine in Minnesota"-- long one of my favorite songs of his-- suddenly seemed to be a lot more microcosmic of some bigger archetype than I'd really figured before. It's an immensely silly song, yes, but it's as apt an encapsulation of what really drives all us warmongering, inbred, proselytizing, overfed, unsophisticated cowboys to do the things we do as any other piece of popular media that's a product of its cultural environment.

Well, I had two weeks of vacation time coming
After working all year down at Big Roy's Heating And Plumbing

Not a rock star or a movie god, just a regular Joe in a workaday job. What has he accomplished? What has he contributed to society? Well, maybe he hasn't built dams or designed moon rockets, but this is a guy who does his job because it's his duty-- and whatever he makes from it no doubt goes into his family and his house, his own little corner of America that he's helping build.

So one night when my family the I were gathered 'round the dinner table
I said, "Kids, if you could go anywhere in this great big world, now
Where'd you like to go ta?"
They said, "Dad, we wanna see the Biggest Ball of Twine in Minnesota"
They picked the Biggest Ball of Twine in Minnesota

...And yet he lives all year for that vacation. And what does he plan to do on his two weeks off? Sit on the couch and eat pork rinds and watch golf? Lie in the hammock and swat mosquitoes? Nope-- his plans center on his family. It's all about the wife and kids, and what they might enjoy. And if they pick something he wants to do too, well, hey-- bonus!

So the very next day we loaded up the car
With potato skins and pickled wieners,
Crossword puzzles, Spider-Man comics, and mama's homemade rhubarb pie
Pulled out of the driveway and the neighbors, they all waved good-bye
And so began our three day journey

Packed to the gills with snack foods and popular media. More than just creating a semblance of homelike comfort while on the road, they're indulging. This is a time to celebrate.

I used to think, by the way, that the waving neighbors were a relic of a time long past. But at the new house, well-- our neighbors would wave.

We picked up a guy holding a sign that said "twine ball or bust"
He smelled real bad and he said his name was Bernie

You never turn away someone who shares your common goals.

I put in a Slim Whitman tape, my wife put on a brand new hair net
Kids were in the back seat jumping up and down,
yelling "Are we there yet?"
And all of us were joined together in one common thought
As we rolled down the long and winding interstate in our '53 DeSota
We're gonna see the Biggest Ball of Twine in Minnesota
We're headin' for the Biggest Ball of Twine in Minnesota

It's a kooky combination of Route 66 retro and modern suburbia. Of course the whole song's a paean to Americana, but the setting in time and space is deliberately left vague-- the family's stuck in the Leave It to Beaver 50s, while at the same time evidently living in a world of car tape decks and diet sodas. (This song dates from the early 80s, remember.) And kids being annoying in the back seat is as timeless as the interstate that leads to Wally World.

Oh, we couldn't wait to get there
So we drove straight through for three whole days and nights
Of course, we stopped for more pickled wieners now and then

Once you've got the goal in mind, you don't stop or get distracted. But there's always time to feed the economy with snack-food consumption.

The scenery was just so pretty, boy I wish the kids could've seen it
But you can't see out of the side of the car
Because the windows are completely covered
With the decals of all the place where we've already been

There's Elvis-O-Rama, the Tupperware Museum,
The Boll Weevil Monument, and Cranberry World,
The Shuffleboard Hall Of Fame, Poodle Dog Rock,
And The Mecca of Albino Squirrels
We've been to ghost towns, theme parks, wax museums,
And a place where you can drive through the middle of a tree
We've seen alligator farms and tarantula ranches,
But there's still one thing we gotta see

All immensely silly places, but they may as well have been real (some were). Why go to these things? Because they're cool. Where do you think memories come from? It's all so inconsequential, so futile, so false-- but it's all a part of a shared national hallucination that coalesces into something that's all the stronger for it. When a people has this much leisure time, and yet worries at it with such gusto as to find attractions like these to go to and spend their money, it's not decadence, as some accuse-- it's the opposite of decadence. It's the raising of the banal to epic heights. It's the lust for life. It's the feeling-- nay, the conviction-- that while the past may make for good postcards and window decals, the best days always lie ahead.

Shame about that scenery, though.

Well, we crossed the state line about 6:39
And we saw a sign that said "Twine Ball exit - 50 miles"
Oh, the kids were so happy the started singing
"99 Bottles Of Beer On The Wall" for the 27th time that day

Another timeless classic. As is the obsessive need to time the trip and track the mileage-- "Are We There Yet?" for the grownups. Because obviously the dad's as big a kid as the ones in the back seat.

So, we pulled off the road at the last chance gas station
Got a few more pickled wieners and a diet chocolate soda
On our way to see the Biggest Ball of Twine in Minnesota
We're gonna see the Biggest Ball of Twine in Minnesota

Better make sure it's "diet", to cancel out all those wieners and pie. Charmingly naïve.

But here's where we get to the real crux of the thing: the narrowing of perspective, the raising of something so provincial and pointless to the stature of a religious experience:

Finally, at 7:37 early Wednesday evening as the sun was setting
in the Minnesota sky
Out in the distance, on the horizon, it appeared to me like a vision
before my unbelieving eyes
I parked the car and walked with awe-filled reverence towards that
glorious huge majestic sphere
I was just so overwhelmed by its sheer immensity,
I had to pop myself a beer
Yes, on these hallowed grounds, open ten to eight on weekdays,
in a little shrine under a makeshift pagoda,
There sits the Biggest Ball of Twine in Minnesota
I tell you, it's the Biggest Ball of Twine in Minnesota

Even a holy place charges admission-- and that's okay. There's nothing else in the world that matters. This is vacation time; this is the one little break and reward we give ourselves for a year of uncomplaining labor, and by God we're going to make it worth remembering. We may not be able to change the world in our spare time, but we can at least enjoy the living daylights out of it.

Oh, what on earth would make a man decide to do that kind of thing?
Oh, windin' up twenty-one thousand, one hundred forty pounds of string
What was he trying to prove? Who was he trying to impress?
Why did he build it? How did he do it? It's anybody's guess
Where did he get the twine? What was goin' through his mind?
Did it just seem like a good idea at the time?

Do you really have to ask? Because he could.

And that kind of dedication you've just gotta admire.

Well, we walked up beside it and I warned the kids
"Now, you better not touch it, those ropes are there for a reason"
I said, "Maybe if you're good, I'll tie it to the back of our car
and we can take it home", but I was only teasin'
Then we went to the gift shop and stood in line
Bought a souvenir miniature ball of twine, some window decals,
and anything else they'd sell us
And we bought a couple postcards, "Greetings from the Twine Ball,
wish you were here"
Won't the folks back home be jealous?

Suddenly it all drops back down to Disneyland mode. It's still sacred ground, but now there's moychandising, moychandising. And good for it, too; these guys aren't buying knickknacks and postcards out of a feeling of obligation, but because they genuinely want to remember this experience. Now, it's left sort of open-ended whether the song portrays the whole family's honest emotions, or just this dopey dad and his rose-colored and inscrutable obsession with Americana that the family just indulges him in, for the sake of blessed family unity. But for all intents and purposes, it's all genuine.

I gave our camera to Bernie and we stood by the ball
And we all gathered 'round and said, "Cheese"
The Bernie ran away with my brand new Instamatic,
but at least we got our memories

Aw! That's what you get for trusting people. I'll bet they pick up another hitchhiker on the way back home, though.

Then we all just stared at the ball for a while and my eyes got moist,
but I said with a smile, "Kids, this here's what America's all about"
Then I started feelin' kinda gooey inside and I fell on my knees
and I cried and cried
And that's when those security guards threw us out

Now then, now then. It won't do to get too sentimental over this, now would it? Yet when it comes to paying your respects to something you believe in, there's no limit to the lengths to which you'll go.

You know, I bet if we unravelled that sucker,
It'd roll all the way down to Fargo, North Dakota
'Cause it's the biggest ball of twine in Minnesota
I'm talkin' 'bout the Biggest Ball of Twine in Minnesota

And it'd probably reach all the way back to here, too.

Well, we stayed that night at the Twine Ball Inn
In the morning we were on our way home again
But we really didn't want to leave, that was perfectly clear
I said, "Folks, I can tell you're all sad to go"
Then I winked my eye and I said, "You know, I got a funny kind of feelin'
we'll be comin' back again next year"
'Cause I've been all around this great big world
And I can't think of anywhere else I'd rather go to
Than the Biggest Ball of Twine in Minnesota
I said the Biggest Ball of Twine in Minnesota

And in the end, though, it all comes back around to the kids. Whether it has any bearing on reality or not, nothing makes this guy's day more than to see his kids bouncing in glee. And really, that's what makes the Twine Ball such a spiritual destination: sure, it's worth nothing. No symbol has any value, in and of itself. But you can never foretell just what power can grow up around a symbol, or what associations people will form with it. With luck, a symbol's fame and meaning grow, spread, expand beyond its own provincial borders-- and before you know it, people flock to it, though they don't even know why. Money changes hands. Memories are forged. And wealth is created.

These are the foundations of a nation that's so secure in its own existence, its own petty leisure pursuits, that it is willing to dash itself to bits when called upon to save the world. The more ridiculous our diversions are and the more ease in which we live our lives, oddly, the harder we're willing to fight to keep from giving any of it up.

That's the dichotomy that repeatedly confuses the rest of the world about America, while at the same time defining us. And it only looks like a contradiction if you don't live here.


11:17 - Oh my flippin' gawd
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1076480,00.html

(top)
Via LGF, Tariq Ali spins quite a yarn in The Guardian:

Few can deny that Iraq under US occupation is in a much worse state than it was under Saddam Hussein. There is no reconstruction. There is mass unemployment. Daily life is a misery, and the occupiers and their puppets cannot provide even the basic amenities of life. The US doesn't even trust the Iraqis to clean their barracks, and so south Asian and Filipino migrants are being used. This is colonialism in the epoch of neo-liberal capitalism, and so US and "friendly" companies are given precedence. Even under the best circumstances, an occupied Iraq would become an oligarchy of crony capitalism, the new cosmopolitanism of Bechtel and Halliburton.

The Iraqi maquis have weakened George Bush's position in the US and enabled Democrat politicians to criticise the White House, with Howard Dean daring to suggest a total US withdrawal within two years. Even the bien pensants who opposed the war but support the occupation and denounce the resistance know that without it they would have been confronted with a triumphalist chorus from the warmongers. Most important, the disaster in Iraq has indefinitely delayed further adventures in Iran and Syria.

Got that? No reconstruction. Misery. Worse than it was under Saddam. And the guys who blow up the UN building and the Red Cross are the maquis to Bush's Hitler.

This is a hugely widely-read paper in Britain. Yet facts evidently are not welcome there.

But people like Tariq Ali are:

Ditching the Labour Party he embraced Leninism, becoming a leader of the International Marxist Group (IMG). "One can see," he said then, "that we shall once again see (workers') Soviets in Europe in the 70s".

So: when people talk about how America is trying to defend those quaint little notions like "freedom" and "democracy", and people sneer at them to say that those ideas are under no threat in today's postmodern enlightened world... um, guys? Hello? Right under your nose?

God, this makes me mad.

How many American soldiers and political victims of brutal regimes will have died in this century alone, only for us to blithely throw away all the fruits of our hard-won hundred-year victory and invite the enemy in to sit at our table?


10:55 - "Time will not dim the glory of their deeds"

(top)
Greg Kihn this morning had an amusing little tale. He said that a friend of his has a kid in the Berkeley High School system. This being Berkeley, some of the teachers had removed the American flags from their classrooms. And this kid's dad took exception to this, and went digging through the town charter and law books-- and discovered that it's the law in Berkeley that all classrooms must fly American flags. (Presumably failure to comply is punishable by catapult.) So he's going to bring this little technicality to the teachers' attention.

Greg says that the obvious playout of the script will be that the teachers will complain that there isn't any money to buy all the necessary flags; they'll stall the issue, trying to work it in as a "budget" thing. But Greg's sent the word out, now, and something tells me that-- at his suggestion-- the school district, if it goes down that road, will find itself the recipient of several thousand dollars in grass-roots donations for the purpose of buying three or four $20 flags.

I think he'll be following this story as it unfolds.

Anyway, the next thing he mentioned was Veterans' Day, which naturally has particular meaning for him and for his late father. He was grumbling about how the Veterans' Day parades will probably draw tiny little crowds, whereas thousands will turn out for a lavishly-produced Gay Pride parade. (Not that he's anti-gay or anything; he just has certain priorities.) And he skirted one issue that I was surprised he didn't mention:

Who's willing to lay down some money on there being anti-war protesters at the parades on Veterans' Day?

I mean, think about it. It would fit their MO perfectly-- after the way they've conducted themselves over the past six months, it wouldn't surprise me one bit. But wouldn't it also be the perfect illustration of their a) utter vapid thoughtlessness or b) bald anti-Americanism?

From OxBlog:

On Wednesday 19th November, George Bush comes to town. To give him an appropriate welcome, we're throwing a street party! Bring music, bring costumes, bring agit-prop, bring bikes...most importantly, bring yourself and all your mates! This event has been called because of the lack of any really festive action on the 'day of civil disobedience' against George Bush's state visit to Britain...we want to show the world, once again, that it is possible (and desirable) to protest and cause disruption while having fun at the same time. As always, this action will only work if people bring their own ideas and their own desires....there ain't no leaders in a (street) party!

. . .

After the party there will also be a picket of the ESSO building on the Aldwych, near to the London School of Economics, starting at 4.30 pm. These corporations feed off of George Bush's presidency like vultures around a corpse...but they'll find out that we are everywhere, and we're not going away!

For further details, contact campaigns@younggreens.org.uk

These events are being co-ordinated by a loose affiliation of grassroots People and Planet groups, the Young Greens, and Student Action...but we want everyone to get involved.

See you on the streets.

With love,

Sambistas against Bush!

For the most part, I leave comment on this as an exercise for the reader. But there are a few things I just have to point out: (1) "bring agit-prop": ah, how appropriate. The American Heritage Dictionary defines agit-prop as "Political propaganda, especially favoring communism and disseminated through literature, drama, art, or music." (2) "we want to show the world, once again, that it is possible (and desirable) to protest and cause disruption while having fun at the same time": everyone knows that it's possible to do that! That's what radical chic is all about! For that matter, that's what six-year olds on the playground are all about. Of course you can cause disruption while having fun -- causing disruption often is fun. It's also often childish and, well, disruptive (more often to completely innocent third-parties -- say, Londoners trying to get to work on Wednesday -- than to the target of the disrupters ire, in fact). (3) "After the party there will also be a picket of the ESSO building ...": notice that there's no actual good reason given for this -- they don't say that Esso has done anything wrong. It's just a big company -- an oil company no less! -- and everyone knows that they're evil and tied to that evil Bush guy for whom we're throwing a party ...

Last, but certainly not least, will there be giant puppets? 'Cause I'm only going if there are giant puppets ...

Just watch: these guys will protest the Veterans' Day parades. In doing so, they will symbolically state that they oppose the actions of our armed forces, even in past wars. Just like the guys picketing the ESSO station, for no good reason other than "It's got something to do with oooooooil", we'll see people who say that "War is bad! The Army is bad! Therefore everything they ever did is bad!"-- and bring their sign-waving, giant-puppet-propping selves to bear against aging heroes of Korea and Desert Storm and Kosovo and World War II.

If fist-fights don't break out, I'll be massively surprised.

Maybe it'll all go smoothly; who knows. But I'll be keeping an eye out.

Monday, November 3, 2003
09:45 - Thass what I'm talkin' bout

(top)
Among the many things that we got done this weekend-- such as finishing out the front landscaping with a truckload of head-sized quartz rocks, planting three more new birch trees out back, finally gluing up the cove base trim in the laundry room, and finally finishing the ceiling and floor trim in my bed area and moving the furniture into place (Hey, I actually have room in there now), was blessed progress on trimming the curtains. Thanks to the deft assistance of my mom, who stopped by with my all-too-willing-to-ruin-his-back dad this weekend.



Does that work, or does that work?


09:38 - Worth pointing out
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012308.php

(top)
Glenn Reynolds and Sofia Sideshow, discussing this story, in which the 101st Airborne found piles of money in Saddam's palaces... and are using it to finance construction of parks and infrastructure through private local contractors, Bechtel and Halliburton be damned.

...points out something that I took for granted, and notes that it's nothing to take for granted:

Alright, I re-read both articles, looking for mention of the single most obvious facet of the story. Something most Americans don't even think about. Indeed, Glenn didn't pick it up, and the Globe and Mail didn't pick it up, although it's right there, the single-most lauded aspect, and we Americans missed it totally. I'll bet 99% of Americans who read the articles missed it.

They didn't steal the money.

You remember the film "Three Kings," where disaffected angst-ridden grunts went off on their own in search of gold? I mean, they were stuck there in some sort of 'war,' and the crisis they face is whether to help the citizens or succumb to greed. It was very 90's, and brilliant and all that?

Let's repeat this: A squad found tons of money lying around...they started to spend it...on others...without orders.

They didn't steal the money!

You think they'll make a movie of that?

Their honesty is simply taken for granted. It shouldn't be. It's not how the rest of the world works.

What they did is both outrageous and thoroughly American.

So is not realizing it.

That's me. Outrageous, and thoroughly American. Because I didn't realize it.

Oh, sure, this is probably just an isolated case. I bet they found millions more dollars in other stashes, and we never found out about those-- there are just going to be a lot of mysteriously wealthy ex-reservists in a couple years. Right?

Either that, or we as a people have just become so sophisticated and skeptical as to have lost all credulity in the spirit of human decency.

Friday, October 31, 2003
15:13 - What if you threw a bomb party and nobody came?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44857-2003Oct30.html

(top)
Everybody's linking to Charles Krauthammer today, and so I'll jump on the bandwagon, if only because it's a pretty good summation of what a lot of one-off essays around the blogosphere have been piecing together, bit by bit, for months now. It's sort of a status report, a checkpoint on what those of us who have been paying attention have known from the start would be a long, bitter trudge, rather than an effortless magical transformation. (The only difference being that we evidently decided that just because something is hard doesn't make it not worthwhile.)

It's a short column, and I could nearly quote the whole thing. But I won't.

Our enemies in Iraq have learned these lessons well. The car bomb of Oct. 12 was aimed at the Baghdad Hotel, housing not just large numbers of Americans but much of the provisional Iraqi government. It would have been the equivalent of the two Beirut bombings in one: a psychologically crushing massacre of Americans -- which would have sparked immediate debate at home about withdrawal -- and the instantaneous destruction of much of the pro-American government, a political decapitation that would have left very few Iraqis courageous enough to fill the vacuum.

The bomber failed. Most significantly, it was Iraqi police who assisted in shooting up the car at a relatively safe distance and thus preventing a catastrophe. The car bomb campaign has, however, continued with singular ferocity since. The war in Iraq now consists of a race: The United States is racing to build up Iraqi police and armed forces capable of taking over the country's security -- before the Saddam loyalists and their jihadist allies can produce that single, Beirut-like car bomb that so discourages Americans (and Iraqis) that we withdraw in disarray.

Who wins the race? If this president remains in power, the likelihood is that we do.


Maybe this is why suddenly a whole bunch of liberal Democrats, politicians and bloggers alike, are coming out of the woodwork and endorsing Bush. Zell Miller. Roger Simon. A bunch of others. (Read the post for some great one-liners and links to the original sources.) Suddenly people are realizing what even this Democratic Underground seething fury-boy (passed on by Andrew Sullivan) has suddenly evidently come to realize:

regardless of right or wrong.
we dont want to be associated with supporting the killing of our own troops.
that would be political suicide… we dont want to be associated with “supporting” Iraqi resistance.
something like that would make us (dems, libs, progs, whoever) look terrible and just give the opposition fuel.

And who knows-- maybe even some of them think that supporting terrorists against our own troops is wrong for other reasons than merely "political suicide". I mean, hey, I don't expect miracles-- there's a long way to go on the ol' rehabilitation trail for some of these people. But it's a positive first step, as they say.

A couple of days ago, there was the oddest feeling, among my friends and in my inbox, that there was a chill wind a-blowin'... that people were suddenly digging in, taking sides, and lashing out at each other in a cross-spectrum all-out free-for-all, tearing apart old friendships and turning implicit trust into bitter disappointment and betrayal. I watched this happen in various LiveJournal comment pages, and I wondered if the witching hour of All Saints' was upon us-- if all the usually friendly and occasionally sarcastic back-and-forth over the past two years was finally about to give way to all-out ideological war.

