| Sunday, June 27, 2004 |
21:42 - Okay, so I guess I don't get it
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11524_Iraqi_Police_Fight_US
|
(top) |
So exactly what the hell do we do when this starts happening?
First Lt Omar is sworn to uphold the law and fight the insurgency that threatens Iraq’s evolution into a free and democratic state. Instead, he is exploiting his knowledge of US tactics to help the rebel cause in Fallujah.
“Resistance is stronger when you are working with the occupation forces,” he points out. “That way you can learn their weaknesses and attack at that point.”
Suppose that as part of an urban renewal project, the city buys out a crack house and gives it to you outright. So, while the city's plumbers, electricians, landscapers, and other contractors are patching drywall holes, fixing leaks, and sweeping up the last remnants of the old occupants, getting it ready for you to move in, you—what? What do you do?
You go in and shoot them.
Well, obviously.
|
|
20:56 - Derailliued
|
(top) |
Snuh. I hate when this happens.
I especially hate when it happens in the middle of a steep uphill road two miles from home, so that when the chain develops a distorted link and leaps off the sprocket, wrapping itself around the take-up gears and wrenching them off like a lasso, and threading them neatly through the spokes of the wheel so it locks in place, I have to carry the bike home.
Don't you hate that?
|
|
20:35 - Just out of curiosity...
http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/013086.html
|
(top) |
Is this the kind of thing Michael Moore had in mind when he said "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win"?
Does he find the scene in The Patriot where Mel Gibson and his merry band set up straw dummies on the hillside dressed as British officers, showed them to General Cornwallis through a telescope during a parley, and won the release of his prisoners to be the equivalent sort of thing?
Probably.
(I wish the Pentagon would hurry up and give Frank his grant to build this.)
|
|
19:09 - Back into the closet for me
http://baldilocks.typepad.com/baldilocks/2004/06/i_know_you_are_.html
|
(top) |
Now I know I don't want to see Fahrenheit 9/11 in theaters. Not just because I don't want to spend ten bucks to sit in a packed house full of people who will cheer wildly at things I know to be exaggerations, conjectures, or outright lies; but because I might well legitimately fear for my safety.
I hope Al Gore is pleased with himself.
|
|
18:55 - The way of the world
|
(top) |
In Automobile Magazine this month, there's a fascinating biography of Charles Jasper Glidden, one of those globetrotting privileged aristocrats from the turn of the 20th century who made history in 1906-07 by driving a 16-horsepower Napier all around the world, in England, France, Germany, from India to Egypt, from Japan to New Zealand and through the gates of Jerusalem, meeting adoring and scandalized onlookers every step of the way. I can't find the article online; more's the pity, although here is a brief bio of the guy. Google no doubt can unearth more.
There were lots of interesting observations about the state of the motoring world in those days; for example, France was the only country in Europe that had passable roads, and America was still connected from coast to coast primarily by rutted dirt tracks, the subject of much derision from European wags. Streets in Java were mostly flooded. But, interestingly, the best roads in the world, the article says, were to be found in India, where "the British put Indians to work laying macadam surfaces as a way to pay off their famine relief".
The article concludes as follows:
What would it take to repeat Glidden's journey? Probably no amount of money could get you through Israel and into Syria today or over the Khyber Pass and into Afghanistan. Glidden's worries focused on logistics, securing gasoline and oil, contingencies for breakdowns. Today's road warrior must deal with politics, terrorism, poverty, and hate, tougher by far than worrying about when the needed valves would arrive or where you'd find your next can of gasoline.
In other words, it was a more peaceful, safer, richer, happier world a century ago, wasn't it?
If true (which it isn't), that's because there were empires back then.
Ain't it great how far we've come?
|
|
17:57 - Compromise
|
(top) |
There can be no compromise unless both sides are willing to compromise.
Obvious, it would seem, yes? No great insight here. Yet apparently, if there's a name anyone can give to all the schisms that divide the world today, it would be: Between those who are willing to compromise, and those who aren't. On top of that schism, however, are layered others—more complex ones, ones that hide the original problem. For example, there's a schism between those who refuse to believe that that underlying schism exists, and those who take it as a given that some people can compromise and others can't.
This meta-schism, between those in denial and those held thrall by reality, is what seems to be causing the big global problems between nations these days.
It should be obvious—it really should—that negotiations between one party who's willing to make concessions, and another party who isn't willing, will fail. But we seem unable to look this problem in the face. Those of us who think all problems can be solved by negotiations and compromises continue to demand that both parties sit down and hammer out an agreement; those of us who accept that at least one of the sides is driven by absolutism recognize the futility of yammering around a table and repeating over and over the same immovable demands, and take the decidedly less satisfying road that leads toward military conflict, long and broad social change obviating the problem, or other less feel-good solutions. Yet it's hard to argue that the less feel-good solutions have been less successful throughout history than the solutions that involve waving signs with rainbows on them.
To take the example I've been trying to avoid belaboring: in the debate over gay marriage, we have two camps, one of whom is governed by broad, subjective social mores, and one of whom is absolutist in its demands. The reason why we have an FMA being proposed right now is that there's a backlash against the assumption that both these parties are equally amenable to rational negotiations, that they're willing to sit down at a table and come up with a compromise. It's turned out that that's not the case. The pro-gay-marriage front has laid claim to the "F-bombs" of modern debate: terms like equality, civil rights, discrimination, and so on (even though marriage is a privilege, with special benefits and eligibility requirements defined by the people, not an inalienable right). Modern-day America can't argue against such terms—they're the bedrock slabs of our national discourse, and whichever side can get to the top of them and plant a flag gets to claim the "moral high ground". From there it's easy to jeer downhill at the opposition as being a bunch of retrograde bigots and opponents of freedom and equality.
This puts the opponents of gay marriage in an uncomfortable, defensive position—one that they really don't deserve to be in. People raised on values such as discretion, chastity, respect for all people (even your opponents), humility, and reverence for tradition are now obligated to watch the Pride Parade go by their downtown windows with near-naked characters bumping and grinding on floats, carrying banners reading LICK BUSH AND DICK, and think miserably to themselves, So this is what "moral superiority" looks like these days, is it?