Well, the situation seems to have been defused somewhat... but from the look of these links, the Left is sitting on top of a big frickin' juicer. There's this enormous sharp wedge being driven right up into the middle of the movement, and we're already seeing everybody to the right of a certain line start to peel off and join the world of the practical, gritting their teeth if necessary, but knowing that if forced to choose between supporting the War on Terror and lying down with people who shriek "Zionazis!" if you so much as breathe on them wrong, there are some things that are worse than war.

After all, if even Democrats are now saying things like this:

"I remember the day, and it wasn't so long ago, that liberals like me were attacking our government for supporting dictators. Now these new "liberals," or whatever they want to call themselves, attack our government for taking down dictators. "

... then they'll have to be quicker on the draw to catch up with Lileks, but better late than never.

Tuesday, October 28, 2003
02:58 - Oh, but the color scheme is all wrong, though...
http://www.reallifecomics.com/daily.php?strip_id=1051

(top)
Hee.



11:51 - Angry Young Men
http://www.techcentralstation.com/102703A.html

(top)
This TCS column by Arnold Kling has some interesting observations, ones that I don't find surprising these days:

I did not feel this sort of discomfort in 2000, which was the one other year when I attended Pop!tech. Back then, a conservative or libertarian attending the conference felt like a Jew among a group of tolerant Christians. This year, a conservative or libertarian felt like a Jew among a group of Christians whose main topic of conversation was the despicable nature of Jews.

I'm in the midst of a heretofore quite pleasant e-mail conversation with someone (met through a channel that would probably have led him to believe I'm way more liberal than I am) whose LiveJournal consists alternately of long, passionate, emotional, artistic soliloquies about the nature of beauty and the beauty of nature and so forth... and vitriolic revulsion toward the Right and its icons. "I tend to view anyone or anything bearing a Bush/Cheney logo in much the same way that I view biohazard labels -- they are warnings that the contents therein are likely to be volatile, unstable, antithetical to human life, and quite possibly lethal," he says. "This public safety notice brought to you by Citizens Who Still Know How To Think Clearly."

(I haven't told him my horrible secret yet. I dread the inevitable day when I will.)

A few days ago, he told me that "In these terrible times, I would probably be arrested for treason for speaking the mildest of my views, so I usually just shut up."

And I turned to the TV, where there was C-SPAN coverage of thousands of protesters gathering on the Mall in front of the Capitol ("the U.S. Parliament", that is), dancing around effigies of Bush's head on stakes planted in the ground, chanting "Fuck George Bush!" on national TV.

Anybody catch the estimates of how many were arrested, how many beaten or killed by police?

No?

Darn.

For the curious, here is an extensive photo-blog of the event.

And here's what happens to dissenting opinions (held by pregnant women, no less) who dare to show their faces.

And I'm left not feeling angry, not hateful, not sad... just bewildered. What has happened here?

How is it that the Left, with its vaunted compassion for the "common man", can have so little respect for the average Joe on the highway that a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker (or, horrors, a Christian one) is grounds for automatically dismissing the person-- his life lived to date, his opinions, his accomplishments, his career, his family, his military service or charity work or lack of any of those things-- as "volatile, unstable, antithetical to human life, and quite possibly lethal"?

It's okay-- he's just a "mass", right? And the masses understand nothing.

Discouragingly, I'm seeing more and more evidence that there's some kind of rolling wave of illogic and thoughtlessness taking a grip on this country. There are plenty of people on the Left who are thoughtful and reasonable people, who acknowledge the good of the removal of Saddam while they criticize the success of the post-war rebuilding, for example. But such people would have found find few like minds in the crowds sponsored by International ANSWER and the Workers' World Party in Washington, D.C. this past weekend.

For them, logic and morality and reality itself all take a backseat to the paramount importance of being right:

I'd also like to mention that I wrote this last May, when Iraq war supporters were still confidently insisting that weapons of mass destruction would be found. Well, guess who was right? That's right. The liberals were right about this. Ha ha.

Meanwhile, the Iraqis have nothing but contempt for the UN and the Western "peace protesters" who, for all their supposed compassion toward the Iraqi people, would only have succeeded in keeping Saddam in power. These protesters are doing no favors to anybody but themselves-- certainly not to Iraq. And I'll bet the Iraqi man-on-the-street would simply laugh in your face if you asked him if he was outraged that the weapons of mass destruction hadn't been found yet.

To say nothing of the fact that the implied logic of the above quote is that Bush "lied" his way into war, using a pretext that he knew was false, and that he knew would be revealed to be false... but then he somehow neglected to "lie" in the aftermath, planting some WMDs in order to complete the alibi. I mean, c'mon. A 14-year-old D&D player would be able to figure out how to make the story complete. As a leader, you get to be either an evil genius or an incompetent buffoon. But not both.

Further, the quote assumes that Saddam didn't actually have WMDs, and that a small-voiced but insistent cadre of liberals-- like, oh, Clinton, Chirac, Schröder, Putin, the UN inspectors, John Kerry, Wesley Clark-- had said so all along. It's pure revisionism-- 180 degrees from reality-- to say this, but people are doing it anyway. If they admit that Saddam had WMDs at all, they apparently suggest that he voluntarily and secretly destroyed them in the time since the inspectors were kicked out in 1998, even though doing so could have gained him no conceivable benefit, and was likely only to result in his ouster as he wouldn't be able to prove his disarmament to the UN's satisfaction. The mental gymnastics necessary to support this theory are astonishing. I would not want to try to debug the spaghetti-code inside these people's brains.

And yet, without irony, they call themselves Citizens Who Still Know How To Think Clearly.

Some hold that this raving sect of mentally incoherent logically-impaired sign-wavers is just a fringe, a cult of anti-personality drunk on the camaraderie that arises from the novel prospect of shared mass hatred of a single visible, iconic person. I think it's bigger than that, though. It takes a lot of effort to get people into the streets of the world's cities by the hundreds of thousands. This isn't happening by accident. It's lasted too long to be a fluke.

And I think there's something new going on. A nostalgic romanticization of Vietnam's hippies, perhaps, and the intense need to reduce the world to recognizable, bite-sized caricatures, icons, insightful parallels. Or possibly it's the second- and third-order fallout in the nation's collective mind from 9/11-- first was the shock and horror and patriotism, but then there was the freight-train backlash against it that has so violently uprooted the foundations of so many people's minds that all cognitive consistency is lost.

If this is what 9/11 has done to us in the long term, then bin Laden really did have a plan and a half, didn't he?


09:54 - Thank you for noticing
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=1&u=/nm/20031026/ts_n

(top)
I only have one comment regarding this Der Spiegel article, linked by LGF:

"The fourth plane, according to bin al-Shaibah's questioning, should have hit the Capitol, the U.S. parliament ... U.S. authorities long suspected that it should have hit the White House. Only bin al-Shaibah's statement corrected the error," the magazine reported.

You know, it's funny-- I don't seem to ever recall any American, whether news anchor or redneck-in-the-street, refer to some other country's legislative body as "The German Capitol".

(I know how the "Russian White House" sounds, but that's what they call it, isn't it?)

Likewise, they keep saying things like "Defense Minister Rumsfeld". I have yet to hear anybody refer to a European politician as a "secretary".

So how come Americans know what a Parliament is, but Germans have to have "Capitol" explained to them? Who's more internationally conscious again?

Monday, October 27, 2003
23:40 - Half haste helps, but whole haste hinders
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_831848.html?menu=news.quirkies

(top)
Hrrmph. Okay. Okay. Good. Very good.

You'll like this one.

Ahh, those wacky British place-names...

(I especially like how the family lives in a "bungalow". I am Cornholio! I live in a bungholow!)

Saturday, October 25, 2003
20:54 - Scintillating lunchtime conversation

(top)
CHRIS: E-business... F-stop.. G-spot...
ME: H-... um. Bomb?
CHRIS: I-Life... J-walk...
ME: K-rations... L-train...
CHRIS: Huh?
ME: You know, like in Chicago.
CHRIS: Ah.
ME: M-path.. N-tropy...
KRIS: O-ring...
DAVID: P-chan?
ME: Q-zone... R-type... S-class... uh, T-party...
DAVID: U-suxxor.
CHRIS: V-ger?
ME: Double-U-suxxor!
CHRIS: X-ray. Y... not.
ME: Z... coach?

Yay! We're dorks!

Friday, October 24, 2003
10:17 - "Our first goal is to show utter contempt for the environment..."
http://filepile.claws-and-paws.com/stuff/funny/presaddress.mov

(top)
This is most excellent. Apparently it's what all of Hollywood heard in January.



As Marcus says, "When do I get my three nucular missiles?"

Seriously. I'm waiting.

Thursday, October 23, 2003
13:26 - Maybe I should add a polling feature... naaahh

(top)
This would be a revealing poll:

With which war in U.S. history do you think this year's War in Iraq has the most in common?
  1. Revolutionary War
  2. Civil War
  3. World War I
  4. World War II
  5. Vietnam
  6. Korean War
  7. Gulf War
  8. Afghanistan

Might make an interesting Rorschach's test.

(No, I'm not actually asking for responses. It's just a thought experiment.)

Wednesday, October 22, 2003
18:22 - Webmasters, re-arm!

(top)
By the way--

In response to Jen's general request, I registered at an online Arabic translation site (there don't appear to be any free ones, so I plunked down for one-- who knows how else it might prove useful) so I could obtain a translation of this page, which refers in perpetrators' terms to the recent DOS attacks against Internet Haganah.

The translated document is here.

Make of it what you will.


17:43 - Temba, his arms open
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2003/10/me_and_my_musli.html

(top)
Matt at Blackfive:

At first, I was so damn angry after the experience you are about to read that I didn't trust myself to write something coherent. Then, I calmed down and figured that it was an anomaly. I wasn't going to write about this experience, but, with the recent comments coming out of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Malaysia, I thought that I might be able to shed some light on what we are up against in the world...

Go read his story.

How the hell can we ever convince people like Masood that "the Jews" aren't the problem - that his blindness is the problem? And if we can't convince the likes of him, how can we reach countless millions that don't have Masood's liberal education, facility with English, or access to our mediums?

Simple answer: I don't think we can penetrate that kind of cultural and religious brainwashing.

Which is why, when I saw this article on the Malaysian Prime Minister's hateful words, I wasn't shocked. Not in the slightest.

It really is us against them. Us and the Israelis and a few others against 1.6 billion zealots.

Get used to the idea.

A simplistic thought, yesno? Good and evil? Us against them? How infantile!

...Except that, as Steve Antler (via InstaPundit) points out, it really is a different world that we're up against. A different experience of humanity.

Our cultural reflexes admonish us to find common ground above all else, and to allow our own interpretations of reality itself to fluctuate, to ebb and flow, to conform to whatever mode lets us all "just get along".

It's what comes naturally to us these days, just like the irresistible urge to find tortured parallels between historic or even mythical events and what's going on in the present world. Stratfor, the other day, posted an analysis that painted Bush today in terms that equated him with the Kennedy that faced down Krushchev over Cuba: inexperienced, irresponsibly belligerent, unfocused, tharn (to use a Richard Adams word). Hey, the Russians called JFK a "cowboy" too! Sunrise, sunset... sunrise, sunset...

(Not saying the piece was without merit. It had plenty. It just strikes me as very telling that even a news analysis organization like Stratfor can't seem to resist the temptation to speak in the language of historical metaphor-- because, hey, they know it's what catches readers' imaginations. More so than just shooting straight with an analysis of the situation in a vacuum.)

But the Left, it seems to me, is so deeply ingrained with this idea of describing the world in poetic, metaphorical terms, that they leap to even the most ludicrous levels of hyperbole just to get on record with the All-Important Parallel. That's how Bush gets to be Hitler. It's how Iraq gets to be Vietnam. It's how the Israelis get to be the Nazis. It's how America, the nation that has done more than any other in the history of the world to lift humanity out of its millennia of anonymously skulking in mud huts under the whips of the elite masters, gets to be the Evil Empire. Historical parallels, mixed with a rich helping of shocking irony... why, that's how to make truth! ...Right?

Hence this widely held impression, espoused by so many high-school and college liberals, that conservatives are either a) fascistic or b) stupid, or most likely both. They must be fascistic because they have flags, and Hitler had flags! They must be stupid because they see things in black and white, and as we all know, the world is all shades of gray!

What seldom seems to be stated is that yes, the world is all shades of gray... but those who support the WoT have not denied this fact. They have, instead, analyzed the gray of our situation, and they've made a judgment as to whether it's closer to black or to white.

That's the trap that this guy fell into, in that thread at IMAO: he strode confidently into the fray, sure that he was facing down a bunch of uneducated hicks who had never set foot outside their home counties except to buy new coonhounds. It clearly hadn't even occurred to him that anybody could be intelligent, eloquent, educated-- and yet conservative and/or pro-war. Does not compute!

For the Left, analysis begins and ends with the acknowledgment of grayness. It's both the default condition and the epitome of perspicacity to see how multifaceted everything is. The beauty of it is that you don't have to do any work to come to that conclusion, because that's where everybody starts out these days, right from the cradle. What children's books are being written today that feature a struggle between Good and Evil? How many, by comparison, are all about characters of all backgrounds coming together to overcome a nonspecific hardship?

(This is speculation... but somehow I think my suspicions wouldn't turn out too far off the mark. And yes, I know all about those studies that describe how you can foretell a country's political atmosphere by looking at the rhetorical slant of children's books written fifteen years beforehand.)

So conservatives who take sides automatically fall under suspicion. After all, if they see things as black and white, it must mean they just haven't thought things through, right? They just haven't yet arrived at the inevitable conclusion, the Truth of Gray?

And if they have arrived there through rational thought, well... you know what that means. Evil!

That same Stratfor article warned against losing historical perspective when faced with the temptation to presume that today's situation is unprecedented. Well, okay, concern noted. But we really are in a unique period in history. World cultures are interacting physically and intellectually in ways never before seen on planet Earth. And something like 9/11 really hasn't ever happened before.

Oh, sure, historical parallels can be drawn, with some mental gymnastics. But are they really likely to be helpful? Even if the reactions of the world to, say, Pearl Harbor, or to Sherman's March to the Sea, or to Carthage can be judged to have been "correct", who's to say that those same reactions have any applicability to today?

This war we're fighting is a war of ideas far more than it is one of bullets. It's a common foe, one we've fought before, in many guises: the recurring specter of a philosophy that simultaneously absolves a people of its sins and blames its hardships on an external "other". We once called it monarchic tyranny; then we called it Naziism; then we called it racism; then we called it communism; now we call it radical Islamism. We've used the same fortress of ideas to fight each one of these foes-- freedom, democracy, secularism-- and while we change from it a little each time, we keep winning.

But that doesn't mean we can allow ourselves to slip into historical overanalysis regarding today's situation. We have to develop a new vocabulary, because the old one will just get us tongue-tied.

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.

Shaka, when the walls fell.

Mirab, his sails unfurled!


Seems to me we'll get a lot further by calling a spade a spade... and paranoid Jew-hating xenophobes by their true name.

The Bad Guys.

Tuesday, October 21, 2003
16:13 - Comics Roundup

(top)
They never disappoint.


Hey, Garry, he's a Nazi too! Haven't you heard? Oh, and BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!


Ladies and gentlemen, the Compassionate Left.


Oh wait, this one's funny.


13:40 - Feeding Frenzy
http://www.imao.us/archives/001053.html#001053

(top)
While al Qaeda continues its relentless assault of Weapons of Mass Annoyance against HostingMatters, preventing us from reading InstaPundit or LGF or any of a bunch of others, it would seem that everyone's gathering over at IMAO. To pile on one James Wakefield.

I love Michael Moore. I agree with everything he says and I love it that he is making you disgusting, stupid, haters so angry. As I am not an American it's easy for me to think that all Americans are power hungry war mongers that want to destroy all of the worlds diverse cultures. Greed and capitalism are taking over, its great to see that there are some good Americans like Michael Moore trying to make a difference for the good of all humans and not just the wealthy with their multiple yachts and mansions.

P.S You are not PROVING anything by just saying someones ideas are stupid; the key to an argument is to actually give a reason for why something is stupid. Maybe if you all thought about issues instead of seeing everything in black and white (or good and evil) you wouldn't be right wing.

Power to the Prolatarian. -James

And so it starts.

After some back-and-forthing about how to spell "proletarian", James (who lives in Australia) sneeringly asks:

So what exactly do conservatives want? What do you want the world to be? Do you want western culture to conquer all the minority groups it can? Do you want George W declared president of the world? Do you want corporations to be more rich and powerful? Do you want to send scary (sorry "amusing" satire) hate mail to everyone that wants equality? Do you want poor 14 year old girls to have to live with their mistake and have the baby? Do you want more toxins in our waterways? Do you want to live in gated communities where you don't have to mingle with the poor?

Uh huh. Yeah, he's got us there.

Cue David:

James,

You ask a profound question. What do conservatives like me want? Well take it from a guy who has traveled to every continent except Antarctica, I sure don't want what the Third World has.

There is this depressing similarity among Third World nations, be it Morocco, El Salvador, Vietnam or Saudi Arabia. It's the trash, dirt streets, emaciated animals, poor construction techniques, corrupt cops, prevalent violence, undrinkable water, racism, hatred, bigotry and depression. It's being stopped by four cops with machine guns in Cambodia and being "asked" to pay the "road toll." It's meeting a missionary couple and their three small kids at a hotel in Colombia, then finding out a week later that Marxist guerillas kidnapped and killed them. It's walking through the market in Marrakech and getting nauseated by the unrefrigerated meat covered with flies. It's driving down roads in Angola and seeing all the bloated corpses by the side of the road. It's having a prostitute in Thailand tell you that she has a great job - it pays so much more than any other job she could get. It's getting so violently sick in Calcutta that you think you're going to die because the bartender put ice in your drink. It's driving through Saudi Arabia and seeing piles of discarded tires, abandoned cars and trash to make an American Indian cry along the highway.

Then it's returning to the land of heaven, better known as the United States. The land of paved streets and lawns, and houses with paint on them, and water you can drink, and low crime and good paying jobs for women and responsive government and, well and just about everything else from free emergency medical care to clean air to people who stop at red lights and use the on ramps to get on and the off ramps to get off the highway. It's not seeing adolescent girls selling themselves openly without comment by the locals.

James, I don't want to live anywhere other than the United States of America, despite having an enjoyable visit to Australia. But I know for a fact that millions of men, women and children in the Third World watch television and movies and see what we have here and they crave it. They crave it because they live a life of pain and shit.

So James I find your comments depressing and ironic. You and Michael Moore advocate a hatred of the system of government and economics which has created a virtual heaven on earth. You asked "Do you want western culture to conquer all the minority groups it can?" And I answer, "YES." And all the billions of your so-called minorities in the world scream "YES." You asked "Do you want corporations to be more rich and powerful?" And I say, "Yes, I want corporations which produce the medicines which cure the poor of the world, I want the corporations which feed the world, I want the corporations which produce washing machines and cars and airplanes and cell phones and computers to be more rich and powerful."

Then James you asked a most interesting question, "Do you want to live in gated communities where you don't have to mingle with the poor?" How odd. In order to conquer the world, we would need to leave our gated communities. And you implied, by the way you phrased your questions, that you don't want us to leave our gated communities to conquer the world’s minorities. So I would answer this last question with "No I don't want to live in a gated community, blocked off from the poor. I want to bring the benefits of my culture and wealth and beauty to the sick, poor and downtrodden everywhere." You, James, oppose that. In other words, you want me to remain in my gated community so that the poor remain poor. Because as long as the poor remain that way, you have meaning to your life. You care nothing and do nothing for them. You use them as a crutch for your self-righteous evil.

And James, that is why I despise you and Michael Moore and all those who profit from hating and loathing the very thing which brings hope to the poor of this world.

Not that this slows James down. For a little while he acts like he's waffling, like things sort of might seem to make sense. But-- no! No! He's lost it. It's gone.

I really hate religious extremists, inparticular islamic extremists. It is very easy to think that maybe if we just nuke them they will go away, but that would just make more people HATE America. I am an athiest but I don't want to see the end of religion. Diversity and multiculturalism are a beautiful thing, Australia has many cultures living harmoniously together. War is not the answer, increase aid and increase immigration, show people that their cultural identity is respected and their people are welcome to enjoy the benefits of our society. It's a simple idea; if you are nice to people they wont hate you. I don't like it how the west is seen as a christian culture when a multicultural society would be better (and Muslims would stop thinking their is a Christian agenda to wipe them out.)

Post-modernity is pluralist. It is insane to think that a single culture can conquer all others when you think about all the bloodshed it would cause. When people start getting killed for their political and religious beliefs (no matter how stupid we secretly think their religion may be) it is clearly a large step away from being civilized.

I would much prefer my medicines to be made by government owned institutions so that there would be no profiteering in health. Third world countries would also have access to these medicines.

Wouldn't it be nice if America was "heaven on Earth" for everyone not just white middle class men.

Ared, Tom beta 2, Jeff from PRMd, and an immigrant grad student all pile on, gnawing on these last bits of twisted wisdom with longish essays. And then Bill Whittle arrives on the scene.

James,

You are an idiot.

I say idiot because you clearly know nothing about this country. I spent three months in Australia, and I can tell you there are more rich, successful minorities in America than there are people in OZ. There are more rich blacks in Los Angeles than there are on the rest of the PLANET.

You ask what conservatives want? We want to be FREE, idiot -- I say idiot because you can apologize for Saddam all you want, but the fact remains that Iraqis are not being ortured to death at a rate of 5,000 a month, thanks entirely to George Bush and conservatives, and not to Michael Moore. He is too busy torturing Americans to do anything else.

You say you want to make the world more equal -- well, conservatives want that too, idiot. I say idiot because we believe that rather than making the entire world into your poverty-striken, environmentally -ruined, third world shithole of failure, dictatorship, crime, starvation and disease, we would prefer to raise them to the level of free, happy, capitalists -- like Michael Moore, for instance, who, you may have noticed, is not on the verge of starvation like your Proletariat.

You do seem a nice sort of idiot though. But the next time you say only rich, white men are successfull in the USA, perhaps you might want to take your head out of your butt and LOOK THE FUCK AROUND FIRST.

IDIOT.

And then he gets mad.

Oh, PS Idiot --

North Korea STARTED the crisis by announcing it had nuclear weapons in direct violation of the deal brokered by BILL CLINTON, who sent the high holy man JIMMY CARTER to get HIS PERSONAL WORD! that the NK's PROMISED, CROSS THEIR HEARTS AND HOPE TO DIE that they would not develop a nuclear program. Bush put them in the Axis of Evil BECAUSE THEY LIED, and when they are gone --no thanks to you -- you will see unfold horrors that make Iraq look like a Beverly Hills Kindergarten.

Once AGAIN, THAT is the result of your Proletariat, idiot -- they are eating their own babies, as you shall find out soon enough.

Ronald Reagan said that the difference between Communists and non-Communists was simple: Communists READ Marx and Lenin; Anti-Communists UNDERSTAND Marx and Lenin.

When Dear Leader goes the way of Hitler and Saddam -- no doubt over your strong protestations -- we will see the triumph of you and your fucking proletariat -- another five or ten million to add to the hundred million or so that your little communist paradise has killed in a century.

You be careful with that word, boyo. There are still free people in the world who are not afraid to fight for their freedom, and you are the low life that rides on their sacrifices for free.

And James pops.

Well I guess I have been proved wrong. Lets get rid of the hopeless goals of living in harmony amongst each other. Multiculturalism is not going to work, we need to send the message "assimilate or DIE!" Who can stop us?

What was I thinking when I made the stupid statement that being nice to countries would stop the hatred. The clear way of fixing their intolerance is to blast them into submission. The bloody united nations trying to do everything diplomatically, they are idiots. Some liberals are suggesting that by bombing countries we are increasing the risk of terorism, I say thats a risk we have to take. In an effort to decrease the terrorism we will increase the searching powers of the police and keep a close eye and regular inspections on all the people practicing Islam (and communists, intellectuals, artists, unions, protestors and the unemployed).

We should go to war with North Korea, who cares that they have the third largest army in the world. The inevitable loss of thousands of American and allied countries' soldiers and Korean civilians is acceptable because they would be heroes. It may take a hundred years to wipe out (or assimilate) all the non-western cultures, but we have to do it to clean this world up.

To fund this crusade we have to tighten the budget abit; we'll spend less on public education, hospitals and we'll abolish welfare altogether. Don't worry there will be a tax cut for corporations so that they will stimulate the economy. The economy will still be strong. Conscription must be brought back to support the army.

With welfare gone there will be a large crime increase, so I recommend you all go out and get a gun to protect yourself from dole bludging scum (well they wouldn't be dole bludging anymore, they'd just be scum!)

Recaping:

So your civil liberties are going, you are becoming a police state, civilians may end up being sent to war (and quite likely dying in a gruesome death.) Your public services are being wittled away or privatised, many areas are becoming too expensive for normal people to live, the arts are being ignored, your freedoms that you are so proud of are being taken away from you, but you get to show off your millitary muscle and you get to clear the world of evil (whatever evil may be)

Attack a country if it invades an allie and the united nations condones the attack.
Attack a country that threatens your way of life (and is an IMMEDIATE threat, none of this scary premptive nonsense)

My buddy Michael Moore is doing all he can to stop America from becoming a facist state, but all you can do is liken any leftist activity to irrelevant 3rd world dictatorships. We have learned from the mistakes of Communism. We will keep fighting against the conservative agenda and we will stop America from taking over the world.

Wow. Sure glad everybody went to all that effort.

This guy would have us solve problems like poverty, dictatorship, and civil war by scooping everybody up, putting them in a terrarium full of candy canes, and hoping it all works out. It's like pulling a branch off a tree, sticking it in the ground, and then patiently waiting for a forest to bloom. And then acting shocked when all it does is die.

Conservatives understand one simple, stupid, moronic thing that the most salt-of-the-earth gardener understands: for something to grow, it has to take root. That means starting slow, giving it nourishment, migrating bit by bit, carefully assembling the conditions so that natural laws take over.

Society's ills can't be solved with a hammer. (Or a sickle, for that matter.) They can be solved with fertilizer. Sure, it smells like shit. That's what it is. But look what it does.

You can't make poor people rich by giving them handouts. You can't make a country racially harmonious by promoting people from minority groups just because of their skin color. You can't create jobs and a strong economy by forbidding companies to fire anybody. You can't have world peace by shutting down the military and ignoring hideous dictatorships.

You can, however, study Adam Smith. You can read Jefferson and Hamilton. You can make a country wealthy by encouraging individual achievement, and by keeping from stifling it with a government that people come to rely on for more than basic services. When people see their destiny as being in their own hands, they make their own world a better place-- because nobody fouls his own nest, if he can truly call it his own.

Some people look at this viewpoint and see in it a bloodthirsty death-cult mindset that revels in war and empire and racism and aristocracy.

I can shake my head and cluck my tongue and think to myself, At least people like this aren't in charge, and their opinions don't matter. But you know... I'd be wrong.

Monday, October 20, 2003
09:48 - There, there
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2003-10-20&res=l

(top)
Penny Arcade:



As Marcus puts it: The cycle is complete.

Sunday, October 19, 2003
02:43 - My eyes are open, Tyler
http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1741

(top)
If I were in the game development industry, and I read this collection of covert snapshots of gaming forums gathered by the Something Awful guys, I would kill myself. Many times over if necessary.

I mean, how could you live with it, knowing that this is your audience?

Saturday, October 18, 2003
03:23 - New Iraqi Dinars
http://www.rferl.org/specials/iraq-currency/

(top)

Iraq's new bank notes were released on Thursday. Pretty cool, if you ask me, and full of the same high-tech security features that are on our own evil new $20. But, of course, the best feature of all is the lack of Saddam's face.

Note that they are also missing portraits of Bush and Rumsfeld. Somehow.

Incidentally, this is via Healing Iraq, a blog run by a 24-year-old Baghdad dentist.

I'm not sure if the American adminstration deliberately chose this day , October 15th, to start circulating the new Dinar or if it was purely coincidental. Nevertheless the timing is wonderful and so symbolic. Iraqis know this day to be 'thikra al-zahf al-kabir' or the anniversary of The Great March, it can also be translated as The Great Crawl which is more accurate. Saddam's version of elections. It was in October 15th 1995 that Saddam decided to show the world how Iraqis want him and only him to be president 'for life'. So he set up voting centers all over Iraq, so that the people would vote for their 'beloved leader'. Of course it was absurd, there were no other candidates, no political parties, no nothing. Mukhabarat and security agents had already started spreading rumours on the street that the paper you would submit had some kind of watermark that you could be traced by. Of course there was nothing like that, but it was a message to Iraqis that no one could even dream of saying no. The paper ran something like this (I don't recall the exact wording): 'Do you vote for president Saddam Hussein (Allah preserve him), Yes, or No'. It was actually a poll. And it was creepy enough for everyone to say Yes. Of course the voting procedure was carried out in a democratic fashion, armed Baath members hanging around the centers, and sometimes even voting for you, nobody simply could secretly write no and fold the paper and submit it. It was all scrutinized by party members. But some people somehow DID write no, but it didn't change anything. It was all prearranged. It was just a farce. The next day Izzat Ibrahim AlDori (revolutionary council vice president) announced the results proudly to the world: %99.9. And that was it. Each following year after 1995, October 15th was a day for celebration. Last year Saddam pathetically realized the need for another show, seeing how things looked bad for him. It was pretty much the same thing, but this time the results were %100! I clearly remember it because I was almost killed that day...

The guy's worth a read.

00:56 - Not hyperbole... maybe just parabole?
http://wench.little-gamers.com/?strip_id=695

(top)
Interesting comment on an online comic site, "Little Gamers":

In other news, iTunes is out for windows, and PC-folks are laughing at the phrase "Best program for windows ever" they post at the site.
I bet they won't be laughing when they try it, actually, they'll all be crying, crying out for a mac of their own, crying because they run a system that sucks ass (well, not if you're playing games on it, cuz then it's pretty dope).

As commentary from the gamer world goes, that's pretty lofty.

(Meanwhile, my gamer co-worker says that he can already see that iTunes will replace his WinAmp, his CD-ripping software that he hates, MusicMatch, his CD-burning software that doesn't work very well, and his ID3-tag editor. All these functions are neatly wrapped up in this one elegant app.

Well, yeah. That's the idea.)
Friday, October 17, 2003
18:05 - Windows 101 for Diplomats
http://www.punningpundit.com/archives/2003_10.html#000981

(top)
Before iTunes can perform well as an "ambassador" application to the Windows world, it apparently must learn to speak the language. Or vice versa.

The Punning Pundit has a post in which he describes his first impressions of iTunes for Windows. His conclusion is generally favorable, but the bulk of his post is taken up with gripes, most of which seem to stem from a general misunderstanding of how the application is supposed to work. Now, I'll grant that iTunes does require a little bit of explanation for people who think it's intended to be something it's not; and so while I've responded to the fellow directly in e-mail, I feel it would be a good idea to go through his gripes and address them point by point here, because they're worth discussing.

It took about five minutes to figure things out; the problem is that Mac people just don’t think like PC people, so the buttons are labeled different things and are in different places. Nary an "option" tag to be seen, but most of what I wanted was under "edit". "Edit" is used for other things in Windows, and, well you get the idea...

Windows apps all used to put the Preferences (or Options, or Settings, or whatever they call them this year) into the Edit menu. Then they moved them to the Options menu. Then they moved them to the Tools menu. The location of the Preferences on Windows apps has always been a moving target.

If Apple were to do the Windows version the same way as they did the Mac version, they'd put the Preferences into the Application (iTunes) menu-- but that doesn't exist on Windows. So if they were to do it the Windows way, they'd put it in the Tools menu... but iTunes doesn't have a Tools menu. Apple menus are designed as follows: <Noun> -> <Verb/command>. So, File -> Open. Or Controls -> Play. There is no place for a "Tools" menu. Rather, iTunes has File, Edit, Controls, Visualizer, Advanced, and Window menus. There isn't really a logical place to put the Preferences, is there-- except for under Edit.

Moving on...

Believe me, the difference is easy to hear. To make it a fair test, I ripped the M4A file at the same 320 kbps...

There was a slight difference in Apple’s favor. Not a big one, but a noticeable one. The Apple file was 14 Megs compared to the Mp3’s 10 Megs. I’m not sure if the M4A file is worth a 28% file size increase. And definitely not for a codec that no one else’s software can read...

That's weird. I never saw AAC files that were larger than MP3 files at the same bitrate. Well, maybe not never-- but probably 85% of the time. And it was never much larger.

In any case, it's an open standard-- there's nothing stopping other vendors from developing software that will read AAC files.

The big thing, though, the one thing that turns me off I-Tunes completely is this: Apple re-named all my music files and changed my organizational structure! Remember that friend I mentioned in the earlier paragraph, the one whose files I change as a prank? Well, Apple changed mine as a "convenience". It did have (buried in the bowels of the program) a check-box for “keep the I-Tunes music folder organized”, and didn’t tell me that the I-Tunes folder would be wherever I store my music. It also doesn’t let me set how it is organized. So all the CDs I have by with multiple artists are now scattered all over my music folder, organized by the artist responsible for each track. A sampler CD with 30 artists will now be under 30 different folders. And there is no half way with this thing...

Here's the answer you're looking for:



The deal with iTunes is this: It's not a mere front-end for your MP3 files, like WinAmp is. It's a complete music management system-- designed to handle all your music needs, from importing off CDs, to organizing, to burning to CD, to syncing to iPod, to sharing over the Net. It's all in the one application. And along with that comes the philosophy that you don't organize your music by folder and filename, but by song title and artist and album. It's a content-based interface-- one where you organize your media based on the intrinsic criteria that the media itself carries with it, rather than by some clumsy and ill-suited computer-imposed metaphor like "files" and "folders".

I've written about this at some length, years ago. (Geez, has it really been that long?)

And so the idea is that iTunes organizes all of your MP3 files for you, in the background, changing filenames and folder names to match the ID3 tags that you change within iTunes. This way, you can immediately navigate to any folder in your iTunes Music folder (which is inside your My Music folder), browse by artist, then by album, then by track. When you put in a CD to import from it, iTunes looks up the track names and album info, and it writes out the new files into pre-organized folders in that filesystem structure. But you don't ever have to go into the filesystem to find them-- it's just for your convenience. And you can customize it if you want-- you can have it add track numbers to the filenames, or not; you can even choose not to have it copy all your files to the consolidated folder. That's the default behavior anyway-- if you double-click on an MP3 in some random location in the system, it gets added right where it is. But if you turn on "Copy files to iTunes Music when adding to library", then it'll copy your MP3 files to the consolidated location. "Keep iTunes Music Folder Organized" is what controls whether iTunes renames files according to your ID3 tag edits on the fly. Why would you not do this? Only if you have MP3 files with all those underscores and huge long filenames, I suppose, all in a big flat folder and your own personalized system of browsing through them by folder/filename. Hey, suit yourself, I guess...

In any case, the whole idea is that iTunes will find all the track information when you import new albums, and create its music folders that way. If you already have a collection of MP3s, there's a good chance that their ID3 tags are not all filled in-- and so iTunes is going to have a hell of a time organizing them. But just select them in groups, Get Info, edit the ID3 tags, and let iTunes sort everything out for you. Don't worry, be happy.

And when it comes to compilation albums-- I'd wager that the "Part of a compilation" checkbox is not set in most of these songs' ID3 tags. Well, that's easily enough sorted out, isn't it?

For future imports, you put in the CD, and iTunes automatically figures out that it's a compilation. It then creates the audio files inside a "Compilations" folder, instead of scattering them to thirty different places according to the different artists. (Tip: select all the songs in the album within iTunes, Get Info, and turn on the "Part of a compilation" checkbox. Watch iTunes neatly assemble your files back together in the folders. Let it work as designed.)

Unless, of course, something went wrong in the automatic track lookup...

The other big knock against the I-Tunes is the lack of automatic ID Tag look up. I should clarify; there is a manual look-up, but one so dumb it couldn’t find the Who’s Pinball Wizard. As this is not an obscure song, I can only presume some difficulty on Apple’s end...

Something weird's going on here, because my Windows-using friends assure me that Windows iTunes does indeed do automatic CDDB lookups, just like the Mac version. Put in the CD, wait a few seconds, and iTunes automatically populates all the fields. If it wasn't able to look up your track names, even if you do it manually, suspect a network problem.

iTunes uses the CDDB, aka Gracenote, for its CD lookups. This is not a small database. If iTunes couldn't find information in it for a popular album, there's a network problem. And in any case it's not Apple's fault.

But! If iTunes doesn't find the track names on a CD you've inserted, just select all the tracks, Get Info, and fill them in yourself. Including the "Part of a compilation" checkbox if necessary. You only have to do it once. Then Import.

A more minor knock (but still worth mentioning) is that the player lacks as "pause" button. Seriously. I have to turn the song off if I want to have a moment of silence...

A more minor knock (but still worth mentioning) is that the player's "pause" button is not always present, even when a song is playing. Seriously. If I’m not on the "library" screen while listening to a song, I can't pause it. It’s a minor thing, but anything that makes me do more steps is a pain...

This confuses me. iTunes' Play button turns into a Pause button while it's playing. Or, if you have selected a different music source in the sidebar from the one it's currently playing from, it becomes a Stop button. The idea is that the music source you're currently viewing-- the Music Library, a CD, a playlist, Internet Radio, someone's Shared Music-- is a single big playlist, and if you let iTunes keep playing, it'll keep selecting songs from that window. If you shuffle it, repeat songs, start and stop it, it works all within that music source. But if you select a different music source, then iTunes assumes you're wanting to play music from that source-- and so the Pause button, which implies wanting to stop the music and then continue playing from the original source, instead turns into a Stop button so that the next time you Play, it'll be taking music from the current music source.

The alternative is for iTunes to have both a "Pause"(/Play) button and a "Stop" button... and the difference between them is subtle enough that I think most novice users would be confused. Control buttons should be as few as possible, and as significant as possible. You really want to make the user have to think about whether he or she wants to "stop" or "pause" the song?

Solution? Leave it in a single music source while you're letting iTunes play music on its own. The only reason you'd be switching between music sources a lot, in any case, is if you're playing with the application for the first time. Once you start using it, this will cease to be a problem, I daresay.

Tip: Double-click on any music source (a CD, playlist, whatever) to open it in a second window. Then you can work on that music source, edit its contents, change its settings, whatever you like-- and the music, playing from within the music source in the original window, will have a Pause button instead of a Stop button.

Other than that, I-tunes really is a nice piece of software. It is free (a big plus), fast, small, and has a decent (though non windows-friendly) interface. It is way, way better than Microsoft’s offering (though that isn’t saying much).

You don't say. Now, I suspected that most of the gripes from Windows users would be along the lines of how you can't resize the window by gripping the edges-- like in Windows-- or how the scrollbars are Aqua-themed. But these gripes are mostly founded in misconceptions about what iTunes is for, and how it operates. Yes, yes, I understand the irony of it all-- Mac software is supposed to be so intuitive! And iTunes is supposed to be such a great example of it! And yet here I am, having to write this long-winded essay explaining how to use it! Uh huh, yeah, I know. All very humbling and all that.

But, look-- for the new computer user, iTunes eliminates the need to think about "MP3 files". That's its entire point. If you come into iTunes expecting it to be a non-intrusive front-end like WinAmp, letting you keep your old MP3-collecting lifestyle intact while running iTunes under its default settings, I'm afraid you're cruising for a bit of a shock. Making friends with iTunes means giving up a goodly number of preconceived notions about how MP3s and digital music work-- you have to let go of obsessive control over filenames and folders in the filesystem; you have to work with ID3 tags and automatic lookups rather than manually organizing lists of files in folders to specify playlists. iTunes frees you from an immense amount of organizational hassle-- but if you try to hold on to what you have come to expect MP3 files to do under Windows, then making your habits reconcile with how iTunes does business makes things way more difficult than either the WinAmp method or the Mac method on its own could ever be.

UPDATE: Kris reminds me that in the iTunes installation wizard on Windows, there's a screen where it asks you whether you want it to automatically keep your Music folder organized... and it defaults to off.