They're not allowed to call for signs like that to be hidden or toned down, much less to take a stand against gay marriage, because to do so is to put themselves in opposition to equality and civil rights and freedom and, indeed, morality. This is causing many people's brains, quite rightly, to kick on all their cooling fans. It makes millions of completely reasonable Americans, people who had considered themselves all their lives to be good and decent human beings, to doubt their own sanity. Small wonder they suddenly want to grasp for whatever defense is left to them. Rational, respectful opponents they can handle; but not people determined to come across as petulant, demanding, immature freaks.
It's a clash between a subjective side that's malleable and willing to make concessions for the sake of peace and unity, and an absolutist side that refuses to acknowledge that any compromise is acceptable, that says there is no justice until their cause is completely realized. It is folly to imagine that negotiations are possible in a situation like this.
Which is why, when I find myself in one of the many one-on-one discussions of this matter that I've experienced in the past few months (usually right after one of my long-time friends discovers to his horror that I'm not in fact dedicated to the eradication of war, religion, and Bush), I try to explain that the way out of this is for "our" side—the one that refuses to budge on what it believes to be the path of supreme righteousness—to be the one to offer some compromises for a change. We need to decide exactly what it is we want, and figure out what concessions we can offer that will make the other side more comfortable. Readers have told me that when they watch news coverage of gay couples getting their marriage licenses on the steps of the San Francisco City Hall, and telling reporters happily that they intend to have what they consider an "open marriage", it erodes their tenuous support for the movement—after all, why shouldn't it? If we're shamelessly going to use this opportunity to mock and deconstruct traditional marriage at the same time that we sniffily claim that we're "entitled" to it (another sign at the same parade in Chicago, according to Marcus, said OUTLAW HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE), then we have to expect the opposition to grow. We need to prevent this kind of thing from happening, from torpedoing any progress that's been made. When something like this happens, we need to get mad, not smile benevolently at those responsible and celebrate the demise of a stupid and ancient tradition like "monogamy". We need to police our own. Just as we'd expect moderate members of certain other groups to police their own, lest it be done much more gruesomely by people outside the group.
Now: this policy, the policy of demanding bidirectional understanding and treating negotiation as the paramount form of problem-solving, is one that begs to be extrapolated onto the world stage. "But Brian", one might ask, "Doesn't what you say validate the Eurocentric/UN-style world view that all problems, no matter how huge or global in scope, can be solved by negotiation and compromise? If you're asking that the sides involved in the gay-marriage debate cope with their differences rather than decisively solving them one way or the other, how do you justify backing the American style of foreign policy, solving problems like Saddam and the Taliban by rolling the tanks?"
To that question I can only answer this: There is a time and a place. Compromise is useful in some cases; but it can't be made to fit all cases. We in modern Western countries have become the most willing-to-compromise society in the world's history; we fall all over ourselves thinking of ways to sacrifice of ourselves to make others happy. Yet, in practice, compromise is only possible when there is moral relativism, when there is a valid debate to be had over which side can lay claim to the moral high ground, or when such terms can be lifted out of the debate altogether and the question settled on legal or pragmatic grounds. No—in some cases, such as religious fanatics flying planes into skyscrapers, there's no point in pretending that there's any hope of negotiation or compromise. If there were, at least one side would be absolutist and dead-set on its goals, and would be content with nothing short of 100% satisfaction—never mind whether they would even treat any earthly contract or agreement as binding. I'm told, for instance, that there's little to no chance of people within the Muslim community having enough effect in "policing their own" as to nullify Islamist terrorism. This means that our only choices are to capitulate totally to their demands... or fight back with equal or greater decisiveness. That latter is the only acceptable solution for us; and if it means the only thing that dictates the final outcome is who has the heart to fight longer, well, so be it. It wouldn't be the first time we've done such a thing.
The mentality that governs the UN and European diplomats is the mentality that persists in thinking that negotiation and compromise have a place in solving, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even when those things have been tried so many times before—and have always ended with stark illustrations that it's a debate between one side willing to compromise and one side that refuses to make even the tiniest concession. Yet because believing in the power of compromise is a feel-good, touchy-feely form of blind faith, concepts like the "Peace Process"—with names that sound great in folk songs sung by women with twittery nasal voices—live on, damning the region to an unending state of fearful, bloody purgatory instead of a decisive finality one way or the other.
There is a time and a place for negotiations. Compromise is, and should be, the clearly preferable solution in any conflict between two sides. However, there must always be the understanding that if compromise is not acceptable to either of the two sides, the hope of a mutually satisfying outcome is nonexistent, and pursuing it is futile, even perilous. I would even go so far as to say that in any such debate, as soon as one side reveals itself to be absolutist in its demands, or not to be negotiating in good faith, that party must become the one under scrutiny, and the one which must change the nature of its demands. Otherwise, no negotiations can go forward; and the sooner we find out that the absolutist side cannot be cajoled into compromising, the sooner we know whether that group can eventually become part of an honest and mature debate, or whether it must be neutralized for the sake of the side that's mature enough to do what it takes to make both sides happy.
UPDATE: Strangely enough, it sounds like the San Francisco Pride Parade was among the most sane such events.
|
| Thursday, June 24, 2004 |
22:48 - I'm Michael Moore, and I approved this message
|
(top) |
Did my eyes and brain just conspire to commit fraud upon me? Or did I just see one of those Fahrenheit 9/11 TV ads that said, in its black-background title card (and against a graphic of the terror-alert color bar), verbatim:
Fahrenheit (Fah"ren*heit). adj: The temperature in the atmosphere when it reaches the boiling point.
Boy, this movie sure does teach us all things we never knew before.
So that's what "Fahrenheit" means, is it? It's an adjective that describes the exosphere? "Wow, Buzz—it sure is Fahrenheit up here!"
I'm sure that can't be what it said... can it?
UPDATE: Nope, there it is again. That's exactly what it said.
UPDATE: Yeah, I know Michael Moore can't necessarily be blamed for this. It's probably some less-than-gifted hack working for the distributor.
But you know, I don't care who is behind this. I just have an objection to stupid crap on my TV. Especially in the middle of MXC.
(Ya hearrrd me.)
|
|
12:17 - It's all fun and games now
http://www.pvponline.com/
|
(top) |
I must say I've got some new respect for Scott Kurtz, creator of the PVP online comic. He's noticed a disturbing new trend—well, not new, really; just seen afresh from yet another perspective. (Via .clue.)