I should also point out that this is exactly what I was afraid of, with taking iTunes to Windows: iTunes on the Mac is designed to take advantage of the Unique File IDs in the HFS+ filesystem, so even if you move your files around on the disk, iTunes will still be able to find them, even if you turn off "Keep my iTunes Music folder organized". But under Windows, it can't do that; if you move a file from where iTunes thinks it is, it'll lose track of that file. This complicates matters quite a bit, when it comes to the whole question of automatically copying files into the iTunes Music folder, or where to put newly created files. Ideally it should all still "just work" (iTunes should only copy files from their existing locations into iTunes Music, not move them-- and anything that it would automatically rearrange must be inside the iTunes Music folder to begin with, so I don't understand how any of the original structure can have been "lost")-- but hey, this wouldn't be the first time that what looks like a bug actually turns out to be a misunderstood feature.

Thursday, October 16, 2003
02:58 - Homer sleep now

(top)
I'm done.

With the primary writing task, anyway. Now comes author review.

And in the meantime, back to the deck-building and trim-painting...


11:43 - But... but... but... free speeeeeech!
http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@184.dV7hbLyYIJS.0@.685ea26f

(top)
What the blithering hell is wrong with Guardian readers?

The paper's site removed the thread on their discussion forums which had the title "Is it time to assasinate George Dubya Bush?"

And, as LGF notes, the forum denizens are now bitching and whining about "free speech".

I would like to challenge the Guardian Media Group Plc to come up with a reasonable explanation why this page was deleted. I can come up with hundreds examples of risky articles printed by their journalists - most of which I usually support. An abonimation of free speach and human justice.

Then someone points out:

You people have a skewed idea of what 'free speech' is.

Free speech does not apply to a private entity that posts rules and guidelines as to what is acceptable behavior on their privately owned and controlled medium.

Free speech also does not allow one to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater or 'Hi Jack' at the airport.

To which the insightful response was:

Inkind - but free speech does allow one to ask questions does it not? Would you prefer something like - 'Should George W be removed from office by the same means he removed Sadaam Hussain?'. After all, whats good for the goose....

I had a witty retort, but... really. I can't even say anything that does this justice.

I mean, what can you say about people who feel passionately enough to argue in its favor, that Bush should be assassinated because he ousted Saddam Hussein?

And what can you say about people who think that "free speech" is anything but the Constitutional guarantee that the government-- let me say that again, loudly and clearly: THUUUHHH GUUUHHHVERRRNMEEENT... shall not abridge the people's right to express their opinions freely? It is not some cosmic force that applies to all discussions in public and private, hosted by commercial entities or conducted in one's own home, whereby you can justify even the most anti-social and hateful statements by shaking your fist at the walls and yelling free speeech! To hear these people talk, which I have done on occasion, they act as though "free speech" is some word they can call out, like "Sanctuary!", which immediately will strike dumb any opponents who wish to punch the speaker in the mouth for publicly advocating the murder of their elected leader.

Incitement to violence is not a protected form of free speech, numbnuts.

And what's more, why is it that the most pacifistic liberals I know are also the people who are most apt to personal physical violence? A couple of months ago, we were heading out to lunch; someone asked where we wanted to go, and I made some silly pun about a nearby restaurant, as I am wont to do. And this one co-worker, one of the most ardent techno-hippies and promulgators of anti-war and anti-Bush rhetoric in the office, without hesitation spun around and kicked me in the balls. Oh, sure, he didn't mean to actually connect, and he apologized profusely while I lay writhing on the floor. But listen, man! It's not me, the rabid warmonger, who countenances physical violence against his fellow man! But if you go to any "peace" demonstration, you're as likely as not to find smashed windows, fist-fights, forcible suppression of cameramen like Evan Coyne Maloney-- I mean, just look at this:



Why is it that people like these Guardian commenters always seem to act like murder and violence are the way to react when democracy doesn't go their way? I'm all for not allowing political power to fall into the hands of people with that twisted an idea of how a democratic form of government works.

Wednesday, October 15, 2003
18:59 - Project Crossbow
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/simberg200310150845.asp

(top)
In reading this Rand Simberg piece on the various pro- and con- and indifferent-to- takes on the Chinese space program (congratulations on a safe landing to taikonaut Yang Liwei, by the way), I was reminded of something that had occurred to me earlier today:

This is not to say, of course, that we should be totally complacent about Chinese space activities. While it doesn't justify a surge in NASA budgets, it should cause concern from a military standpoint.

We've seen recently how valuable, even critical our space assets are to our military capability. In the middle of a war on a new form of fascism in the Middle East, of uncertain length and a cloudy trajectory, we cannot risk the loss of the satellites that not only save many of our soldiers' lives, but those of innocent noncombatants as well.

The Chinese were also no doubt watching, with the rest of the world, the precision devastation that we wreaked on first the Taliban, and then, even more precisely, on Saddam's regime, often destroying individual tanks while leaving civilian vehicles parked right next to them unscathed. They know that our power to do that comes from orbit, and that if they can come up with systems that can negate that advantage by blinding our eyes in the sky, and silencing our guidance signals, our military ability will be crippled, and back on more of a parity with other powers, including themselves.

If they can do so, then there will indeed be a danger, but it's not at all obvious that their present manned space program puts them on a path to that goal, any more than it puts them on a path to the Moon, in any timely or affordable fashion.

What I suddenly thought of was one of my all-time favorite movies, Real Genius.

Never mind the utterly joyous 80s nostalgia that it evokes, for anyone who's seen it (the scene at the end, with "Everybody Wants To Rule the World" playing over the slow-motion college conspirators cavorting in torrents of popcorn, then fading to the nice brief understated credits that movies had back then, actually brings a tear of lost youth to my eye); never mind, even, the fact that the "Pacific Tech" depicted in the movie was in fact meant to represent my own alma mater in Pasadena, where the sights and sounds and events and wall-scribblings in 1994-99 were so languidly parallel to the 1985 analog-synth geekery seen throughout the movie that I feel better represented by Chris Knight and Mitch Taylor than by any icon of the post-Internet-revolution world.

No, what I was thinking of, with some startlement, was the general premise of the movie.

HOLLYFELD: I've been thinking about your laser solution. I figure you've increased the output to six megawatts.

CHRIS: Yeah.

HOLLYFELD: What would you use that for?

MITCH: The applications are unlimited. Industrial for one.

HOLLYFELD: With the power source you've come up with, the beam would only last fifteen seconds. What good is that?

CHRIS: I don't care, Laslo. I graduated.

MITCH: Let the engineers figure out a use for it. That's not our concern.

HOLLYFELD: Maybe somebody already has a use for it, one for which it's explicitly designed.

JORDAN: You mean Hathaway had something in mind all along?

HOLLYFELD: Looks at the facts: Very high power. Portable. Limited firing time. Unlimited range. All you'd need is a big spinning mirror and you could vaporize a human target from space.

CHRIS: ...This is not good.

Turns out the mega-laser the pure young geniuses have been working on all this time is meant to be made into an orbital beam weapon, as cooked up in a dimly-lit, smoke-filled Pentagon boardroom in the movie's opening scene. And when the realization dawns on Chris and Mitch that they have somehow not been able to detect this possible use for the thing, the project being directed by Evil Dr. Hathaway (sponsored by DEI, of course), the reaction-- on their part and on that of the audience-- is horrified shock. "How could you build that mirror? Chris shouts rhetorically to the absent Kent. The protagonists are betrayed, their very ideals shivered to the core. The scientific breakthrough they've achieved, to them for the pure love of contour integrals and radiatively coupled ground states, is headed into space to be used against... well... against...

...See, that's where my mind was hanging up this morning; it's where the Tears For Fears soundtrack started skipping a beat. What, exactly, was the movie saying was so evil about the antagonists, Dr. Hathaway and his DoD bosses?

Was it... their betrayal of the kids' pure scientific motives for personal gain?

Was it... Chris' realization that he is only graduating because he did the professor's bidding, and not because of his actual academic merit?

Was it... hmm... let's see...

Was it simply that the United States was building a weapon that could target and destroy a person at will, anywhere on the planet?

Forgive me for saying so, but these days, Project Crossbow sounds like a dandy idea.

The tenor of the movie, mired in its Reagan-era cynicism about "Star Wars" and the rapidly vanishing Soviet threat (though the "Project Crossbow" promo video shown to the Pentagon brass featured an anonymous South American drug boss of some sort-- all the more ominous, it's meant to be, since it's just some guy relaxing by the pool with a drink, zapped from his chair while the butler's back is turned-- he wasn't hurting anybody, was he?), keeps coming back to the very idea that a weapon of any kind is evil incarnate. Cut the crap, Kent! You built a weapon! shouts Mitch into Kent's head, tapping into his rival's braces to amplify his voice and embody himself as the sepulchral presence of Jesus. And this horrifies even the weaselly Kent, who from that point on goes from sneering, hated nemesis to sympathetic, shuffling dupe who is redeemed by the purity of his faith in his professor. The very idea! A weapon! As though the top private universities in America aren't dedicated to pushing the limits of science first and foremost in the interest of national defense advances. I mean, who's fooling whom? I never even thought about this until just today-- which is really weird, since I've watched the movie at least a couple of times on DVD recently-- but perhaps the least credible concept in the entire movie (except for that dumb-ass line from Mitch about "liquid nitrogen", in reference to the solid cylinder of ice from which Chris saws a quarter-sized chunk for the vending machine-- a visually clumsy piece of flubbed direction that made a lot more sense on paper) is the idea that nobody in the group-- not Chris, not Mitch, not Jordan, not Kent, not even Laslo until his steam-tunnel epiphany-- even considered what the practical purposes of a six-megawatt laser would be.

Of course it makes sense once you think about it, as Laslo illustrates. What else could it be?

But this is the turning point in the movie, when the antagonist role shifts from the Kent-Hathaway Axis of Arrogant Lab-Politics to the decidedly more sinister Department of Defense brass and their B-1 test harness for the laser, targeted at a dummy motorcade (intended probably to represent Gorbachev and his retinue, but looking suspiciously like Kennedy in Dallas). Our Heroes dedicate their brains toward defeating the ones who are revealed to be the true villains: the US Government and their diabolical plans to attack unspecified bad guys from orbit. It's a moral imperative.

Which, of course, they do. And there was much rejoicing, amid mounds of popcorn in the ruins of Hathaway's new house.

And the Evil US Government is foiled again. It'll have to look elsewhere for its weapons of death, thankyouverymuch.

This is 1985's view upon the nature of war and its role in the technological future: We have far too much death and destruction right now, thank you. Kindly keep your Death Beams out of the skies, Mr. President. We have no need for such things in the modern world.

Just imagine, though, if Clinton had had such a thing at his beck after the 1993 WTC bombing.

Nowadays we're seeing the benefits of the God Button-- Predator drones icing terrorists in their cars who didn't even know they were in danger, unmanned bombers taking out ground targets painted by forward observers with GPS units, those concrete-filled Acme Guided Anvils that eviscerated Saddam's T-72s without even the need to explode. We have the technology now, and it's being used against the bad guys-- who are seeing more and more that the more omnipotent their enemy appears, the more futile their own cause is and the less incentive they should have to pursue it. As it should be.

Yet somehow I get the suspicion that if Real Genius were to be remade today, the writers would look surreptitiously for a somewhat different prototypical Evil to hang the story from than the Pentagon and its ludicrous mad quest to find ever better and more effective and more targeted weapons against those unspecified, anonymous, third-world, cave-dwelling supervillains who might want to wreak their maniacal plans against American interests. (Scoff, scoff. <cough>)

So now I get a better idea of the kind of memes that I grew up with, the kinds of ideas that seemed-- even until this very morning-- to be so unremarkable as to fail to raise one of my eyebrows. Weapons are bad, says the movie, and I nod and laugh at the caricatures. Of course weapons are bad. And of course the Pentagon is evil for wanting more of them.

If only we could live in a world where science nerds got megamillion-dollar funding to build six-megawatt lasers purely for the joy of discovery and scientific advancement, right?

Sheesh. Goes to show, I guess, that grads of that little temple of learning on California Boulevard who go on to write movies about their transcendental experiences there on campus might indeed be real geniuses... but their senses of reality are impaired to the point of catastrophic material failure by the surreal atmosphere of the place.

First-hand experience tells me that it's no stretch for such a thing to happen to a guy. (The student who snaps and freaks out in the study hall in one of the montages-- one of the best scenes in the whole movie-- could have been taken straight from one of the South House lounges on any given Thursday night.) That doesn't, however, excuse him from snapping out of it once it's all over.

UPDATE: John writes to point out that we do have these kinds of weapons now, sorta. (And also sorta.) He's right, too-- in a world where someone is eventually going to have weapons like this, I'm glad it's us. I think the world could do far worse (and has done) than to trust us to be the keepers of the flame.


16:58 - Your concern is noted
http://www.arabnews.com/cartoon/

(top)
Earlier today:

BEIT LAHIYA, Gaza Strip - A remote-controlled bomb tore apart an armored vehicle in a U.S. diplomatic convoy Wednesday, killing three American security guards and wounding a fourth in the first deadly attack on a U.S. target in the Palestinian territories.

The attack, on a convoy of U.S. Embassy diplomats entering Gaza to interview Palestinian candidates for a Fulbright scholarship, was a dramatic departure from typical militant operations, which usually target Israeli soldiers and civilians. It was almost certain to lead to greater U.S. pressure for a Palestinian crackdown on militant groups.

"Palestinian authorities should have acted long ago to fight terror in all its forms," President Bush (news - web sites) said, blaming Palestinian officials for the attack.

Yeah. Killing American diplomats who are there interviewing Fullbright applicants. That sure sends a rational message of legitimate resistance against oppression. We read you loud and clear.

"HalfLife" from LGF:

NPR just had John Burns on (from the NYTimes), and he reported that the stone-throwing "Allahu Akbar" chanterss near the bomb site had to be dispersed twice, once by Palestinian police shooting over their heads, and once by an Israeli tank shooting over their heads (after which he added something about "tear gas")...

When the journalists were finally allowed in, he says he saw a crowd of 600 or so, and they stoned the journalists. He said they were laughing and smiling, and at first he thought they were friendly [how stupid can he be?], but then they started throwing rocks, shattering the car's windows... He said he was at the rear of the convoy of journalists, if his driver hadn't managed to speed away from the scene, it could have been bad... They were actually chasing the car! He admitted it was terrifying.

Yes, Virginia, they hate you too. They'd probably have killed even the beatified Rachel Corrie, who died defending the tunnels that were probably used to smuggle in these bombs, if she were in the crowd. And "terrified" or not, she'd probably welcome death, for it came at the hands of her beloved pet cause. Like this brain-donor who said it would be an honor to be eaten by a bear... and is now duly honored.

IndyMedia blames the attack on the Jews:

The zionazi foe has attacked a U.S. diplomatic convoy in order to win the sympathy of Americans. Recent opinion polls had shown a tremendous drop in Americans' support for the zionists with Americans holding zionists equally responsible for violence. Consequently, the zionazis have launched an attack on the U.S. vehicles in a desperate ploy to blame Palestinians and detract from any possible media focus on yesterday's 50th anniversary of the zionazi genocide at Qibya. The article below shows that Zionazi tanks were already in position to make full use of the opportunity.

It must be a form of what Lileks calls "English Major Disease" that leads cosseted Western college students to look for the insightful hidden meaning in everything that turns the obvious interpretation of an event on its head. Four years of seeking the all-important top-of-the-bell-curve grade leads a person to see a world in a grain of sand, and heaven in a wild flower-- and a swastika in the Star of David, and an international Zionist conspiracy in the World Trade Center crashing down. It's an obsessive need to find historical parallels to contemporary events, even if it involves stretching credibility beyond its elastic limit-- and to react to the latter events as though they were the former, as though by treating 9/11 like it's the Reichstag Fire, these people get to atone for their not being alive in time to prevent the actual Hitler from rising to power. This kind of mental onanism is what makes a person refuse to believe there's such a thing as real Good and Evil in the world; just because he's never experienced true Evil, for him it doesn't exist, and all reality is relative.

These people are going to eviscerate this country. Especially since the Democratic candidates seem so busy trolling for their oh-so-willing votes.

And for a finale, here's instant reaction from the Arab News:



Oh, for the voice of reason that was M. Khalil.


10:49 - For your edification
http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/story.html?id=B964B0CE-DBC6-4522-9A07-2B0E

(top)
Via J.M. Heinrichs:

Puretracks.com, Canada's first legal online music service, was launched amid much fanfare yesterday, with record industry executives saying the service could prop up faltering sales caused by free downloading sites.

The service, which as of yesterday was offering 175,000 tracks from a wide variety of artists, hopes to draw fans who want to download music legally. Its launch was called "a watershed moment in Canadian music history" by Alistair Mitchell, co-chief executive of Moontaxi Media Inc.

Fees, which customers can pay with credit cards or a "cash card" that can be purchased at retail stores, start at 99¢ for a song and $9.99 per album.

Buyers can save the files on their hard drives or burn them onto CDs, but the service limits the number of times the files can be transferred.

Until now, Canadians were unable to legally download music from sites like Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes due to copyright restrictions that are determined on a country-by-country basis.

Sounds like a good idea.



Maybe too good.

Tuesday, October 14, 2003
10:49 - Wow. Three points!
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/10/November2004.shtml

(top)
I usually think my nasal cavity is fairly safe from having to pass carbonated liquid through it when I'm reading Steven Den Beste.

We have to take candidates as packages, and can't really pick and choose features to create a best-of-breed candidate (i.e. Clinton's charisma combined with Dole's erectile dysfunction).

Dammit!


10:04 - The least REMF President ever
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1062382,00.html

(top)
Following a sudden rebound in Bush's popularity rating, which has been sagging lately under an early campaign warmup by the Democrats that has gone largely uncontested from the White House, there's this Guardian article by George Monbiot, found by Tim Blair:

Now Bush, of course, is commander-in-chief as well as president, and he has every right to address the troops. But this commander-in-chief goes far beyond the patriotic blandishments of previous leaders. He sometimes dresses up in the uniform of the troops he is meeting.

He quotes their mottoes and songs, retells their internal jokes, mimics their slang. He informs the "dog-faced soldiers" that they are "the rock of Marne", or asks naval cadets whether they gave "the left-handed salute to Tecumseh, the God of 2.0". The television audience is mystified, but the men love him for it. He is, or so his speeches suggest, one of them.

He starts by leading them in chants of "Hoo-ah! Hoo-ah!", then plasters them with praise and reminds them that their pay, healthcare and housing (unlike those of any other workers in America) are being upgraded. After this, they will cheer everything he says. So he uses these occasions to attack his opponents and announce new and often controversial policies.

The marines were the first to be told about his interstate electricity grid; he instructed the American Legion about the reform of the Medicare programme; last week he explained his plans for the taxation of small businesses to the national guard. The troops may not have the faintest idea what he's talking about, but they cheer him to the rafters anyway. After that, implementing these policies looks like a patriotic duty.

This strikes me as an abuse of his position as commander-in-chief, rather like the use of Air Force One (the presidential aeroplane) for political fundraising tours...

...Or like landing on the USS Lincoln to congratulate the troops after taking Baghdad, yes?

Monbiot finds it creepy that Bush is so conversant with military slang and the soldier's mindset. He thinks it's a cheap shot, a low blow-- that if Bush tells the Marines about his kooky plans first of all, after buttering them up with carefully rehearsed lines, they'll believe anything he tells them-- and that this will immediately confer a landslide popular victory to Bush in 2004. 'Cause, you know, like, every able-bodied registered voter in the United States is in the military. Or something.

Monbiot mutters about facts and figures from socialist websites and "appointed" Presidents, in what I honestly don't have the time to decode. (Hey, there's a reason why I haven't been posting much of anything for the past few days. Deadlines. The kind that make you wonder whether it might be a good idea to run away to live in a cave for a few years until it all blows over.)

But as Blair notes, this article is more telling than I think Monbiot intends. It means that Bush is, quite frankly, a lot more shrewd than those who dismiss him so rapidly as a "moron" can imagine believing. Those whose comedy routines and book proposals are predicated on verbal gaffes and SNL-esque caricatures of the President won't want for material, certainly, because the feckless and moronic caricature version of Bush has taken on a life of its own-- owing nothing to reality, it nonetheless comes across as received wisdom to anybody already predilected toward believing it. And Bush the actual person does little to dispel the myths.

Except to the military, apparently.

It's easy to dismiss his landing on the Lincoln as a "publicity stunt", a cheap and cynical ploy to bolster morale among the only constituency he really cares about during wartime. But look: The man did not just stretch a flightsuit over a beer gut, hoist himself into the back seat of an escorted military transport, and land at a base under guard somewhere. He took a Navy jet-- an S-3B Viking-- and what's more, he flew it:

Bush said he did take a turn at piloting the craft.
"Yes, I flew it. Yeah, of course, I liked it," said Bush, who was an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard after graduating from Yale University in 1968.

What the Secret Service didn't allow him to do-- aside from taking an FA-18, which Bush reportedly wanted to do, but the spooks were going to be having none of that, opting instead for the Viking, the safest jet in the fleet, and painting "Navy 1" on the tail-- was land the thing. Do you know how dangerous it is to land on an aircraft carrier, even in a Viking? Do you know how hard it is? Anybody who's ever played a flight-simulator game might think it's a bitch, but it's quite a bit more intense than any game can convey. The noise, the vibrations, the G-forces, the sudden deceleration... and the constant knowledge that the slightest misstep or mechanical failure will send you skidding off the deck into the water a hundred feet below where you'll sink before they can rescue you, or plowing into the stern of the carrier in a blazing fireball. People die in carrier landings all the time-- and these are trained pilots, people who do it for a living, who do it every day. And this time it was carrying a sitting President of the United States. The man whose personal safety is probably guarded with more obsession and paranoia and infrastructure than any other in the entire world. The man who, if the Secret Service had its way, would be encased head-to-toe in Nerf from swearing-in to stepping-down.


If you ask me, this is an entirely fitting way to commemorate the event. (And for what it's worth, I can't think of too many Presidents who would have looked hotter in that flightsuit.)

All this means that the message that Bush means to sent to the soldiers, very explicitly, is that I understand what it's like to be one of you. Clinton might have put on the Basset-hound eyes while telling the cameras that "I feel your pain", but who could really take that seriously? But imagine yourself as a Navy pilot on the Lincoln. To see your commander-in-chief come sailing in on a Viking, after having flown it at least part of the way, and then go through a real, honest-to-God deck landing, catch the arrest wire, and step out wreathed in smiles... well, there's not a man on that deck, or indeed in the whole military, who didn't receive the message loud and clear. The message was-- and this has been said before, but it bears repeating-- that this is a President willing to put himself through the same trials and risks that he asks of his armed forces. I mean, let's be truthful here: In landing on that carrier, Bush put himself at greater risk of life and limb than perhaps any President has been in during living memory, barring assassination attempts. And it's not recklessness; it's a carefully calculated way to convey familiarity and confidence in a very crucial time. Many Presidents are criticized as what we now hear to be "chickenhawks"-- people willing to send other people to fight wars, but who aren't willing to go and fight themselves. Bush himself has taken barbs-- a pale attempt at mirroring the draft-dodger accusations against Clinton-- for "dodging danger" in Vietnam by flying in the Texas Air Guard instead of going to the front lines. Well, the only way Bush could have dispelled that criticism any more effectively is if he rode into Nasiriyah standing on the front of an M-1 Abrams, waving a Kabar and shouting commands through FO gear.

Is this disingenuous? Is he ignoring the rest of America while pandering to the military? Somehow I don't think so. If he's shrewd enough to acquaint himself with soldier slang like "the God of 2.0", which apparently the audience ate up with more gusto than how the Germans received "Ich bin ein Berliner", then he's intelligent enough to understand that the military does not represent the entire country when it comes time for elections. He knows full well that he'll have to turn his attention to the domestic campaign trail before too long.

But first things first. Right now, the biggest reason why this war is no Vietnam is that Bush is no Nixon-- or Johnson. And the men know it.

UPDATE: I also heard him a few days ago telling a bunch of Cuban-Americans that Cuba será pronto libre. His pronunciation wasn't that of a linguist-- he'd clearly rehearsed it-- but it did sound more natural than "Ik bin aahhyn buh-linnah". I think this is as close as we're going to get to the grand old days when politicians were expected to speak at least five languages fluently.

Friday, October 10, 2003
13:42 - This can't be right
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20031009_Oct-09Bremerpresscon.htm

(top)
Via Balloon Juice-- a stark look at the terrible cost of the quagmire in Iraq.

I can't quote. I'll just copy the whole thing. The wider this can spread, the better.

L. Paul Bremer

Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator

Opening Remarks

Press Conference 9 October 2003

Six months ago today Coalition Forces liberated Baghdad.  I am sure that many of you were as thrilled as I was to see Saddam’s statue and his regime fall.

Most, but not all, of what has happened since then is good.

The Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of our strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.  That plan has four elements:

·      Create a Secure Environment.
·      Begin Restoration of Essential Services.
·      Begin to Transform the Economy.
·      Begin the Transformation to Democracy.

Before taking your questions I would like to review briefly some of the progress in each of these areas.

Create a Secure Environment.

Six months ago there were no police on duty in Iraq.

·      Today there are over 40,000 police on duty, nearly 7,000 here in Baghdad alone.

·      Last night Coalition Forces and Iraqi police conducted 1,731 joint patrols.

Six months ago those elements of Saddam’s military that had not been destroyed in combat had buried their airplanes and melted away.

·      Today the first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty. 

·      Across the country over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.

Six months ago there were no functioning courts in Iraq.

·      Today nearly all of Iraq’s 400 courts are functioning. 
·      Today, for the first time in over a generation, the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.

As today’s events have made clear, much remains to be done to establish an acceptable security environment.  Even so, things have improved enough to ease the curfew in Baghdad to only four hours.

Begin Restoration of Essential Services.

Six months ago the entire country could generate a bare 300 megawatts of electricity.

·      On Monday, October 6 power generation hit 4,518 megawatts—exceeding the pre-war average.

·      Please notice these photos of central Iraq:

o    The first was taken February 1, 2003.
o    The second was taken April 11.
o    The third was taken October 1.

·      If we get the funding the President has requested in his emergency budget, we expect to produce enough electricity for all Iraqis to have electrical service 24 hours daily—something essential to their hopes for the future.

Six months ago nearly all of Iraq’s schools were closed.

·      Today all 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.

·      Many of you know that we announced our plan to rehabilitate one thousand schools by the time school started—well, by October 1 we had actually rehabbed over 1,500.

Six months ago teachers were paid as little as $5.33 per month.

·      Today teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.

Six months ago the public health system was an empty shell.  During the 1990’s Saddam cut spending on public health by over 90 percent with predictable results for the lives of his citizens.

·      Today we have increased public health spending to over 26 times what it was under Saddam.

·      Today all 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.

·      Today doctors’ salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.

·      Pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.

·      Since liberation we have administered over 22 million vaccination doses to Iraq’s children.

Six months ago three-quarters of Iraq’s 27,000 kilometers of irrigation canals were weed-choked and barely functional.

·      Today a Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of those canals.  They now irrigate tens of thousands of farms.  This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and women.

Additionally, we have restored over three-quarters of pre-war telephone services and over two-thirds of the potable water production.

Before the war there were 4,500 Internet connections and important services, such as instant messaging were forbidden.

·      Today there are 4,900 full-service connections.
·      We expect 50,000 by January first.

Begin to Transform the Economy.

Six months ago Iraq’s economy was flat on its back.

·      Today anyone walking the streets can see the wheels of commerce turning.  From bicycles to satellite dishes to cars and trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major cities and towns.

Six months ago all banks were closed.

·      Today 95 percent of all pre-war bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily.

·      Today Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.

·      Today the central bank is fully independent.

·      Today Iraq has one of the world’s most growth-oriented investment and banking laws.

Six months ago Iraq had two currencies.

·      Next week Iraq will get a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.

Begin the Transformation to Democracy.

Six months ago there was no freedom of expression.  Satellite dishes were illegal.  Foreign journalists came on 10-day visas and paid mandatory and extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for “minders” and other government spies. 

·      Today there is no Ministry of Information.

·      Today there are more than 170 newspapers.

·      Today you can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street corner.

·      Today foreign journalists and everyone else are free to come and go.

Six months ago Iraq had not one single element—legislative, judicial or executive-- of a representative government.

·      Today in Baghdad alone residents have selected 88 advisory councils.  Baghdad’s first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected its new chairman.

·      Today in Iraq chambers of commerce, business, school and professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country.

·      Today 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq’s history, run the day-to-day business of government.

·      Today the Iraqi government regularly participates in international events.  Since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit.  The Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.

Six months ago Shia religious festivals were all but banned.

·      Today, for the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.

In six short months we have accomplished a lot.

We are also aware that the progress we have made is only a beginning.  A quarter century of negligence, cronyism and war mongering have devastated this country.  Such profound damage cannot be repaired overnight.

Bringing Iraq up to minimum self-sufficiency will require the full $20 billion the President has asked of Congress in his supplemental budget request. 

We are fighting terrorism here and we will continue to fight it until it no longer threatens the hopes of Iraqis, the hopes of the world.

The importance and urgency of this task was underscored for all of us today when terrorists car-bombed a police station and assassinated a Spanish diplomat.

As the President just said, “We will wage the war on terror until it is won.”

And as we all know, the penultimate paragraph nullifies all the rest of it. Remember, our involvement in Iraq is a dismal failure founded on lies and deception, and deeply contrary to American values.

And since the war's end, the only thing our millions of highly-trained babykilling amphetamine-freak warrior-cavemen have done is ride around in SUVs, raping local girls and making pregnant women eat depleted uranium and making fun of Muslims at prayer, when they're not being blown up by Iraqi Patriots dropping grenades from overpasses.

And Bush just wants that $87 billion so he can buy yachts in which to zoom around Umm Qasr.

Right?


09:44 - But ... he's from Aus... nnnnever mind
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031008/80/eajkk.html

(top)
There's just something encouraging and heartwarming and no small bit silly about this.



Afghan children smile in front of a billboard featuring Hollywood action hero Arnold Schwarzenegger in Kabul on Wednesday. The man they know as "Arnold, the American man, the bodybuilder", was elected as the new governor of California. REUTERS/Rathavary Duong

Via Tim Blair.

Thursday, October 9, 2003
18:44 - Frank J. Quote of the Day
http://www.imao.us/archives/001036.html#001036

(top)
Tips to Ahnuld:

* I know you campaigned saying you're for gun control, but come on; you're Arnold. Liberalize laws on guns and then save money by cutting the police force in a program called "Shoot Your Own Damn Criminals".

Hee hee hee.


11:51 - O'really?

(top)
In between legs of a journey once again to Home Despot to pick up trifling little tidbits like MORE GIANT CREOSOTE-SOAKED RAILROAD TIES, which I sincerely hope is the last we'll ever have to see of these things, I heard the Fresh Air interview that aired last night with Bill O'Reilly. Bill walked out fifty minutes in, after telling Terry Gross in no uncertain terms that he thought her interviewing tactics were despicable and that he was being made the unfair victim of a hatchet job.

The audio stream is here. And it's worth a listen, because both O'Reilly (on his own show) and Terry proudly broadcast the interview, each thinking that it exonerated him/herself and made the other person look like a dunce or bitch (as the case may be). O'Reilly said, "I rather enjoyed telling her off; go listen to the archived interview on my own site and see what I mean"; but Terry actually used that quote in her packaging of the show, appealing to the "I'm the unbiased one! See? Look, I don't even use any adjectives in describing how the interview went!" contingent.

And I listened. I was interested in hearing exactly how the interview deteriorated.

The subject was nominally O'Reilly's book, Who's Looking Out For You?-- though it turned out to be more about Al Franken's book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, which skewers O'Reilly. And the very first question that Terry led off with was, "Are you sorry you sued Al Franken?"

This was only the first in a long string of erroneous accusations that Terry leveled at him, and O'Reilly deflected them all with facts and personal statements of purpose. Now, I can see how some people might consider O'Reilly to be a pompous ass-- he says things like "I have three bestselling books, Terry," and unless you realize the context is that he's trying to explain that he doesn't want the Times reviewing them because he knows they'll only turn it into an excuse to attack him, it sounds rather high-handed. But by the time O'Reilly got to the point where he drew himself up to his full height and really told her off, it was clear (to me, at least) that he was entirely right in thinking that the interview had been very little but a long string of attacks that he was expected to fend off, hopefully saying something potentially embarrassing along the way "that they can print in Harper's Magazine". Terry's questioning consisted almost entirely of reading disparaging quotes against O'Reilly that other authors and reviewers had made, and then asking him: "So, is that a fair assessment?" It's like "Al Franken here calls you, and I quote: A snooty nutcase who's brainwashed into going lock-step with the party line and clubs baby seals. How do you respond to that?" Over and over and over. The only thing that wasn't along those lines was in the middle of the interview, where she asked him, in effect, So you're conservative, huh? How did you get that way? Did you have a bad childhood? Were you abused by your father? Is it maybe some kind of medical condition? Please explain to our listeners; I'm sure they really want to know.

O'Reilly seemed unaware of what Fresh Air is about. If he had, he might have been well aware of how "balanced" Terry's choice of guests and interview formats is. She had clearly not been as confrontational with Al Franken when she'd had him on a previous show, as O'Reilly charged in a surmise-- she admitted as much. And last week, when she hosted the guy from Americans For Tax Reform (who, incidentally, was erudite and genuinely pleasant and inspiring to listen to-- especially his bit about being a "Reagan Federalist", in the sense that he believes each State should have to compete for "customers"-- citizens-- by providing the best bang for the buck, or else they'll move to a different State), she listened to what he had to say with genuine and abject horror. When the guy explained how any kind of tax that divides people based on their income is sold to the public based on how many people are likely to be alarmed by it ("Don't worry-- it's not you that's being affected by this, it's them-- it's someone else"), it's based on the same kind of mentality that led to the Nazis' actions, Terry audibly blinked a few times, interrupted him, and said, "Did... did you just compare a progressive tax to the Holocaust?" And the guy had to explain it all over again-- he didn't backtrack or rethink what he was saying, but he had to drive it all home again to try to counter Terry's Godwin-esque attempt to drive her shiv into his credibility. It's a real shame that she didn't simply listen to what the guy was saying, and respond intelligently, rather than just using her unassuming and melodic voice to caress and massage and look for just the right chink in the guest's armor where she can zero in for the kill.

As for O'Reilly, I think he acquitted himself with dignity, though Terry did her best to damage-control her way out of it with matter-of-factness and making a big show of how unemotional she was in presenting The Facts. I think O'Reilly was plenty justified in feeling threatened and under attack by her questioning-- I know I wouldn't have enjoyed spending an hour countering disparaging remarks made against me by my rivals. I'm proud of Fresh Air for posting the transcript, because I do think it's more damning against Fresh Air than it is against O'Reilly.


11:24 - Sleep deprivation is a terrible thing

(top)
Refer to Savage Garden.

When alcohol and cholesterol are runnin' through your veins
And lawyers suing burger joints are poisoning my brain
Vegan food and whole-wheat pizza pushin' me too far
I've got to break away
So take my hand now
Cause I want to live like cannibals
Healthy and free, like cannibals
I want to live
I want to run through the jungle
For arms and the ribs and the eyes and the feet...

I've been having difficulties shopping at the store
Unexpected cravings always leave me wanting more
Cannibals are onto something, Stouffer's doesn't see
Which one eats a human?
Solves our problems, you and me

Nutrition in the jungle
Nutrition in your head, yeah
Would you like to make a run for it?
I would like to taste your hand, yeah

Cause I want to live like cannibals
Healthy and free, like cannibals
I want to live
I want to run through the jungle
For arms and the ribs and the eyes and the feet...

Sometimes a meal can get you down
It's so unhealthy
There's so many carcinogens
And I feel like
I'd sorta rather eat the cheeeeeeef
Aaaaahhhhhh
Aaaaahhhhhh...

When alcohol and cholesterol are runnin' through your veins
And lawyers suing burger joints are poisoning my brain
Cannibals are onto something, Stouffer's doesn't see
Which one eats a human?
Solves our problems, you and me

Nutrition in the jungle
Nutrition in your head, yeah
Would you like to make a run for it?
I would like to taste your hand, yeah

Cause I want to live like cannibals
Healthy and free, like cannibals
I want to live
I want to run through the jungle
For arms and the ribs and the eyes and the feet...

Thank you, thank you.

...What?

UPDATE: Let's get the revolution started, then. I'm hungry.

Wednesday, October 8, 2003
09:22 - I'm sure that doesn't count as gloating...

(top)
Greg Kihn is on a roll these days.

...And the shining star of democracy rises into the sky like a lawn chair attached to a weather balloon... making navigation difficult for slow-moving blimps. Let the new age dawn for California! And I say, two cars in every garage! Two chickens in every pot! ... And free pot for every chicken!

I think he just makes it up as he goes along.

Tuesday, October 7, 2003
01:30 - Let the "Recall Arnold" petitions fly
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000067.html

(top)
For the most satisfying response to today's events that I've yet found, I'm going to recommend (surprise) Bill Whittle.

The day will come when we will lose a big election. On that day, we should say that we lost because we failed – we failed to articulate our message, we failed because we ran corrupt and uninspiring candidates, we failed because we didn’t listen to the wisdom of the electorate – we failed because we thought four or five political hacks in a campaign room somewhere knew what was better for the nation or the state than the millions and millions of people who actually live and work in it. And on that day, we should pledge to do better, to try harder to get the message across, and most importantly, to listen to what the people are saying. And we should accept that loss, congratulate the winners, accept defeat with grace and dignity – like adults -- and then look under the hood with a very cold and unemotional eye, fix the mistakes, and get a better product out there. This would mean giving up the infantile pleasures of moaning and crying about the Lost Cause. But that is what you have to do in order to win. And with stakes this high, winning matters. It matters.

Yes. And I intend to treat this election's results as the dignified and meaningful expression of our two-century-old institution that it is, and ponder the deep significance of declining opposition poll numbers and the democratic implications of mid-term special elections and the phenomenon of actor governors and the realism of expectations for the remainder of the current term and the cautious eye we'll have to keep on ourselves to make sure we hold Arnold to the same standard that we'd hold anybody...

...Tomorrow.

Tonight, I'm simply going to go to bed happy.

I guess it's all to the good that my iPod has finally croaked its last, and no longer stays mounted long enough for me to boot the iMac and do screenshots before it resets itself repeatedly and endlessly. Tomorrow I buy an external pocket drive. And tonight I lie on a couch and smugly reload those poll numbers.

I'll be back to my analytical and dispassionate self in the morning.

(Hyeah.)


20:09 - Insane! Insane, I tells ya!

(top)
So I register my G5 with Apple. And they send me an e-mail that says, "Hey! Thanks for registering. As a thank-you, how about we give you a year's free subscription to MacWorld?"

Eh. Whatever, y'know? I can't even really get too excited about MacAddict these days; I haven't read MacWorld in an awfully long time. And whoopty-doo, a half-year's subscription and stuff. And there was much rejoicing; little flags wave.

The e-mail sits in my inbox for like two weeks. Finally, today, while I wait for the recall results to be announced (Heh-- CNN reports results of 0% for every candidate, for the recall, and against the recall), I pop it open and read what it actually says.

You may choose to receive your free issues of Macworld in the exciting NEW digital format OR the traditional print format. By choosing digital, you can receive your first issue of Macworld instantly - no waiting for it to arrive in the mail. It's the same great magazine delivered directly to your Mac with powerful and interactive features.

Digital format? Hmm. You mean, like, a web page? Or maybe a PDF?

What the hell. I go click on the linky thing. I fill out the little form. I select the digital option. It downloads something called the "Zinio Reader", which is an app that automatically downloads these packaged digital magazines on a regular basis and lets me read them offline. Mm'kay; with ya so far.

Up pops the November issue of MacWorld.



Hmm.

Looks like a PDF. Gee-whillikers. I can click to zoom in, and click again to soom out. Yaaay.

How do I turn the page? No little arrows in the toolbar.

Wait.

<clicks on the right margin, because it seems intuitive to do so>



Aaaaaahh!

Wait! Do that again!



The page-turning effect takes less than half a second. It goes ZIP. And it's totally smoothly mapped onto this weird curved surface.

Is that bloody gratuitous or what?

Phew. <flip> <flip>

Okay, get that thing outta my face. Hide the app. There's my web browser.

CNN: NO on recall, by 52-47%? You gotta be kidding me...