I've tried just about every character type and I'm settling on my favorites. Last night, for fun, I decided to make myself a Captain America type hero...you know, go the whole patriotic route.
So I logged onto the Guardian server and created myself a Science origin Tanker with Invulerability and Super Strength. I dressed him in red, white and blue, adorned him and named him FLAG WAVER.
Once I got to a populated area, other people in the game started reacting to my character, but not in the way I expected.
"Ugh. I hate our country." "How can you wave a flag of a country that kills other countries for oil we already have." "Bush is an idiot."
I inquired if these people were from another country that maybe didn't look too kindly on the US. They all stated that they were Americans, but they just didn't really like America.
I have to say that I was flabbergasted. No. I was disgusted. I really didn't know what to say back to these other players. I certainly didn't log into the game to get into a political debate. If anything, I logged in to escape that stuff.
Read on to see his creative solution to the problem.
If I were in his position, though, I don't know if I'd have had the fortitude to be satisfied with that. I'd probably become deeply depressed by what I'd seen, so much so as to be unable to react to it with humor.
Behold the march of progress. We've defeated nationalism, bad old nationalism. It's a thing of the past. When even a lighthearted, leisure-time burlesque of patriotic spirit is hounded into the corner by unmasked hate, you've just got to pause the VCR, hold up an Uncle Sam poster from the WWII era next to it, and stare. Just stare. From one to the other. Just stare, and slowly shake your head.
This is what the past forty years of gradual, great-hearted "progress" has bought us. Do we even have buyer's remorse? Do we even give a flying Scotch loaf?
If I'd read a story like this in October of 2001, I would have thought it was a sick parody. I never would have conceived of believing it could be real.
Can we please have some people out there, some of those remaining few with a sense of reality and the ability to think and reason, to have the courage to declare they're on our side? I'm looking around and I'm seeing that even the fence-sitters see us as some kind of shameful burden to put up with—the retarded uncle in the basement, the way I once read Windows users see Apple. Who'll stand up and say I'm Spartacus? Who'll brave their friends' disapproving jeers to say they're with us? Is there anyone left at all who hasn't succumbed to the siren call of the social approval you get from being opposed to America? Could I just hear a "We're with you"—just a quiet little one, to renew my faith in a humanity that knows good from evil? I promise I won't tell anyone.
Urg. I'm sorry. I'm rambling. This has been a difficult couple of days.
|
| Wednesday, June 23, 2004 |
21:04 - This is reeeeally starting to wear on me
|
(top) |
On our way in to the grocery store just now, KCBS News was broadcasting a glowing report about Kerry's campaign speeches in the Bay Area. "We need a President who understands that America never goes to war when it wants to—only when it has to." Random (I'm sure) bystanders were interviewed. "He's on a roll!"
And as we exited the store, KCBS was relaying early exit interviews with theatergoers. Which movie they saw was never in question; KCBS didn't even feel the need to tell us. Just that "some people" had characterized it "more as an op-ed than a documentary." And that every single person coming out of the theater was simply, meltingly, overjoyed with it. "It's FAN...tastic," one said. "It's the best thing I've seen since... I don't know, Gone with the Wind." Then the impartial announcer gave us to understand that people left the theater knowing things they hadn't before, such as that the President remained in that classroom after being told that the second plane had hit, finishing up his meeting with those third-graders, that once-in-a-lifetime event that they were supposed to be enjoying, and utterly failed to leap up and scream at the top of his lungs that America is under attack! and immediately launch nukes, or whatever Moore wishes us to believe would be better than calmly giving at least one classroomful of grade-schoolers another seven minutes of life in a nation at peace.
This is why I haven't had KCBS on in my car for some years now, let alone NPR. This is what now passes for impartial evening news reporting. And now that I only hear it on the occasions when I'm in someone else's car, it just seems all the more a voice from another planet—one where 9/11 never happened, and where all our biggest problems today are caused by the man in the Oval Office, and everybody knows it. It's such a foregone conclusion as to no longer even bear discussion.
It's beating me down. I'm already tired after a long day at work, after getting up at 7:30 to walk the dog who's decided that the Summer Solstice should be celebrated by micturating as close to sunrise as possible. I do not need more of this crap. I do not need to be reminded that the chances appear to be lessening that this country will treat terrorism as the primary issue of the day, rather than a President they've determined to hate no matter what he does.
November's election will decide whether 9/11 has, in fact, slipped out of the attention span of the American public, and has reduced itself to the subject of bemusement and sarcastic cliché; but Fahrenheit 9/11 is a precursor to it, and its box-office success will tell us just how fervently America wants to simply erase 9/11 from history, like throwing out the highest and lowest grades in the curve to eliminate statistical outliers, and focus primarily and solely on electing the President they feel would do a better job in a peacetime America that has never known terrorism and never will again.
As Lance put it, fear and fury fade—but adolescent resentment of authority figures only grows. Bitter, self-centered chafing against The Man.
Bush is The Man now. Bin Laden stopped being The Man a long time ago. And America doesn't want to hear otherwise.
I'd weep if I had the energy.
UPDATE: Aargh! Now Comedy Central is blaring Michael Moore on The Daily Show! 11:00! across South Park.
Could someone please come get me when this is over?
|
|
11:22 - Presented as Fact
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3820079.stm
|
(top) |
This is how the British government educates its people as to the true nature of life in the US.
A few days later I ended up in the Arab quarter of Brooklyn, where stories are plentiful about harassment of the Arab-Muslim community.
The talk is not only about Guantanamo Bay, but also about young men disappearing for weeks on end, forced deportations, being hauled in for questioning for speaking out of line.
They talk in detail about Section 215 - the bit which deals with personal records, and of the Metropolitan Corrections Facility on the corner of 29th Street and Third Avenue, where people are held without trial and access to lawyers.
"I don't know what's happening to this country," said Ihab Tabir, a Brooklyn immigration lawyer who is originally from Jordan.
"If you say anything against what is happening in Iraq for example, you can be arrested.
"You can't speak openly on the street anymore. I tell you, everyone is afraid."
Obviously he doesn't know what's happening to this country. Section 215, for example, has never been invoked.
I wonder if this guy took part in one of those six-digit-attendance anti-war protests. You know, the ones where everyone was rounded up and sent off to the camps.