UPDATE: Wait, no. 53-45% in favor.

UPDATE: No! 52-47%! Dang it! They keep changing their mind. How can they not know all the results ten minutes after the polls close?! Blaahh!



09:41 - Representing the human vote

(top)
Greg Kihn with ongoing recall election coverage:

Green Party candidate Peter Camejo getting strong support from the waterfowl and rodent population... waterfowl and rodents, of course, having gotten the vote after Gray Davis signed the "Every Species Gets a Vote" bill, secretly, last week...

I gotta get to the polls. Damn waterfowl!

Monday, October 6, 2003
10:05 - Dirty dancing can be dangerous
http://www.ljworld.com/section/schools/story/145633

(top)
"No, Freddy! Haven't you heard about the new dance policy? That's not acceptable here!"



I don't know if I should give these people points for creativity and gamely attempted humor, or points for inadvertent train-wreck quality.

Either way, it's in Lawrence, Kansas, Mike...

Sunday, October 5, 2003
02:10 - Anybody need a large-format flatbed scanner?

(top)
Because my new G5 has PCI-X slots, which are not compatible with the standard PCI SCSI card that powers my Microtek ScanMaker 6400XL scanner, I'm forced to sell it so I can recoup the cost toward the next model up (which supports FireWire).

(Forced to sell the scanner. Not the G5.)

And since nobody on Ebay feels like bidding, it behooves me to seek out some form of advertising for buyers that's free and yet reaches an audience of like-minded people who might be interested in this sort of thing.

Like... oh, I don't know... a blog.



Here she is. This is a large-format ("tabloid") scanner, e.g. 17x12" (A3) scan bed. It's in like-new shape, it's never let me down, and I feel like a cad for parting with it at all. It comes with:
  • Adaptec AHA-2906 PCI SCSI card, including Win/Mac drivers and all original manuals
  • 12-foot SCSI cable, 25-pin to 25-pin, which connects to the SCSI card directly
  • 25-pin to 50-pin adapter for the scanner end of the cable
  • Power cord

The scanner cost $900 when it was new; I'd be very happy if I could get something in the range of $500 for it now, but I'll be glad to listen to reasonable offers.

(Here's the official product page.)

Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?


01:02 - American Indians Aren’t Like Palestinians
http://www.badeagle.com/html/arent_pales.html

(top)
So says David A. Yeagley, a Comanche Indian.

Via Emperor Misha I.


23:41 - Turf Wars

(top)
Pictures! Yay!

This weekend we made some major progress in the backyard. We went from fence-up-but-not-much-else to fence-and-planter-box-installed-and ready-to-start-the-deck. This involves lots of intermediate steps, but I have lots of pictures, so bear with me.

First of all, the "Before" pictures.



Nice, right? A little bleak, a little stark, a little empty-- a little small, for that matter. Right? The tree is kinda ugly; this is taken in Februrary, though, when I was still on the initial tour with the real estate agent. Boring old backyard. Nothing to write home about, or certainly to post about.

What you don't see, because I couldn't bear to take a picture of it from the kitchen door, was the view you get when you look straight east, straight at the wall.

For maximum horror, here it is from the upstairs bedroom window:



That's right: it's the one major reason why this house had been on the market for five months, and had had its asking price lowered twice to about 3/4 that of all the identical houses on the street. There's a friggin' power substation right behind the house.

The real estate agents were having a hell of a time getting people interested, apparently; seems it was the South-of-85 version of the Murder House that Marge sold to the Flanderses. Once, when I was standing in the cul-de-sac talking to the agent, another agent drove into the driveway and took a potential buyer inside. I heard them talking, clucking over the living room, looking at the staircase, going into the kitchen, looking outside-- and then TROMP TROMP TROMP they come running back outside, jump in the SUV, back out of the driveway, screech to a halt, and then peel out westward down the street, leaving smoking rubber patches where their tires were. And hey, it's not like I can blame them.

But we were stupid that way-- we thought, hey, we can MAKE something of this! And for what it's worth, the station doesn't make that much noise or anything, and we're sure there aren't any PCBs or anything in the soil or evil EM waves in the air. (We even get perfectly fine AirPort reception.) And the view, if you ignore the power station, on a clear day (which the above picture is not), actually looks out across the valley to the mountains on the opposite side-- it's a nice view, a valley view. It's not a view of, say, someone else's backyard.

How's that for spin?

Anyway: after a summer's worth of work both inside and out in the house, it's really become a totally different beast now. The interior colors are all different. My bedroom is now a luxurious master suite with crown moldings, new floor trim, a semi-private bath, and a divider wall with archways and red velvet curtains leading to the bed area. (Material for another post.) Art is hung on the walls. The front yard is landscaped with boulders and hibiscuses and a myrtle and a park bench. And the backyard is unrecognizable as its former self.

First order of business, after installing the hot tub (first things first), was the fence.



Neat, huh? It's made of redwood fence slats screwed into horizontal beams bolted to vertical treated 4x4 posts, which are each carriage-bolted into holes we painstakingly hammer-drilled through the concrete-brick fence. It totally blocks out most of the power station from ground level-- and what you can see through the latticework will be blocked out once we plant some morning glories which will climb up the vertical trellises and creep throughout the horizontal pieces.

But what shall we plant them in, my precioussss?

Why, this!




(Do be so good as to disregard the machinery littering the place. What I'm pointing at is what's along the base of the fence.)

It's a planter box, made of railroad ties. And those things are heavy! 9x7-inch by 8-foot pine beams, soaked in creosote, which fills your lungs and causes cancer when you try to cut it. But it's been wrestled into shape and pinned into position, and now all the fill soil we dug out of the front yard is piled into the box and ready to be covered with topsoil.

I should note that in the picture on the upper right, the big open expanse of dirt is where there used to be a mound of earth and turf carted in from the front, and caked into a volcanic lava cap by the summer heat. Today I moved it all, wheelbarrow by wheelbarrow, into the planter box. And even when armed with a pickax and a square-point shovel, it is hard to cut turf. It's got that nylon-string mesh stuff, and the big clods stick together and prevent you from getting your shovel into it. My left arm is hanging limply by my side as I type; fortunately I've trained my blisters to be prehensile, or else I'd never have been able to type this.

Anyway, that's where things stand. I may post a layout drawing of the backyard plan sometime soon; it's vital for the understanding of what's going on to be able to see the final blueprint. The deck, suffice it to say, will surround the hot tub and sit on top of the railroad ties where it juts back toward the house, and will merge flush with the edge of the planter box. The railroad ties will be painted (to reduce the creosote smell) and faced with redwood, to make it possible to sit on them. And then the box will be filled full of turf, ground-cover flowers, and nice spreading trees which will nod over the hot tub.

And then the right corner gets planted with birch groves and floored with bushes and lawn and inlaid with pavers for lawn furniture, and the left corner gets a gazebo, a flooring treatment involving lots of flat flagstones, and a round lawn. Add a few more trees as privacy screens, run 110-volt power and Ethernet and soupcan-string intercom, and voilá-- nothin' to it!

Honestly I have no idea what we've let ourselves in for. But it's been fun so far-- or at least, I'm assuming it's been fun, because most things that leave me this sore are fun.


22:51 - Thanks for the bullet points

(top)
There's an anti-recall ad on TV right now. It says:

Under a Democratic governor, we've:
  • Passed domestic partnership legislation
  • Banned greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming
  • Strengthened laws protecting a woman's right to choose
  • Enacted the nation's toughest gun safety laws
  • Worked to stop offshore drilling
  • Passed the 8-hour work day
  • Increased the minimum wage
  • Expanded family and medical leave

The Republicans fought against each of these issues. If they get rid of the governor, what do you think they'll do next?

Gee, I dunno, but I've got a few suggestions.
Saturday, October 4, 2003
00:59 - The case for a state-run news media

(top)
Phew. Sorry about the deliberately misleading title. I just did it to get your attention. Did it work?

But things that are deliberately misleading is kinda the subject of the day, isn't it?

I've gotten a lot of responses to my post from Thursday, in which I said:

Next year's election will be where the final hand is dealt. It will tell us how many people in this country have been able to weather the battering of the guiltmongers and the doom-seekers and the sowers of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, and hold on to what we know is the right course of action for ourselves and for the world-- and how many are ready to cash in, give up, lie down and let blissful slumber overtake our eyes while the Pods placed by the social-progressive Europeans creep ever closer to our bedsides.

One of the more cynical responses said, simply, "Democracy's a bitch... isn't it?"

All I could think of in response was, "Yup... after all, it gave us Hitler."

There's an ugly expression-- or, rather, an expression that's come to seem ugly through modern eyes: "Making the world safe for democracy." It's an idea that seems to have gone largely out of style, mostly because people don't really "get" what it means anymore. To many, it sounds like a veiled form of idealistic imperialism, a presumption on the part of buzz-cut white males in Congress that our quaint and abstract and tired concept of "democracy" is something that the rest of the world wants, and only doesn't have because of some vague and imagined threat floating on the horizon.

It's been a while since anybody had to think of this as being reality. It's been a while since it's been reality.

Or has it?

It's at the core of what we're doing in the Middle East, after all. We're removing obstacles which stand in the way of democracy, such as the Taliban and Saddam. Democracy is a powerful self-sustaining force, but it's more fragile than we often realize-- in order to take root, it needs time, dedication, and stability. And even a stable democracy can be overthrown... or overthrow itself.

We fought against encroaching communism because communism was an idea that could be voted in by a democratic public, even though once instated it would effectively destroy the democracy that created it. It's a seductive, compelling idea, one that-- given enough play in people's minds-- can come to power and then burn the bridges behind it that brought it there.

For Marx, after all, had something right: he believed that it was the natural progression of a capitalist society to eventually evolve into a communist one. So we've seen can indeed be the case, in a sense: the richer and safer and more peaceful a country becomes on the strength of its free-market economy, the more its people will push for socialistic reform, more state services paid for by higher taxes, and so on. Guilt on the part of the rich leads to elites pushing statism as a form of philanthropy for the proletariat. A democracy can voluntarily vote into power a communist system, because its people will be convinced that it's the best thing for them to do.

Trouble is, communism isn't a "new and improved" form of economics, one that breaks free of capitalism-imposed chains and carries its adherent nations to the stars. It's quite the opposite, as we've seen; it can take a vibrant, innovative, individualistic people and transform it into a homogeneous, dull, dreary, bleak mass of impoverished welfare-slaves without hope of respite (let alone aspiration to excellence), crushed under the weight of a bloated and often unbelievably brutal State. The people might have voted for it, but it's not the enlightened panacea they'd hoped it would be. And they'd go back to the way it was before... if only they could.

Our goal during the Cold War was to "make the world safe for democracy"-- meaning that we would prevent communism from taking hold in countries that might be seduced into voluntarily trying it. Our doing so meant the support of brutal military dictators in places like Iran and Panama and Chile, and we've paid a bitter price in honor and human life-- but wasn't it the lesser of two evils, in the long run? Maybe not, but can the question be dismissed out of hand?

So here we are, "making the world safe for democracy" again. This time, the threat we have to fight in order to make democracy safe is Islamism and old-fashioned Arab strongman dictatorship. Both things that a democratic Middle Eastern populace can vote into power. It's unlikely that Iraq would choose an Islamist government like the Taliban or like the Iranian mullahs, but the possibility is there-- it could happen.

All it takes is for the free populace of a democracy to be fed misleading information, pervasively and from the sources that they implicitly trust. Whether these sources are the government, religious leaders, or a free press, all that matters is that the people believe it.

Gary Larson reminds us:

This phenomenon validates Joseph Goebbels' 1934 advice: Bombard the "primitive rank and file," with "propaganda...essentially simple and repetitive." To say this Nazi tactic works today is an understatement.

And, needless to reiterate, Hitler came to power democratically.

So: what is it that keeps our democracy strong and self-sustaining?

A free media, many cry.

Yeah, well, here's a question: What happens when a free media undergoes a trend wherein it decides as a bloc to accomplish some partisan end, even if it means perpetuating lies and deliberately misleading the public? What checks and balances exist in a free media to make sure it keeps telling the truth, so the populace is accurately informed?

Well, there are news organs of every political persuasion, comes the answer. If one is lying, another will balance it out and debunk it.

A fine theory. One that's served us well for many, many years. One that certainly seems always to have held true.

But what if it's not?

What if all the major news organs decide that their job is no longer To Tell The Truth, but To Get Ratings? What if journalists, ever seeking the scoop of a lifetime and the status of a Bob Woodward, commit to actively defrauding the public so as to advance their own careers within the media industry that's itself locked into a marketing/sales feedback loop of dispensing anti-Administration memes, being told by ratings that the people--fascinated and shocked--want to see more, and then having to produce more and more of the same slanted "reporting" because it's what the audience wants?

Americans have an insatiable lust for The Truth; it's part of our DNA. We also have a latent mistrust for authority, and we're always willing to entertain the notion that our government might be lying to us.

So we give the benefit of the doubt-- reflexively-- to whoever blows the whistle on them. It's a lot harder for us to believe that Jimmy Olsen is misleading us than that the government is, and we love a good stick-it-to-the-Man scandal. It's the media who always looks like the good guys... even when they're the weasels.

I'm not saying that this is what's actually happening. The media companies appear to be left-biased, but their relentlessly downbeat reporting about Iraq and Bush might stem simply from the "good news doesn't sell" adage, and a palpable sense of cynicism about blatant patriotism in the news-- even if all that can be interpreted as such is the ungarnished coverage of a positive development in the war. But it can hardly be denied that the media seems more willing to linger over the kinds of headlines that Michael Moore or Robert Fisk might pen, than over a dispassionate White House press release. It's hard to pin down the likes of CNN and MSNBC and the New York Times as deliberately lying as a matter of course. But their slant feeds free organzations like MoveOn.org, who do their grass-roots activism based on a fraudulently constructed impression of reality, as when they gleefully parrot New York Times Dowdifications like the "Ahnuld is a Nazi" meme even as it gets soundly debunked by the people who are paying attention.

So what happens if our free media, the institution that we so rightly place on a pedestal as one of our greatest achievements and the most obvious declaration of our unashamed belief in the strength of our democracy, lies to its patrons like Goebbels did?

We've grown to trust our free media precisely because it's free. Its freedom inherently guarantees accuracy and balance, we tell ourselves.

And that's where a lying free media is even more insidious than a Pravda. Because if we had a Pravda in this country, at least we would know it was lying. We don't expect lies from CNN.

I will reiterate, just for clarity: a state-run media would be a disaster for this country, a baldfaced denial of everything we stand for. I hate the idea. It's despicable. I would never condone such a thing, or deign to live in an America that had instituted it.

But... (and don't we all love that word now?)...

If our free society and its free press have embarked upon a feedback loop of anti-Bush rhetoric that has taken upon itself such a life of its own that we no longer care whether the things we accuse him of are even true, as long as they get him out of office... that is precisely what would signal, to me, the demise of the America that we know. It would mean that freedom had failed us. It would mean that in our freedom and our trust in those whom we trusted because of our freedom, we had wilfully deluded ourselves from reality in favor of a sickly-sweet poultice for our souls. It would mean that we had sacrificed Truth at the altar of pleasing fantasies. It would mean that we'd come to value other countries' present opinions over the lessons of our own history.

This has never been true of us in the past-- and the day it becomes true is the day that America ceases to be America.

Friday, October 3, 2003
01:22 - Meanwhile, on planet Earth
http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2003/09/18/news/local/dadeli0919.txt

(top)
"Controversial Cleveland murals are protected".



Yeah, I'll "protect" them all right. Please go stand by the stairs.

Ayad, 37, a Palestinian-American who owns Grandpa's Kitchen, has had dozens of controversial images painted on his business establishment over the last few years. Public officials and Jewish Clevelanders say these murals are blatantly offensive and antisemitic.

The newest signs, painted over the spring and summer at the deli, include a group of skullcap-wearing Jews counting money at a table while Jesus hangs on a cross above them, and a supposed talmudic endorsement of pedophilia. In the latter, a Jewish priest holds a small boy in his arms. The priest is quoted as saying, "Silly man, this is not my son, he's my wife." Below this is an alleged line from the Talmud. "Like the tear comes to the eye again and again so does ... virginity to a child under 3 years and 1 day."

Above this mural is contact information for Cong. Stephanie Tubbs Jones for those seeking reparations from Israel. The congresswoman's image has also unflatteringly appeared on past murals. Ayad was angry she never followed up on a letter she sent him over two years ago, claiming she would help him get back his father's land.

Another new sign shows Hitler with the Star of David branded into his upraised and bleeding hand. A larger Star of David superimposed with a swastika is painted to the right of this image.

Remember, always remember: It's Muslims who are constantly oppressed and silenced and publicly vilified in this racist country of ours.

I mean, criminy.

Via LGF.


17:11 - Color me surprised
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=4&u=/nm/20031003/wl_nm/iraq_po

(top)
Feh.

Polish troops in Iraq (news - web sites) have found four French-built advanced anti-aircraft missiles which were built this year, a Polish Defense Ministry spokesman told Reuters Friday.

France strongly denied having sold any such missiles to Iraq for nearly two decades, and said it was impossible that its newest missiles should turn up in Iraq.

"Polish troops discovered an ammunition depot on Sept. 29 near the region of Hilla and there were four French-made Roland-type missiles," Defense Ministry spokesman Eugeniusz Mleczak said.

"It is not the first time Polish troops found ammunition in Iraq but to our surprise these missiles were produced in 2003."

You know, I always wondered what Arabs thought of using missiles named after the French semi-mythological hero who fought back the Saracens at Roncesvaux.

Apparently it was just peachy-keen, with Saddam and with Chiraq.

Thursday, October 2, 2003
18:25 - Sarindar
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10111

(top)
If this is true...

Iraq, in my view, had its own "Sarindar" plan in effect direct from Moscow. It certainly had one in the past. Nicolae Ceausescu told me so, and he heard it from Leonid Brezhnev. KGB chairman Yury Andropov, and later, Gen. Yevgeny Primakov, told me so, too. In the late 1970s, Gen. Primakov ran Saddam's weapons programs. After that, as you may recall, he was promoted to head of the Soviet foreign intelligence service in 1990, to Russia's minister of foreign affairs in 1996, and in 1998, to prime minister. What you may not know is that Primakov hates Israel and has always championed Arab radicalism. He was a personal friend of Saddam's and has repeatedly visited Baghdad after 1991, quietly helping Saddam play his game of hide-and-seek.

. . .

It was just a few days after this last "Disclosure," after a decade of intervening with the U.N. and the rest of the world on Iraq's behalf, that Gen. Primakov and his team of military experts landed in Baghdad — even though, with 200,000 U.S. troops at the border, war was imminent, and Moscow could no longer save Saddam Hussein. Gen. Primakov was undoubtedly cleaning up the loose ends of the "Sarindar" plan and assuring Saddam that Moscow would rebuild his weapons of mass destruction after the storm subsided for a good price.

Mr. Putin likes to take shots at America and wants to reassert Russia in world affairs. Why would he not take advantage of this opportunity? As minister of foreign affairs and prime minister, Gen. Primakov has authored the "multipolarity" strategy of counterbalancing American leadership by elevating Russia to great-power status in Eurasia. Between Feb. 9-12, Mr. Putin visited Germany and France to propose a three-power tactical alignment against the United States to advocate further inspections rather than war. On Feb. 21, the Russian Duma appealed to the German and French parliaments to join them on March 4-7 in Baghdad, for "preventing U.S. military aggression against Iraq." Crowds of European leftists, steeped for generations in left-wing propaganda straight out of Moscow, continue to find the line appealing.

Mr. Putin's tactics have worked. The United States won a brilliant military victory, demolishing a dictatorship without destroying the country, but it has begun losing the peace. While American troops unveiled the mass graves of Saddam's victims, anti-American forces in Western Europe and elsewhere, spewed out vitriolic attacks, accusing Washington of greed for oil and not of really caring about weapons of mass destruction, or exaggerating their risks, as if weapons of mass destruction were really nothing very much to worry about after all.

... And we end up voting Bush out of office purely because of the palatability of the idea that he "lied" about WMD, then it's all over. The terrorists will have won.