The guy is a lawyer. An immigration lawyer. And he says stuff like this.
How, first of all, does a person in his position reach such a ludicrous state of mind? And how, more importantly, does Britain reach the point where its citizens' taxes pay for investigative reporting that seeks out people like this and presents what they say as the unvarnished truth about life over here in the Nazi States of America?
Do people over there believe this stuff? Or do they sort of dismissively wave it off with a "Pff, it's the Beeb, you know"? Even as they pay for the privilege?
Via Tim Blair, whose commenters (as is their wont) add vital details and refreshing reaction. Don't miss them.
|
|
09:58 - Black Hawk Up
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040622-113720-3352r.htm
|
(top) |
Somalia, more than anything else, was probably the event that cemented the idea in the Arab mind that Americans were weak-kneed wusses who hid behind technology and ran away at the first sight of real blood—and thus, probably the direct precursor of 9/11. Whether deserved or not, stuff like that, coupled with the low-level impression of us that was being created by events like us firing cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away at things we didn't like, is what stuck in people's minds and gave them the courage—if that's what it can be called—to mount such an audacious attack.
Let's hope, then, that news of this starts spreading by word of mouth:
The Army's powerful 1st Armored Division is proclaiming victory over Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr's marauding militia that just a month ago seemed on the verge of conquering southern Iraq.
The Germany-based division defeated the militia with a mix of American firepower and money paid to informants. Officers today say "Operation Iron Saber" will go down in military history books as one of the most important battles in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.
"I've got to think this was a watershed operation in terms of how to do things as part of a counterinsurgency," said Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, a West Point graduate and one of two 1st Armored assistant division commanders, in an interview last week as he moved around southern Iraq. "We happened to design a campaign that did very well against this militia."
When the division got word April 8 that Sheik al-Sadr's uprising meant most 1st Armored soldiers would stay and fight, rather than going home as scheduled, it touched off a series of remarkable military maneuvers.
Soldiers, tanks and helicopters at a port in Kuwait reversed course, rushing back inside Iraq to battle the Shi'ite cleric's 10,000-strong army.
That's more like it.
The three-week initial invasion was rightly praised as one of the most remarkable military achievements of modern warfare; but we certainly know now that it was easy—too easy. As much dismay as was shown throughout the Arab world when Baghdad fell, many people clung to a fiery hope that the insurgency would rise, and Palestinian-style, harry the invaders to death. This is something the anti-US portions of the civilian populations could rally behind, something that fit the popular narrative they all believed. They probably all believed in the Mahdi Army before we'd ever heard of it.
Last week, Sheik al-Sadr surrendered. He called on what was left of his men to cease operations and said he may one day seek public office in a democratic Iraq.
Gen. Hertling said Mahdi's Army is defeated, according the Army's doctrinal definition of defeat. A few stragglers might be able to fire a rocket-propelled grenade, he said, but noted: "Do they have the capability of launching any kind of offensive operation? Absolutely not."
See? We can fight a street-by-street urban war. We can put down an insurgency. And we do sometimes elect leaders with the balls to allow our military to prove it, to stay there till the job is done. This is a critical lesson to have taught.
One might even say we needed there to be a guerrilla war and an insurgency, just so we could show how we deal with such things now.
It was a visible, public deflation we saw throughout the Middle East last April 10th. But now, perhaps, a more important, more pernicious deflation is spreading. Many didn't believe, after all, that Baghdad could possibly have fallen without treachery. They were sure we'd end up leaving in shame, once the real resistance showed up. But now we've been there for over a year; Saddam's in custody; and we've scored a devastating psychological victory just before handing over sovereignty. Naysayers at home may mock the power handover as insufficient or premature or whatever (everybody has something bad to say about it, even those who want us out of there yesterday)—but in the eyes of the "Arab Street", crucially, we're now undeniably turning over the keys on our own terms, in the afterglow of a real victory. We're leaving in triumph, not in expedience or defeat. That's got to be a serious blow to Islamist morale. Moqtada al-Sadr stood up to the Americans... but then he surrendered and disbanded what was left of his army, and now seeks to enter government service under terms we dictate. Oh, how that must stick in the craw of all those who ever considered him a hero. Every bit as much so as seeing Saddam pulled out of a septic tank, hands in the air.
It's exactly—precisely—the antidote to the image we earned in Somalia. If this event eclipses Mogadishu in the minds of those who would be inspired by bin Laden's words, he—and his legacy—have just lost a whole lot of credibility, and the grass roots have become a whole lot less fertile.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: the War on Terror.
|
|
09:37 - No such thing as an "average" American
http://www.imao.us/archives/001591.html#001591
|
(top) |
IMAO's Frank J doesn't put up many non-humor posts; but when he does, they're worth it. This one is especially so.
Yeah, I know, I'm just repeating what a lot of people in the blogosphere and elsewhere are complaining about, but I want is to do something about it. I tried before with the website Front Line Voices to get the story out of the heroism of our troops, but I know that isn't going to do it. The sad fact of the human condition is that people respond much more to pain than pleasure. Thus, the way to get people motivated, to keep people focused on the goal, is to show them the barbarism of our enemy. And I don't mean the horrible pictures of the beheading - that's just shocking people. Show the jubilation of the terrorists over their killing. Show the writings of the enemy in praise of death. Show everything we can about who these people are, because the fact is that all except the most morally forgone of our society will recognize evil when they see it staring in his or her face. Shades of gray won't hold up when people see just how black the depravity of the terrorists are.
If I had my way, the head story of every newscast would be about what these brutal thugs are up to, what they're thinking, what they're desires are. And not just focus on the terrorists, but also the brutality of all the government in the Middle East. No more root causes, no more blind tolerance, no more thinking that religious beliefs that involve violence and oppression should have any cultural respect. Every day the American people and the rest of the world would see how horrible the terrorists and the tyrants are, and everyday they would get madder and madder.
So why can't I have my way?
If nothing else, fairness dictates that it's his turn.
|
| Tuesday, June 22, 2004 |
21:14 - Old, senile media
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/016151.php
|
(top) |
Stupid CNN, for keeping archives of its old news stories just lying around for anyone to see.
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
Via InstaPundit, who also has a similar story from The Guardian, also in 1999.
Apparently that whole "Bin Laden hates Saddam because he's secular, and al Qaeda would never work with Iraq for that reason" thing was only a very recent falling-out.
But then we believed all kinds of crazy stuff back in the Nineties, right? Like dot-coms were good long-term investment opportunities, Beavis & Butt-head would last forever, and Saddam was a bad guy who merited removal.
|
|
21:07 - Applause inflation
|
(top) |
Oh, goodie. More Fahrenheit 9/11 trailers on Spike TV.
Remember when it won the Palme d'Or? First people were reporting that the standing ovation lasted 10 minutes; then 12 minutes; then 15 minutes was the highest estimate I saw.
Guess how the trailer begins?
At the Cannes Film Festival, only one film has ever received a 20 minute standing ovation.
He's good at this whole rewriting-history thing.
|
|
15:46 - Astonishing
http://hq.protestwarrior.com/?page=/featured/PHS/PHS.php
|
(top) |
This high school senior is a hero.
Think I'm being glib or facetious? Go read the site, then.
I have no appropriate words. I'm simultaneously too angry and too proud.
|
| Monday, June 21, 2004 |
20:16 - Gauntlet cast
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
|
(top) |
I know that in all intellectual honesty I really should watch Fahrenheit 9/11 before I render a judgment upon it; I really do. Even though watching Bowling for Columbine did little to alter my preconceptions from having read many other people's commetaries on it; and this was before even seeing the sites that debunk all the outright lies in it.
So I won't say anything about it, sight unseen. But I will sit up and listen when Christopher Hitchens, writing in Slate, dissects the film with some 4,000 words of complete and unassailable fact, analysis, and logical bitch-slapping that leave it a quivering amorphous mass—truly a creation in the image of its maker.
It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.
He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction.
He goes on, after much more unrelenting fire, to challenge Moore to a fresh debate. But it sounds like Moore will answer that, if at all, with a giant full moon.
UPDATE: Spike TV is already running trailers for the movie, using the "Bush playing golf" clip Hitch describes thus:
The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm.
UPDATE: Oh, lovely. Moore is now apologizing to Ray Bradbury:
The novel was a futuristic tale about a totalitarian society where books are burned to keep people from thinking independently. The temperature at which paper catches fire is 451 degrees. Moore says his film deals with the temperature at which freedom burns.
Bradbury is demanding an apology for not being asked permission to lift his book title and wants the film property renamed, something that is not likely to happen at this late stage.
"He suddenly realized he's let too much time go by," the author said.
"It has broken my heart," says Moore. "I've called to try and apologize and work it out and he's just ... oh, jeez I don't know what to say."
Moore says he tried to explain to the 83-year-old writer that the film could bring more young readers to his book but apparently no dice. He says if he had called the film The Diary of Michael Moore, surely people wouldn't confuse it with The Diary of Anne Frank.
"There's no confusion here, you know?"
Nope. Of course not.
|
|
15:35 - Buuuuurrned
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/21/ncar21.xml&sSheet=/n
|
(top) |
Hoo boy:
Encouraging travellers to switch from cars and airlines to inter-city trains brings no benefits for the environment, new research has concluded.
Challenging assumptions about railways' green superiority, the study finds that the weight and fuel requirements of trains have increased to the point where rail could become the least energy-efficient form of transport.
Engineers at Lancaster University said trains had failed to keep up with the motor and aviation industries in reducing fuel needs.
They calculate that expresses between London and Edinburgh consume slightly more fuel per seat (the equivalent of 11.5 litres) than a modern diesel-powered car making the same journey.
The car's superiority rises dramatically when compared with trains travelling at up to 215mph.
There's still the question of traffic congestion if everyone drives, and rail is still cheaper. But rail is also way slower, way less flexible, and (at least in places like, say, San Jose) you still have to drive to the station ten miles away, park, ride, work, ride back, get in your car, and drive home. Which I daresay would add a fair amount to the equation, yet more in favor of four wheels.
Diesel isn't all that widespread here, but it's not like it's impossible to find if you're that concerned about fuel efficiency. Plus there's always the Prius. Anyway, if these trends continue, even SUVs will be competitive before long...
Private ownership of your means of getting around—plus you're saving the environment! What's not to like?
|
|
09:38 - PIcking up where we left off
|
(top) |
Damn, that's beautiful.
|
| Sunday, June 20, 2004 |
14:02 - Teach me to love, Lewis! Teach me to live!
|
(top) |
One more point to belabor about the Lewis Blackstravaganza.
While on the subject of gay marriage, he characterized the FMA (as is the custom these days) as a desecration upon that document, the equivalent of someone spitting and scribbling on it—interrupting all that noble language about "You can't make any law that abridges free speech" and "No slavery" and "Women can vote" to babble about how "Marriage is between a man and a woman." Okay, fine.
Then he did his tightened-jaw, quivering-finger-pointing, grinding-voiced impression of 25th-century archaeologists unearthing the Constitution, and the judgment they would inevitably render upon Americans of our present age. "Uh huh... yeah... very good... no slavery... okay... hey, what's this? Marriage is between a man and a woman? —Oh, okay, I see: these 'Americans' had to write down what marriage was... because they needed help remembering!!" Followed, of course, by the usual roar of applause.
The point he was trying to make, I'm guessing, was that Boy, Americans are dumb shits! Which certainly would have gone over well with this audience.
But I think maybe Lewis made a different point altogether. One he certainly didn't intend. It made me wonder:
So what is marriage, then, anyway? Really?
If "between a man and a woman" isn't to be the definition, then what is? If this isn't a confusing issue to Lewis, then what should the definition be?
Y'know, because I need help remembering, or something. I'm dumb that way.
|
|
12:15 - This is not satire
http://www.Gravett.org/yobbo/archives/004468.html
|
(top) |
"They just don't know any better. How can they be expected to follow our white-man laws?"
From Yobbo:
South Australia's Court of Criminal Appeal has reduced a jail sentence given to a man who broke into an elderly couple's house because he is Aboriginal.
The Appeal Court ruled that Aborigines are at greater disadvantage in society that whites.
Darren Clarke, 29, broke into the Port Pirie house of a couple in their 70s in November 2002 by smashing the back door.
He ransacked two rooms and stole alcohol and money.
The couple was terrified and traumatised.
Clark was sentenced to three years with a non-parole period of 23 months.
He appealed against that sentence and one of his grounds was that he was Aboriginal.