Not just them, though. Al Qaeda's actually a side issue in the global game, looked at through this lens. What's really at stake is a century-long war of ideology, where on one side we have the ever-encroaching socialistic forces that prey on the compassion of people in rich and peaceful countries... and on the other, increasingly alone in holding out against those forces, is America. The Cold War had strongly delineated sides, big polar extremes to choose between. But since 1990, when we thought we'd won, it seems to me that all we've done is let our guard down.

The encroachment has continued. Only it's been at such a low level, and embarked upon with such pure and benign of intentions, that we never saw it coming.

It's called the "peace" movement, "green" politics, our old buddy transnational progressivism, and Western self-loathing and revulsion at seeing our own institutions-- the things we'd once looked on with pride and affection, like Levi's and McDonald's and Barbie-- being pulled into far-flung cultures. They all loved us, but we hated ourselves. We hated ourselves for poisoning the world with our gauche impurity. And we fought ourselves whenever we had the opportunity to make the world a better, richer, or more peaceful place.

We were busy for fifty years trying to hold back the Iron Curtain. But the forces trying to hold us back come from within our own borders.

Sure, that's no bad thing, if what you're talking about is "imperialism". (Read this if it's what you think I mean.) But it is a bad thing when the America that the hippies and their modern counterparts mean to restrain is the America that dares to try to do some good in the world, just because it's the right thing to do. "Who are we to say what's right or wrong?" they cry.

Well, it seems to me that we've done a better-than average job of making those judgments so far. Better than some countries I could mention.

But now we've seen exactly what happens when all the sides in this ideological battle, all the ones who have been building up their ranks in secret and in the open for decades, are called upon to show their hands. 9/11 did that-- it brought everyone out of the woodwork, Right and Left, and forced everyone to take sides. In the grand scheme, it looks as though that's the biggest effect 9/11 may in fact have had: it's the closing bell, the shout of pencils down! that tells us to take stock now of how many people stand on which side of the line.

Protests in the streets of cities around the world against the prospect of America freeing twenty-four million people from the grip of the worst tyrant since Hitler have shown one side's numbers, one side's strength. "Human shields". University professors remembering Mogadishu the way we used to remember the Ardennes. Hollywood, our proudest and most uniquely American institution, rallying in a bloc to impose restraint upon our bellicosity. And the news media determined to convert our proudest moment in the modern age, our greatest act of charity and humanity and sacrifice, and our most easily vindicated by anyone looking at it with clear eyes-- into a shameful failure. That is the measure of the opposition's strength.

They're stronger than I ever would have imagined possible.

It's not "protest" when you've gained the upper hand.

All the threads are coming together now. All the grass-roots forces and pressure groups and lobbies that with one hand held up the torch against the bleak bulwarks of the Warsaw Pact, and with the other sifted into our national bloodstream an intravenous drip of a watered-down, sugared-up, tantalizingly addictive stream of the same poison that had doused the far side of those walls-- they've all shown their colors now. All in the name of equality, diversity, peace, conservation, and respect, we've found ourselves not having won the Cold War after all-- but having set ourselves up to lose the Warm War. That's what it's been all along.

Who could be so callous as to take a stand against racial equanimity? Or so hateful as to oppose peace? Or so ghoulish as to fight against environmental controls?

Those questions are exactly the weapons that we were never equipped to defend against. Nor, judging by the snow-blanket silence coming from the White House lately, do we have the means to do so now.

Because it would appear that the forces that want us to pull back, quiet down, leave the world stage, and stop trying to solve other people's problems are in fact stronger than the forces that cling to those old-fashioned notions of justice, fairness, security, and freedom for all.

The only reason that the latter side has been able to make the strides that it has, in Afghanistan and Iraq, is because of a fluke-- a few boxes of hanging-chad ballots in Florida. More and more it appears that if it weren't for the contents of the trunk of a car in Dade County, Saddam would still today be enthroned in Baghdad, and New York might be a denuded ruin or Los Angeles a poisoned wasteland.

"But Los Angeles IS a--" Hush.

More and more it appears that what the people of this country really want is what people like Michael Moore and Peter Camejo want: apologies, capitulation, accession to the practices of the enlightened governments of Europe and Asia, and the voluntary surrender of our nation's armed might-- a gun buyback program for the United States Military-- so as to bring about true global equality and unarmed world government. The people calling in to NPR this morning on the ongoing Recall coverage show, if their sheer numbers were any indication at all, show that there's only so much propaganda we as a people can absorb from the get-the-government-overturning-scoop-or-die media before we start to believe it, facts on the ground be damned. 9/11 brought the world into sharp relief for many people-- but for nearly as many the wound scabbed over far too rapidly, forming an ugly scar as they worried it endlessly, searching for a way to take solace in ritual self-mutilation.

Next year's election will be where the final hand is dealt. It will tell us how many people in this country have been able to weather the battering of the guiltmongers and the doom-seekers and the sowers of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, and hold on to what we know is the right course of action for ourselves and for the world-- and how many are ready to cash in, give up, lie down and let blissful slumber overtake our eyes while the Pods placed by the social-progressive Europeans creep ever closer to our bedsides.

If Bush manages to win reelection, there's a chance. It means we have room for a much longer-term plan to be executed, a mandate to do things right in this effort to bring democracy and the rule of law at long last to the last part of the world still mired in medieval theocracy. It will spark outrage from the Left, but it'll be muted-- chastened, driven to the sidelines-- while the voices that gleefully revel in slogans like "Selected not Elected" and "Bush Lied, People Died" have to suck up the fact that they aren't being listened to, that they have no voice and no power after all. They'll have to face the fact that in order to win over a significant portion of the people of this country to your views, you have to grow up a little, walk a mile in the other man's shoes, find out what it is to live the kind of life you were raised to oppose. They'll have to understand that Americans aren't so fickle, so easily duped, so susceptible to cheap shots and low blows and infantile slogans repeated ad nauseum. They'll have to realize that America still believes, for all its faults, in America-- and it's not going to be converting itself into a clone of Canada or England or France (or, for that matter, Nazi Germany) anytime in the foreseeable future.

But if he loses... then it means the forces that have lost their faith in the American ideal, that have banked on the dream of the future they see in Star Trek, that think reality is a subjective and malleable toy that each person has free rein to knead and mold and bat around to his whim... those forces have grown strong enough to defeat those who think otherwise. It means America has changed forever, irreversibly. It means the great Experiment has failed-- the idea that the people can rule themselves, defeating the ages-old cycle of brutal dictators and evil nepotistic tyrannies and aristocratic, manufactured "culture" in favor of the true, vibrant jubilation of the common and everyday man and woman imagining a universe and changing the world, will cease to be a viable force on the global stage just as Marxist communism did.

At the time of the Civil War, Europe watched with ghoulish glee-- praying for the Confederacy to win, and so to dash to pieces this heretical idea of a Union of democratic States that could breach free of history and shame every nation that had not yet let go of its justifications for withholding governing power from its people. Lincoln, by holding the States together at the cost of nearly everything held dear up to that crowning ideal, threw humiliation to those European powers that had hoped so fervently to see America fail-- and in so doing, forced them into their own internal turmoils that led to the crashing overcorrections of nationalism and populism and elitism that eventually coalesced into the Bolsheviks and the Nazis. America got back on its course, but Europe lost its way-- and it took American resolve to put things right again.

The repercussions of WWII lead in direct lines to the Israel/Palestinian conflict, the Vietnam War, the inevitable fall of the Soviet bloc (and sudden renewed hope in Eastern Europe for greater days ahead), and the emergence of America as the world's only superpower, endowed with the ability to change anything, anywhere on the globe, that we see fit, untrammeled by any technological or practical barriers. The only thing keeping America from remaking the world in what it knows to be a successful, intoxicatingly vibrant, deeply human and enlightened image is the reluctance and self-doubt of its own people. And so fearful is that people of the specter of becoming an imperial power, even one whose only "empire" consists of an exportation of ideas, prevents us from accomplishing those goals of supreme benevolence and modernity that it has taken the planet Earth thousands of years of human history just to be able to conceive of. At long last, eight thousand years after Ur, humanity is capable of standing up, of casting away the relics of ancient days that in the absence of a power keeping watch over them divide a people between privileged overclasses and downtrodden masses; free finally of the seduction of communism and its heavy-handed, statist imposition of equality at the expense of individuality, nations can tap the potential of all of their people and become proud, modern, and free. The age of tyranny is over. All that remains is to clean up the last vestiges of it.

If only we have the courage to do so, and the will to deny that we step onto a slippery slope toward Naziism every time we speak of defeating a despotic government and freeing a people. All it takes is to look the self-doubting hordes in the eye and say, loudly, NO! We are not out to enslave the world. We are doing the exact opposite. We have the unique opportunity to do the most good that's ever been done on the face of this planet, and all you can do is pine for a fantasy world? We're doing more than any country ever did before to bring this world a little closer every day to that very fantasy... and yet you oppose it because it means in the process we might end up killing the villains who currently keep it from coming about?

The realities of a world of tyranny and subterfuge and shady backroom deals is evident nowhere as much as in the stories of what went on in Saddam's Iraq-- not least between his doomed regime and a bitter, power-hungry ex-Soviet-bloc cadre of schemers. Yet our propensity for self-doubt causes us to suspect our own government of high treason before we entertain the possibility that we might have the moral high ground, that we only look like we have egg on our faces because we don't cheat. It's that kind of paralysis-- that kind of enslavement to our worst interpretations of everything we do-- that has the opportunity to kill this country's aspirations, to bring to naught everything we've worked for all this time. No other country, indeed not even the whole rest of the world put together, can kill America. But America can commit suicide.

We have a year to prepare-- to decide the direction our sword will be pointed.


09:50 - This time the Road Cruiser is a good thing to see
http://www.arman.fm/competitions_and_giveaways.htm

(top)

Hey. Yeah. Go look at this page-- and while you're at it, check out the intro and the rest of the site-- and tell me Afghanistan is doomed to remain forever in the crapper.

ARMAN FM supports local businesses.

Do you have a favorite store in Kabul?  Maybe the best prices, range or service.  Let us know & we will let others know as well!

Contact us on bestbuys@arman.fm or 070 28 93 83 or PO BOX 1045 Central Post Office, Kabul, Afghanistan.

Sounds like... um... <gulp>

... America.
Wednesday, October 1, 2003
13:39 - Flip the switch
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000066.html

(top)
POWER is posted. (At 4:50 AM, too. Damn, he's been working hard on that one. And boy, is it ever worth it.)

How is it possible to quote from a Whittle piece? I won't do it.

Anyway, at the end he notes that Front Line Voices-- Frank J's new pet project, a showcase of letters from the soldiers and others on the ground about what's really happening in Iraq-- is open. I've been watching it prior to its official unveiling for a few days now, and it's going to merit a sidebar link, I do believe.

Bill says of the letters, "Go and read them. They will show you the kind of people -- the kind of power -- we really are far more eloquently than anything I could write." They're eloquent, yes, but Bill does sell himself short.


11:08 - Don't let this vanish into the bit-bucket
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_09_28_corner-archive.asp#014018

(top)
At NRO's Corner and via Tim Blair, a Seussian tale that someone simply must illustrate. Or at least save; it's too good to simply go the way of the Emperor's Comments. (Heh.)

Phil Rose, a friend in Seattle, writes to ask if people around here call the president "That Bush." Writes Phil, "They don't call him 'President Bush' or even 'Bush,' but 'That Bush' as in, 'Oooooh, I hate that Bush. That Bush is mean. That Bush is stupid. That Bush spends all his time taking money away from the people and giving it to The Rich.'" Phil says he found himself wondering who this guy "The Rich" is -- if he's anything like The Donald. He started thinking of That Bush being like the Grinch, slinking from house to house, stealing purses and wallets and putting them into a huge bag for The Rich. And then Phil started to write:

THAT BUSH

The poor people dove down in Dumpsters for stuff
But The Rich, in his palace, cried "I don't have enough!
"What to do? Who to call? What button to push?
"I know! The red one that summons That Bush!"

So The Rich pushed the button, a bell chimed "Clang! Clang!"
And up popped That Bush! And That Bush said, "You rang?"

And it goes on.
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
12:59 - Beautiful
http://moveon.org/pac/recall/materials.html

(top)
Here's what MoveOn.org is now mailing around to all its subscribers, though its main page still seems bereft of recall-related links:



It's that one on the left that brings a little tear of gladness to my eye. Has the Left finally learned how to be self-effacing?

Or honest?


11:47 - Is this for real?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34841

(top)
You'd think this would get more attention.

Senior investigators and analysts in the U.S. government have concluded that Iraq acted as a state sponsor of terrorism against Americans and logistically supported the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States – confirming news reports that until now have emerged only in bits and pieces.

A senior government official responsible for investigating terrorism tells Insight that while Saddam Hussein may not have had details of the Sept. 11 attacks in advance, he "gave assistance for whatever al-Qaida came up with." That assistance, confirmed independently, came in a variety of ways, including financial support spun out through a complex web of financial institutions in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Italy and elsewhere. Long suspected of having terrorist ties to al-Qaida, they now have been linked to Iraq as well.

The official says the U.S. uncovered the key "money-laundering operation" in the months following Sept. 11, 2001, when authorities raided the homes and offices of two Arab bankers, Youssef M. Nada and Ali Himat, principals at Nada Management (formerly al-Taqwa Management).

Himat, Nada and the names of both companies are all listed on the U.S. Treasury Department's roll of "Specially Designated Global Terrorists."

Sounds a little flimsy to me, but the article has lots of juicy details-- a quote doesn't do it justice. I imagine more will come of this. It'd be nice to hear an occasional peep from the White House, though-- I mean, c'mon! Bush is supposed to be Hitler, right? Where are the podium-pounding addresses? Where's the incessant flag-waving? Where's the crushing of his high-flying opposition? What's he doing, biding his time in some deep dark office, fingertips pressed together like Mr. Burns? Or is it football season?

This is an interesting observation, though:

Insiders say the failure to assign responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks to Iraq, Afghanistan or any other nation-state is intentional. "The administration does not want the victims of Sept. 11 interfering with its foreign policy," says Peter M. Leitner, director of the Washington Center for Peace and Justice, or WCPJ. The WCPJ is coordinating a lawsuit on behalf of the family of John Patrick O'Neill Sr., a former top FBI counterterrorism official who had become director of security for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey shortly before Sept. 11, 2001. O'Neill was killed in the World Trade Center as a result of the attacks.

Leitner tells Insight, "This administration has been absolutely heroic in the war on terror and has done more than any other administration to fight terrorism, but they have been deliberately ambiguous" about Iraq's involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. "The civil suits are a way of transferring power to the American people, to seek justice and to fight terrorism by depriving them of financial resources," Leitner says.

The O'Neill lawsuit seeks more than $1 billion in damages from the Republic of Iraq and a host of other defendants ranging from the known members of al-Qaida to those the lawsuit names as coconspirators in money laundering and as providers of support for terrorist operations, including the shadowy al-Taqwa group and Nada Management.

Leitner says the Bush administration may be concerned that if other victims of the Sept. 11 attacks also filed lawsuits and won civil-damage awards it would reduce Iraqi resources that the administration wants to use to rebuild the country. Leitner and others say this explains Bush's reticence at this time to report the convincing evidence linking Saddam and al-Qaida that has been collected by U.S. investigators and private organizations seeking damages.

"The [Bush] administration is intentionally changing the topic," claims Leitner, and sidestepping the issue that "Iraq has been in a proxy war against the U.S. for years and has used al-Qaida in that war against the United States."

It should be reiterated that Bush has never said outright that Iraq was tied to 9/11. What he said, quite explicitly and carefully, was that Iraq was a rogue state who was in violation of numerous UN resolutions and known to have weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorist networks-- and that we shouldn't wait until a threat is imminent before we take action. "Since when have terrorists announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" That's not blaming Saddam for 9/11; it's a different argument altogether.

This lawsuit appears to be aimed at trying to absolve Bush of the responsibility for providing a satisfying quid pro quo involving Iraq to hand as justice to 9/11 victims. But it acknowledges that its only possible effect would be to harm the reconstruction effort, and while Bremer's in charge, does it mean they're actually suing the US government? This is labyrinthine and circular. Who are the plaintiffs blaming? Who are they trying to punish and reward? Are they saying that Bush refused to draw the connection prior to the war because it wasn't well enough documented, but now that it is, he's keeping quiet because the occupation force is now on the receiving end of the 9/11 victims' lawsuit? Who shot who in the what now?

This whole ongoing "rope-a-dope" argument is giving me headaches. It can be effectively argued that Bush is playing an immensely patient game with both our friends and enemies, calmly and methodically winnowing out our true allies and setting traps for those enemies who will eventually slip up, and for those domestic opponents who will exhaust their "We don't have any agenda, except to beat Bush" drumbeating long before the 2004 elections. But it can just as easily be said that Bush is just taking a big break after Iraq, drinking beer and hiding from the public while he commits himself to being a one-termer. I hope it's not the latter case, but it's awfully hard to trust that it's the former, even though it's proven to have been his strategy numerous times in the past. (Or it could at least have been observed as such. When an ingenious scheme of that sort works well, it doesn't look like it existed at all.)

But, I mean, c'mon! Seriously-- let's have a little communication with the public, huh? Why is Bush letting the blogosphere be the primary venue for his support base? Is it a genuine fear of playing into the Left's accusations that he's making a fascist state out of the US that's causing him to avoid making even the slightest statement to counter his opponents' rhetoric? Why is it that I have to be the one to explain to my friends who say that "Bush was never a pilot" that yes, Virginia, Dubya DID in fact fly fighter jets in the early 70s, and he had the controls of the Viking for much of the way to that aircraft carrier-- and he would have landed it, too, if the Secret Service had let him... in fact, he wanted to fly an FA-18, but the Secret Service damn sure wasn't going to say yes to that?

Most importantly, why has post-war success in Iraq been reduced to an underground secret, passed around from friend to friend like fish symbols in the dirt? Why do hundreds of thousands of Stalinists get to march in the streets, supported by relentless "quagmire" mumbo-jumbo from the major media, and wave banners about how Bush and Ashcroft crack down on all dissent and unpatriotic speech? (And why do so few people see the immensity of the irony inherent there?)

It's clear that if the Bush administration really were the evil lying scum that the Left says they are, and had manufactured evidence as a pretext to go to war (somehow ignoring all those UN resolutions and known weapons programs that the rest of the world had acknowledged for years), they could have planted some WMD by now. How can the Left live with its own arguments, that we would lie our way into war with the conviction of a 1939 Germany, and then somehow fail to provide retroactive justification for it? As someone said recently, at least Hitler knew enough to plant the bodies of Polish soldiers in the battlefield so as to make the invasion of Poland look like self-defense. In Bush's case, it's either that the entire administration is both stupid and incompetent-- inconsistent beyond words-- or that they're telling the truth. And looking at the facts that we haven't stolen any oil and we're making Iraq a better place to live, day by day and we acted word-for-word exactly the way Bush said we would act, it's looking a hell of a lot like the truth, rare and wonderful bird that it is, is what's come to roost on our shoulders.

So why is it such a big freaking secret?

I honestly don't know what it is that so many people have against Bush. Sure, as a peacetime President I think he'd be pretty weak, and I didn't much like the outcome of the 2000 elections either. But as I said in this LGF thread last night:

It's simple... the Left doesn't love Western Civilization the way it is, they love an idealized version of it they hold in their minds, the way they think it should be, with flowers and butterflies and manna from heaven distributed equally to all. They're on a long trek from the dark old days of War and Righteous Patriotism into a new future where such things don't have a right to exist.

With someone like Bush in office and a genuine, real live threat in the world, making us have to act like a country with a problem to solve-- like in WWII-- they see fifty years of what they see as "progress" disappearing down the tubes. Just thinking about there being a War to fight, something that would distract us from implementing free health care and equal rights for gays and environmental controls, makes them feel like their beautiful future is slipping from their fingers. It doesn't matter who is in charge during this dismantlement of their illusion; it just matters that it's a Republican, which is something they know they can safely bash as "evil". They think they know evil. They've all heard "Boot to the head". They've all watched Saturday Night Live. They know Republicans are evil. And with that in mind, all the pieces fit.

And right now the Democratic opposition, building to next year's election, is running on a collective platform of "We're Not Bush". While we're right in the middle of one of the most critical, defining wars in our nation's history, indeed of that of the world. We're fighting the battle of freedom against tyranny, of democracy against theocracy, and we're doing it all but alone for lack of balls on the part of most of our "allies"; we're winning the first crucial battles, of local hearts and minds, bringing genuine freedom to a place that's starved for it-- and all the Democrats can do is carp about White House aides making shadowy off-the-cuff remarks to reporters, or the alleged "falseness" of a sixteen-word line in a State of the Union address a year ago that semantically wasn't even untrue?