The Court of Criminal Appeal agreed saying an offender's aboriginality could be relevant.
So much for "racial equality", huh? Some races, apparently, aren't capable of comprehending the modern world we live in. So says the all-knowing State, which knows how best to spend our tax dollars to keep from hearing those petty complaints from The People.
This all started with affirmative action, which seemed like such a benevolent thing at the time, and people who warned of a slippery slope were denounced as racists. But here we are now... and it's going to get worse and worse, because it makes everyone involved feel virtuous, and because the only person an outcome like this victimizes is the person who's in the racial majority. (The person who was a victim in the first place.) And hey, what's wrong with that?
Twenty years from now, once we've all become accustomed to Sharia courts issuing binding legal decisions in Canada and people being acquitted of burglary and murder throughout Europe and Australia and the US because they're from "disadvantaged social groups", what do you suppose the odds are that we'll still all be chanting that minorities always get tougher sentences for the same crimes?
Pretty good, I'll warrant.
|
| Saturday, June 19, 2004 |
00:10 - Wrong. Bah. Sufficient.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/level_head/130347.html
|
(top) |
Zjonni pointed me at this analysis by LiveJournal user "level_head" of the miasma swirling about the Mohammed Atta/al-Ani meeting in Prague and the purported transfer of $100,000 in planning funds from Saddam to the 9/11 conspirators. It seems pretty solid; but it's over a month old, and I'm getting really sick of seeing seemingly hugely relevant stories like this get glossed over and ignored, and the charge for keeping them burning turned over to the tender mercies of the blogosphere. Where the hell are FDR's "fireside chats"? Why do we have to rely for our filtration and delivery of the news in this all-important world-shaking war on private news sources with naked biases and clear agendas? Why doesn't Bush feel it necessary to defend himself once in a while? Peh.
Anyway: this discussion still focuses to a sigh-inducing degree on the idea that attacking Iraq was a matter of revenge for 9/11, when I place a lot more importance on the aspects of the war that involve ridding the Middle East of a dictator who sought to combine the worst features of Hitler and Stalin into a single man, adding only incompetence as his own special personal touch. But if direct causality on the 9/11 axis is what makes your duck quack, it's a good thing to at least read over and ponder.
But read through the comments as well, particularly the thread started by the "no_intentions" guy. Man... what a piece of work. The way the argument ends—I'm telling you, credits need to roll.
|
| Friday, June 18, 2004 |
03:43 - What's it like, not comprehending Americans in the slightest?
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=533087
|
(top) |
Via Tim Blair, Andrew Gumbel of The Independent, regarding Paul Johnson's beheading:
Is this the horror that will finally undo George Bush's presidency?
What must go through the head of someone who can write a sentence like this? Who sees yet another Islamic terrorist atrocity committed against an American citizen (reportedly, one who was so sympathetic to Islam as to have been thinking of converting)—and can't contain his excitement that it might mean bad news for Bush?
And how is it that someone can imagine that seeing things like this will make us less willing to fight Islamic terrorism, more willing to capitulate and go home, and resolved to boot out the President on whose watch such a "horror" occurred?
It's been what, 228 years? And the wits across the pond still don't have any idea what we're like.
It's of a piece with opinionators everywhere who seem to take it as read that any bad thing that happens in Iraq—from valuables going missing from the Baghdad Museum to an IED going off in Fallujah to Abu Ghraib—is a tick mark in the column of "reasons we shouldn't have gone to Iraq."
As though the only condition under which invading Iraq was acceptable was that it would be completely effortless and bloodless and over before they had a chance to put out a new issue of Newsweek.
Listen: if my understanding of the situation is correct, to most Americans, setbacks in Iraq are an entirely different problem from the argument over whether we should or should not have invaded. I don't think any realistic-minded person in this country honestly thought there would be no bad news, no disappointments—in order to get that impression, after all, they'd have had to listen to all of Bush's and Rumsfeld's and everybody's speeches and statements and press conferences, and somehow hear the exact opposite of every word any of them ever said. (Which I guess explains how people can still get mileage out of the "Bush said Iraq posed an imminent threat!" thing, as Lewis Black did tonight. What's the weather like over in Bizarro World? How do those plastic turkeys taste?)
Abu Ghraib and the ongoing body-count and such things are setbacks we all knew were likely to happen, things we'd have to brace ourselves for. But ask yourself this: If we knew, in March last year, that Abu Ghraib was to occur a year later—would we have halted the invasion? Would it have changed our minds about the necessity of removing the regime that at the time had filled that very prison with people who were at that moment having their thumbs cut off, their tongues cut out, their arms broken, and a whole range of other creative forms of mutilation prescribed for crimes such as writing poems insufficiently obsequious toward Saddam?
Even if it were revealed to us that the military we were preparing to use in the invasion were a bunch of heartless SS shock troops, or a legion of Uruk-hai, would it have made us suddenly think that removing Saddam was no longer a worthwhile, honorable, and necessary goal?
It might make us address the problems with the military, sure. It might make us undergo a lightning-quick retraining process, costing us months of downtime and billions of dollars, as well as the element of surprise. We'd probably have done it. But would it have "invalidated" the underlying premise of the war?
No way.
Operational details about how the war would be won are an entirely separate question from whether the war should be fought at all. This is why so many Americans react with bemusement when columnists in foreign papers point at the atrocities and say, with giddy confidence, "See? See?! You were wrong to invade after all! Look what's happened!" To us, that's like saying that we shouldn't have gone to the moon because Apollo 13 later malfunctioned. It's ludicrous.
One thing we do understand, when we read an article like Gumbel's, is that people like him are more concerned with seeing Bush defeated than they are with installing democracy in the Middle East. They would rather see Saddam in power than Bush. And they'll use any news item in current events to try to drive home that point.
They'll never understand why those moronic Americans hold them in such contempt.
|
|
02:03 - Mmmm! Red meat
|
(top) |
Lewis Black is getting big.
The last time I saw him live, it was in a tiny little comedy club in Sacramento, with probably sixty or seventy people crammed into an upstairs room in a strip mall. Nobody knew who he was then; he hadn't scored his Daily Show spot or made famous his "Candy Corn" and "If it weren't for that horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college" routines. Nowadays, though, he's a big name (at least, among those who watch Comedy Central), and he's booking venues like Boise, Des Moines, and the Luther Burbank Center in Santa Rosa.