What is it these people want to see?

As a politician, Bush is fairly middling. He's evidently not great at domestic damage control, and he's certainly not able to rally support among his opposition, because to a degree unprecedented in recent history, his opposition has declared him the unequivocal enemy, threatening to destroy this country and indeed the world if we're stupid enough to re-elect him. Hell, Reagan didn't inspire this level of unalloyed hatred. Now, if there were a reason for this, I could understand it; if Bush had, say, forced Muslims in America to wear crescents-and-stars on their sleeves, rounded them up into ghettos and then into camps; if he had declared war of conquest on all Arab nations; if he had built statues of himself, held rallies, forced officials to swear allegiance to him, placed portraits of himself in classrooms across the country, and recruited shock troops to intimidate opponents into silence, without even there being a 9/11 to touch it off-- well, then by all means, I could understand people being worried. Hell, I'd hope the outrage would erupt long before anything like that ever happened.

But none of it has.

Ashcroft hasn't destroyed our civil rights-- the FBI hasn't even performed a single investigation under that "library records snooping" regulation thing. Muslims aren't oppressed in America, or even under any kind of blanket suspicion. 9/11 has shaken us to the core, but in response to it we've firmed ourselves up, not fallen apart. We're more dedicated now to our fundamental beliefs, as delineated in the Constitution, than we ever were while the Towers were standing. And just as though to prove we can, we're getting ready to vote Bush out of office, purely on the petty and childish notion that He Must Be Defeated. Regardless of what better ideas for the Middle East and America his challenger would bring to the table.

Remember this:

"The memories of 1991 are so vivid," says Sama. "People still fear that somehow the Americans will abandon us and Saddam will claw his way back from the grave. They say, `It happened in 1991, it could happen again.' That's one crucial reason why people are reluctant to cooperate with the coalition." She adds: "I find it absolutely incredible that the anti-war people are now calling for the coalition to leave straight away. Nobody in Iraq wants that. The opinion polls show it's just 13 per cent. Don't they care about the Iraqi people and what they want at all? This isn't a game. This isn't about poking a stick at George Bush. This is our lives."

Bear that in mind when you hear Dean and Clark and Kerry talk about pulling out, or de Villepin demanding that the US immediately turn over the reconstruction effort to the UN. Remember what the Iraqi people think about Bush and the war, next time you hear someone agitate about how it was fought on false pretexts and never should have happened. If anyone reading this blog plans to attend a "peace" rally (heh, yeah, like that would happen), ask yourself first: On whose behalf am I protesting? Who would benefit from me getting my way?

If the answer does not include "the Iraqi people", then what the hell are you doing it for?

And if the answer includes "The Democrats", "France", "Saddam", or "al Qaeda"-- well, then you'd be being honest... but kindly provide me with your IP address so I can block it.

Monday, September 29, 2003
13:27 - Don't write us off just yet
http://cnn.allpolitics.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expire=-1&urlID=

(top)
Damien Del Russo points this out:

When asked how they would vote on recalling Davis, 63 percent of probable voters surveyed said they would vote yes, compared with 35 percent who said they would vote no.

In a separate vote to choose a replacement for Davis, Schwarzenegger was the choice of 40 percent of respondents.

Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante was the choice for 25 percent of voters polled, Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock received 18 percent.

The poll showed Green Party candidate Peter Camejo with 5 percent and syndicated columnist and independent candidate Arianna Huffington with 2 percent of the respondents' support.

Good, good. So McClintock won't be a spoiler even if he stays in the race, because I imagine more people will throw in with Arnie as election day approaches (out of an acceptance of the reality of their comparative electabilities) than will swing to McClintock on principle. Bustamonte seems to be failing to thrill people (his numbers are barely better than McClintock's). Sure, these comparative numbers are only among those who would approve the recall (e.g. mostly Republicans), but it's refreshing to see just how little support Mr. DJ Smooth is getting. And it's even more refreshing to see that even out here in Berkeleyland, Huffington and King Camejomejo are waaaay down in the noise. California doesn't want anyone more socialist than Davis in office, thankyouverymuch.

We might just come out of this all right.

Meanwhile, in La-La Land, MoveOn.org is running an EMERGENCY! Stop Schwarzenegger! mailing campaign. Hey, good luck to 'em-- I suppose not winning a single kooky cause since Monicagate will really demoralize a group, huh?


Sunday, September 28, 2003
12:47 - First build up an immunity to iocaine powder...
http://www.brain-terminal.com/video/michael-moore/index.html

(top)
Now that some kinds of political ads aren't allowed to be broadcast within 60 days of an election, but filmmakers like Michael Moore are allowed to release politically slanted movies whenever they feel like it-- but now that this is also the age of the DV camcorder and the $1000 iMovie rig-- can we expect that the entire nature of grass-roots support for political candidates will be changing drastically in very short order?

To wit-- Evan Coyne Maloney caught up with Michael Moore and interviewed him. In the course of the conversation, he learned that Moore actually wants there to be a conservative version of him. You know, for balance and everything. I mean, he knows that the majority of this country is liberal, and he had the entirety of the documentary filmmaking community standing behind him cheering when he went off on his Bush-bashing screed at the Oscars, and Fahrenheit 911 will be coming out just as the 2004 elections are in their final stretch-- and it's no secret that its entire aim will be to appeal starkly and forcefully, using the same grim humor found in Bowling for Columbine, to the inevitable mammoth audience to vote Bush out of office.

So as Evan found out, the answer is to balance Moore with an equivalent audiovisual force from the other side of the spectrum. Like these guys. And maybe Evan himself. Hey, he does a nice job; he's certainly able to present himself as a nice guy, one that Moore even warmed to. He said that by the end he might even want to have a drink with the guy sometime-- he'd just have to be careful not to bring up politics.

Assuming he'd be able to keep from poisoning both beers, just to take one for the team, he shows superhuman restraint.

Incidentally-- defending a conservative position is often subject to the same problems as defending a pro-war position. I wonder why that is? Possibly because leftist and anti-war slogans are easy to chant-- they simplify straw-man arguments into neat little pieces of rhyming irony, whereas the things that they attack can't be defended with the same technique. "Depleted uranium! Deformed Iraqi babies! Booooogaboogabooga!" And all the opponent can do in defense is quote numbers and statistics and academic papers that show that DU has nothing to do with birth defects, and even though he'll be right, to the chanting crowd he'll look like a feckless, muttering nutcase with no morals or compassion. "No blood for oil!" "Bush lied, people died!" "Bush = Hitler!" All slogans that can quickly gain an audience through ironic appeal, but how do you reply to them? You can't do it in a single sentence, to a large group. Many's the time I've lulled myself to sleep at 3AM fantasizing about taking somebody aside who's waving a picture of Bush with a Hitler moustache, and explaining to him in careful and detailed terms who Hitler was, what he advocated and did-- and then challenged him to name just one single miniscule thing Bush has done or advocated that even slightly makes him resemble Hitler. But it takes a long time, and even in my fantasy world I can't go more than one person at a time.

Same with Moore's canards of the conservative mindset being "ME! MEmemememeMEEEE!" and "Fuck the poor!" Sure, they get a laugh, and that's compelling. But the counterargument isn't anywhere near as stageworthy. How do you turn "We believe in a limited welfare system, one that provides a safety net for people truly down on their luck, but not one that allows them to become complacent or comfortable on welfare with no incentive to rehabilitate themselves" or "We believe employers should be responsible for providing health insurance to their employees, so that people will have an incentive to be employed in order to receive health care, and businesses should be made financially strong in order to provide that insurance, instead of forcing everybody to prepay the medical costs of the whole country" into a sarcastic joke that'll make the audience roar with approval?

I always noticed that it's really easy to parody a conservative-- it's just that those doing the parody always manage to come up with the weirdest of parody justifications for the subject to be conservative. I remember in Mickey's Christmas Carol, Scrooge McDuck was visited by a couple of alms-collectors. "Well, now," he said, "If I gave to the poor, then the poor wouldn't be poor anymore-- and you two fine fellows would be out of a job! And I wouldn't want that to happen." I guess it just wouldn't have been funny if they'd had Scrooge explain why he thinks it's unfair for someone who made his money through hard work and discipline and frugality to give it away to people who say, at least in part, that "jobs are for suckers"?

(Besides which, Scrooge can hardly even be considered a parody of a conservative tycoon by anybody who knows just how much money people like Bill Gates give to charity-- and not just as a tax shelter. Philanthropy is real. Just like investment. The things that happen when people become rich.)

Sure, it's just a kid's cartoon... but it's stuck in my head for an awfully long time, you know? Jokes have a way of worming under your skin. And if it's truly the case that liberal viewpoints are more easy to sell to a coddled public in the form of humor, while a person generally has to live a while and pay taxes on a healthy income and own property and succeed through hard work in order to gain an appreciation for the fairness of reward inherent in a conservative viewpoint, then Evan's got his work cut out for him.

A friend of mine, who I hope won't mind me quoting him in this context, recently said of his local election prospects:

I really am not that worried about tax hikes. For one thing I don't make enough money for it to effect me all that much, and I don't own anything taxable like a house or a car.

...Which I think is very telling. "Tax the rich!" say some. Well, what kind of incentive does that make for people to become rich, to buy houses and cars, to excel and innovate in the workplace, and create wealth to feed into a healthy and bustling economy? How is an upper-middle-class tax-paying citizen who clawed his way up to where he is supposed to feel about the idea that tax hikes are peachy-keen with those who don't make much money, but he is expected to accept those tax hikes without complaint-- even though they hurt him and drive down his standard of living as a "reward" for making it in the workplace-- or else risk being labeled a cold-hearted bloodthirsty capitalist pig? But notice that "Tax the rich!" is only three words and has an exclamation point, whereas I've now taken up eight paragraphs in what was supposed to be an "aside", trying to counter such a statement. Small wonder people like Peter Camejo get such cheers from the crowd when they parrot short funny slogans.

If Moore's right about the majority of people in the US being liberal, then I'm very worried about the state of American innovation and aspiration to excellence. But if what he actually means is that "Most Americans are in favor of racial equality, civil-union rights for gays, more privacy and tolerance in the home and workplace, more jobs, better health care, environmental protection and clean fuel to the extent that it's economically practical, religious freedom, and equal opportunity for everybody to excel regardless of race, creed, color, or social standing"-- then what he's saying is that most Americans are libertarians (classical "liberals", not the same thing as today's Left)... or conservatives.

"Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he can feed himself for a lifetime." I guess the oldies are still goodies.

Friday, September 26, 2003
13:57 - Shake some sense into people
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=235

(top)
Forget yellowcake. Forget mass graves. Forget children's prisons. Forget weapons of mass destruction and pillaged museums, and especially oil.

Because this is what the anti-war forces were trying so hard to keep from happening. This is what the major media refuses to acknowledge is newsworthy or even positive.

Opinion polls conducted in Iraq since the war - by reputable polling agencies that have predicted election results across the world - have vindicated this view, showing that a large majority of Iraqis wanted the invasion. And there was therefore reason to hope that this visit to Iraq would be a happy one. None the less, I have spent the summer fearing for Sama, Yasser and Abtehale. Partly I was anxious for their physical safety: they were very close to the UN headquarters on the day the building was blown up, for example. But mostly I worried about their emotional health. All three had spent their lives pining for home. What if home disappointed them? What if the Iraqi people saw them as strangers? What if Iraqis did not want to hear them evangelise for democracy?

They returned to London earlier this month. The minute they arrived at my flat, beaming and speaking at a hundred words a minute, my fears evaporated. Abtehale began: "We were so scared that we might have been wrong. We kept thinking, `What if we get there and everybody hates us for supporting the war?' But it was amazing: almost everyone we met was more hawkish than us. All over the country, even people who really hated the Americans agreed it would have been a disaster if the war had been called off." Yasser said: "One of the first things my uncle said to me was that his greatest fear in the run-up to the war was that the Americans would do what they did in 1991 and leave us to Saddam."

Yet, Yasser admits: "The first fortnight, I was really, really depressed. Everyone in Iraq had been totally conditioned to wait to be told what to do by the state. Anybody with initiative got tortured or killed by Saddam, so people just waited for orders. So even after the liberation, they couldn't understand that they were free; they didn't know what it meant. But then I saw that gradually they were realising, and that day by day they were sort of defrosting."

The IPO people went to Iraq with clear goals. First, they wanted to establish debating societies and newsletters in the Baghdad universities. "These are going to be the seeds of democracy," Yasser explains. "Once you learn to argue against people instead of killing them as Saddam did, you're on your way. We explained to the university students that they could have different newspapers - and even have different opinions in the same newspapers - and it seemed totally surreal to them. They just couldn't understand it. But when they realised that it really was possible and nobody was going to punish them, they were so excited that they were just obsessed.

"They were in the middle of their exams and supposed to be studying, but they insisted on writing and photocopying a newsletter that they distributed everywhere. They wrote articles on amazing things they could find out about on the internet - philosophy and art and the difference between proportional representation and first-past-the-post! It was the best thing in my life, seeing that," Yasser says.

I could just quote and quote and quote. But read the whole thing, as they say. Please.

And then think about just what it means when 100,000 protesters gather in London to denounce the American presence in Iraq. Think of the "human shields" who went to Baghdad thinking they were doing the Iraqis a favor. Think about every anti-war slogan uttered by a friend or colleague.

And try to keep your gorge down.

UPDATE: Steven Den Beste does the necessary expansion on this that I didn't have the wherewithal to write. On one level, the article-- and the knowledge that so many utterly morally corrupt people in the world staunchly oppose the changes that are described in it-- speak for themselves. But on another, the analysis needs to be done. The revolution must be described; the process must be put into words.

Wednesday, September 24, 2003
20:20 - That didn't go as planned

(top)
I heard a good portion of the California Recall Election debate on the way home; there was Huffington, McClintock, Bustamonte, that Green Party guy, and Ahnuld. The questions were prerecorded, but that doesn't mean the debate was boring.

Quite on the contrary-- it was a real free-for-all. Lots of personal attacks, lots of wild accusations, lots of numbers flung back and forth with little regard for their accuracy or timeliness. The moderator-- whose name I have to find out, as he wrangled these guys with the acerbic aplomb of a Clive Anderson-- was hard put to it to keep them on-topic, for instance to keep a question about how to raise state revenues from circling around into a slam on another candidate's sexual morality.

Impressions: The Green Party guy was completely nuts, as I pretty much suspected he would be. He thinks the fact that the US is the only industrialized nation in the world not to have socialized medicine is the greatest scandal ever, and made doubly so by the fact that illegal immigrants aren't covered equally with citizens. He was so caught up in his weepy, marshmallowy, sit-on-a-hillside-and-feed-the-bunnies-with-manna-from-heaven fantasyland that the other guys pretty much just ignored him, as well they should have.

Ariana Huffington was the most grating-- not because she managed one way or another to turn every single question into an attack on Schwartzenegger (which was admittedly rather easy to do), but because she was so self-righteous. She got to wear the mantle of put-upon-writer-struggling-in-this workaday-world as well as the I'm-smarter-than-everybody-else-here smugness and the big-corporations-are-evil public appeal and the please-think-of-the-children unsassailable attitude, the latter of which, when questioned, she got to turn into a barb at Arnold and "the way he treats women". Arnie retorted, "I think I have a role for you in Terminator 4," but just as he was about to say what it was, my engine died because I was right at the metering light on the on-ramp and I wasn't paying attention when I let out the clutch, and by the time I got the radio back on, the whole crowd was roaring and the moderator was saying "Hey, now, this isn't Comedy Central." Shoot.

But Arnold, now that it comes to him, was the biggest disappointment. He didn't come across as stupid, or even lacking in appropriate experience; he just didn't seem to be taking the whole thing seriously. It's mostly his doing that the debate was so chaotic-- he engaged in as much gleeful mud-slinging as Huffington did, and a lot funnier ("Yeah, you know all about tax shelters, don't you-- you had one last year that I could drive my Hummer through"). The only problem was, he seemed unprepared, and the mud he slung wasn't exactly of proper consistency (Huffington had a perfectly good explanation for that "tax shelter", which she told him about point-blank). He clearly had a lot of facts and figures memorized, but I think his was the crashiest of crash courses in California politics and finance, because the other candidates constantly picked apart his numbers, corrected him, and challenged him with posers that he answered only with cleverly worded platitudes. "Why should the richest 4% of Californians be taxed at a lower rate than the poorest?" asked the Green Guy. "I'm not even asking for a progressive tax-- just a flat one. Why won't you simply agree with me on this one little point?" And Arnold responded by muttering about how Mr. Green should move to Massachusetts. He seemed, more than anybody else, to have been working from a script, and he didn't acquit himself particularly well. I'd been getting the impression for a while that he wasn't taking the election seriously enough to be able to win; but now I'm afraid he's not looking like someone I want to vote for.

Bustamonte reminded me of nobody so much as Brian, the dog from Family Guy. Constantly rolling his eyes, sighing, muttering "Yeah..." and "Uhhnh" and "Well...." over other candidates' statements. I'd have found this annoying, except that the reason why he usually had to do such a thing was to correct some factual error of Schwartzenegger's. Arnie accused Bustamonte of hypocrisy in advocating spending on education but then cutting hundreds of millions from the state education budget in consort with Gray Davis; Cruz carefully, and with admirable restraint, pointed out that he had been the author of the bill to inrease such spending; he even had to reiterate it after Arnie harped on it in rebuttal with some ramble about his after-school programs, which it seemed he was clinging to with some desperation as his last bargaining card.

"I'm the only one here who has been in business! Nobody else here has had to meet payroll or pay for employees' health care!"
"Uh, Arnold, that's not tr--"
"You know what you politicians do all the time? You--"
"<sigh> No, Arnold. What do we do?"
"You invent all these causes, you come in for a photo-op, and then you leave and are never seen again. I sponsored after-school programs for inner-city youth..."

...And so on. I really felt for the man after a while; but then he joined the throng with his position that illegal immigrants should not only be given drivers' licenses, but full medical coverage, social benefits, legal protection-- all that rot. And Huffington, in her smarmy I-can't-be-beholden-to-special-interests role, took him to task for giving preferential treatment to Indian gaming and other groups who'd heavily supported him. So he's no angel. The guy seemed the most like someone hard at work down in the trenches; at least he seemed sincere about his commitment to the job. But that doesn't make me want to vote for him.

The big surprise, though, was Tom McClintock. He impressed the hell out of me. He was the most concise, well-spoken, restrained, and effective speaker on the whole panel-- and what's more, he seemed alone in the group in having his head screwed on straight and California's priorities in order. When the question of health care and drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants came up, McClintock was the only one to give the debate its real name: allowing illegal immigrants special treatment. "Illegal immigration is the act of cutting in line," he said. While Green Man and Bustamonte and Huffington had spent a lyrical five minutes each crooning about how illegal immigrants are our biggest source of Cheap Labor (there's that term again), picking our vegetables and building our skyscrapers and digging our ditches and getting the least pay-- McClintock was the only one to point out that illegal immigration undermines the very process of legal immigration that's what makes this state so great. (Green Man had whimpered about how immigration was a human problem, not a legal one, and the very term illegal was unfair and barbaric when one thinks how every one of us, were we in the shoes of one of the Noble Ancient Inhabitants of This Continent and living in another country, would cross the border to get a better life For Our Children.) Huffington had smirkingly berated Arnold for opposing the drivers' licenses for illegals (sorry, undocumented immigrants) while he himself-- horror, shock!-- was an immigrant! But even Arnold didn't point out the crucial distinction: Arnold had come to this country legally. Arnold had followed the rules. Arnold had made the sacrifices that entitled a person to benefit from our State services-- whereas illegal immigrants are sneaking over the border and cheating the system that so many others are following so dutifully. But McClintock was the only one up there willing to stand up for our immigration laws (some of the most lenient in the world, already) and the virtues they exist to uphold. Arnie had only been able to ramble about how giving licenses to illegals presented a "security risk" because it didn't involve a background check. C'mon, Arnie. As a legal immigrant yourself, couldn't you have pointed out the ethical distinction between rewarding a pers