Those familiar with his schtick will tell me that I shouldn't have been surprised by the turn his routine has taken. It still follows the same script: bitch about the traffic and the local airport (a sure-fire way to endear yourself—who likes the traffic or their local airport?); make like he's about to launch into some big political theme, only take a sharp right turn and discuss something totally petty and unrelated like the Janet Jackson/Super Bowl thing; then shout expletives about the current President for a while. Of course it's all funny enough that my stomach hurt too much to eat afterwards. But still, I can't help but be a little disappointed that Lewis, like so many others in today's nihilistic world, inhabits a dimension where reality is defined by headlines that provoke shocked gut reactions, rather than the contents of the articles under the headlines, or the backstories that the articles don't see fit to tell you about. In Lewis' world of side-splitting, glib, confrontational fury:
- The recent rise of the debate over gay marriage has sent Bush "around the bend"—in Lewis' presentation, Bush said, "Those pesky States think they can just rewrite the rules like this? Well, I'll fix their wagon—I'll write a Constsitutional Amendment!" —conveniently overlooking, it seems, that little thing about 3/4 of the States having to ratify said Amendment;
- Arnold Schwarzenegger being elected Governor is proof that Californians "governed ourselves better when we were all taking drugs" (regardless of the fact that Arnie has, among much else, restored California's good credit rating)—and that if we as a State had decided we wanted to live in a movie, rather than in reality, we ought to lose our statehood;
- The 9/11 Commission announced conclusively that there was no link whatsoever between 9/11 and Saddam (which, even if it were strictly true, which it isn't, is a hideous and wilful misinterpretation of why we fought the war—if people think putting an end to Saddam's regime was about revenge for 9/11, they're shallower thinkers than I've ever given them credit for);
- Condi Rice's testimony before the Commission made less sense than if a miniature Dachshund had gone up on the podium and yapped and crapped and run away;
- All the Administration officials have spent the past three years doing nothing but making hideous, hideous mistakes—and all one can fault the driven-snow-pure Democrats for is not doing a better job of calmly pointing them out;
- The "Osama bin Laden memo" contained actionable information about the upcoming 9/11 attacks, and there was something we realistically could have done (in this world of political correctness and racial-profiling paranoia) to prevent them even if we did have specific information about the plot;
- There weren't ever any Weapons of Mass Destruction—I mean, hey, Lewis knew himself that there weren't any! And all he was doing was sitting there on his couch! How is it that he knows more than the CIA? (Except that he evidently didn't know about the Kay report, except the headlines about it—or, say, the banned missiles showing up in Dutch and Jordanian scrapyards. Don't mention those—they ruin the joke!);
- Instilling democracy in Iraq is impossible—what are we gonna do, give 'em a bunch of Civics books and make 'em take a test? Stupid wogs!
- We never had a plan for how to rebuild Iraq. We just didn't. No, of course Lewis doesn't have any evidence backing up this claim; he just says it, and we all believe it. No plan! Imagine!
- Osama bin Laden is alive and well and, apparently, hiding inside Janet Jackson's right breast;
- We invaded Iraq for oil—not to steal it, mind you, but to create instability in the Middle East so that oil companies like Exxon and Shell and Mobil could have a pretext for jacking up gas prices and making a killing (which we all know has been the Bush/Cheney grand master plan all along). This is actually his most thoughtful and plausible theory of the night, which tells you something about the caliber of material he had to work with.
I could go through all these bullets and provide the links to refute them all, but frankly I'm sick of it. I just don't have the energy for it (at least, not tonight). I've done it all before, and what I haven't, thousands of others have. I've dug into these stories, and I've developed opinions based on what I've found out. If the conclusions I've reached are diametrically opposed to what Lewis wishes to deliver comedy on, well, that's up to him. I'll grant that my conclusions aren't Comedy Central material. That's sort of the nature of things.
What irked me about the show wasn't Lewis (though his opening act, a suck-up who appeared dead-set upon grooming himself to be Lewis Black 2, complete with Lewis' material cribbed into routines of his own, is high on the list). What worried me was the audience.
I realize that raunchy comedy shows attract a certain type of demographic. You're a lot more likely to find disaffected college kids with an axe to grind against a world they're only just now realizing they have the power to try to change at a Lewis Black show, than, say, you are to find a bunch of VFW guys in wheelchairs. Besides, Santa Rosa is close enough to the Bay Area to attract swarms of college kids from all the dens of the usual suspects; indeed, as I pushed through the crowd on the way to my car, I certainly saw a preponderance of STANFORD UNIVERSITY sweatshirts and triple-punch lip piercings among the clientele. (I'll bet Boise and Des Moines were a slightly different story.) These aren't people who are going to put up with a comedian who stands up there and, say, suggests that some people might have rational reasons to oppose gay marriage, other than being troglodytic Bible-thumpers too stupid to realize that Leviticus was really just an owner's manual for the leader of a tribe of baboons. And in 2004, what could be so safe, and yet appear so brave, as standing on stage in front of thousands of comedy fans and saying it's okay to be gay?
But still, it was a bit unnerving to see quite the concentration of JOHN KERRY and IMPEACH BUSH and even DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND bumper stickers in the parking lot. As was it to hear, every time Lewis made some remark about what a shitty job Bush was doing, there was thunderous applause throughout the room of at least a couple of thousand, and the row of young adults behind me erupted into squeals of "It's true! It's so true! He's so right!", repeated every one of his punchlines gleefully to each other in high-pitched squeaks, shouted things like "Universal health care! Woooo!" to jokes about what kinds of Amendments might be more important than one banning gay marriage, or moronically yelling If it weren't for that horse...! to try to prompt him into a classic routine in the midst of the one he was doing (I'm sure he really appreciated that). These guys weren't the sharpest knives in the forehead—but there sure were a lot of them. Every one of Lewis' masterfully crafted, pitifully underinformed pieces of vein-popping bile touched off a fresh buoyant billow of cathartic bohomie that beat in on me from all sides and rolled toward the stage; he could have raised his arms against it and been wafted right to the ceiling.
Now, to Lewis' credit, he was careful to point out that for all the dumping on Bush that he was doing tonight, if we thought he was being cruel or unfair, we had only to turn back the clock a few years and see how hard he had been on Clinton. What he had a problem with, he said, was authority; whoever was in charge, that's who would be his target. Okay; fine. Whatever. At least he appears to know he's being unfair, and artificially distorting true events and facts to better suit the comedy routine. Fine.
But I'll say this. Each time he addressed those who might be troubled by his content: "Any Republicans who might be in the audience..." —I saw heads turn sharply back and forth, and heard scandalized and threatening grunts echoing from all around the room. It was, perhaps, just the teensiest bit unsettling.
Don't get me wrong: I enjoyed the show. Even if just to test my constitution; these things need testing every now and then. Like being immersed in lava will make your skin less susceptible to sunburn, or something. It was really, really funny, and the man's a genius at his art.
It just troubles me to see yet more indications that our society today will pay more attention to a well-crafted but fact-free joke than they will to a boring but balanced and realistic piece of careful analysis. Jokes, after all, are funny—therefore they're true.
So true.
|
| Thursday, June 17, 2004 |
23:50 - I promised I wouldn't, but...
|
(top) |
...Is it just me, or did tonight's "Family Guy" episode (the one where the Pope comes to visit Boston) just feature a joke about the name "Jeebus" appearing in the Bible?
Astonishing.
UPDATE: Then again... even more astonishing, I suppose, is that the FG episode in question aired before the relevant Simpsons episode. About five months before.
Not enough time for it not to be just a bizarre coincidence...
|
|
23:35 - Self-portrait
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18078/article_detail.asp
|
(top) |
I think I agree with Mike: this is some damned fine Lileks right here. More so than usual, and that's saying something.
Remember when "sincerity" was an admirable thing? When we didn't automatically assume it was a veneer over some malignant and contemptible vileness from a stupid age in the dim past? When irony and "subversiveness" were appreciated in small doses, but not presumed to be the highest possible form of art and culture?
Remember when a concept like the "Great Pumpkin" could have been written new, and people found it comprehensible?
At least somebody does.
|
| Wednesday, June 16, 2004 |
15:37 - 100% Canadian Content TV
http://ravishinglight.blogspot.com/
|
(top) |
Paul Denton has some absolutely fascinating live-blogged coverage of yesterday's Prime Ministerial debate up North. Go down to "Oratory" and scroll up.
Yeah, our system down here has its quirks; probably nine people in ten on the street couldn't explain the Electrical College. But boy oh boy, politics in Canada involve some intricacies and sand-pits that would make me run screaming whenever an election was called. Hats off to those with the fortitude to swim through it all.
|
| Sunday, June 13, 2004 |
21:51 - Quick Update
|
(top) |
The flags lining the road through New Almaden are still flying.
Half-mast, where applicable.
(I saw them from motorcycle this time, by the way; lemme tell you, Hicks Road is a trip and a half. I'll need to fill up on high-altitude photos before long.)
|
| Saturday, June 12, 2004 |
14:44 - Hell, I coulda told them that
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11361_WMD_Puzzle_Begins_to_Come_Togeth
|
(top) |
Remember that whole "rush to war" thing early last year? Where there were those who urged us to attack Saddam before he had a chance to hide or destroy his contraband, knowing how embarrassing it would be if none were discovered after the war and how hard it would be to prove he actually had them? Remember how such people were scorned as fearmongers and bloodthirsty maniacs who thought blowin' stuff up as soon as possible was more important than taking the time to "build an international coalition"?
Via LGF:
The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.
The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam’s missile and WMD program.
The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.
UNMOVIC acting executive chairman Demetrius Perricos told the council on June 9 that “the only controls at the borders are for the weight of the scrap metal, and to check whether there are any explosive or radioactive materials within the scrap,” Middle East Newsline reported.
“It’s being exported,” Perricos said after the briefing. “It’s being traded out. And there is a large variety of scrap metal from very new to very old, and slowly, it seems the country is depleted of metal.”
“The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks,” Perricos told the council. Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags.
He said the Iraqi facilities were dismantled and sent both to Europe and around the Middle East. at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month. Destionations included Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey.
But I thought there were no WMDs! I mean, the UN said so!
...Uh, wait...
(Not, again, that this matters at all to people who have understood all along that there's more to this war than frickin' WMDs. It's just kinda funny, is all. In a tragically sad kind of way.)
|
| Friday, June 11, 2004 |
13:10 - The Black Helicopter Lifecycle
http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters.html
|
(top) |
Mark O. alerts me to this site, which undoubtedly only has a short time to live and get out its all-important message before it goes offline for mysterious reasons.
Black Helicopters! Not what you think they are at all!
Heh. Nanobiotechnology, huh? Why hasn't Glenn Reynolds spoken of this? Or have they gotten to him too?!
|
| Thursday, June 10, 2004 |
21:32 - No good deed goes unpunished
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11342_UN_Springs_Into_Action
|
(top) |
All right, what possible message could the UN be trying to send with this:
The UN plans to deal with another complaint against Israel as well, though this one is much older. It concerns Israel’s air raid on Iraq’s atomic reactor no fewer than 23 years ago. The issue had been pushed off from year to year, as had many other long-forgotten issues, and the current rotating president of the UN General Assembly - a Caribbean Islands diplomat - finally decided to place the issue on the table.
. . .
Armed Israeli aggression against the [Osirak] Iraqi nuclear installations and its grave consequences for the established international system concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and international peace and security
At its forty-first session, the General Assembly called upon Israel urgently to place all its nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards in accordance with Security Council resolution 487 (1981); considered that Israel had not yet committed itself not to attack or threaten to attack nuclear facilities in Iraq or elsewhere, including facilities under Agency safeguards; reaffirmed that Iraq was entitled to compensation for the damage it had suffered as a result of the Israeli armed attack on 7 June 1981; and requested the Conference on Disarmament to continue negotiations with a view to reaching an immediate conclusion of the agreement on the prohibition of military attacks on nuclear facilities as a contribution to promoting and ensuring the safe development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (resolution 41/12).
...Other than, "We like Saddam better than Israel"?
The sheer brazenness with which the UN is trying to convince the world of its shameless agenda is simply astonishing. I guess they know there's no consequences, so why not become the Legion of Doom?
UPDATE: By the way—"A Caribbean Islands diplomat", huh? <cough>Cuba<cough> Right. Nice of these guys to be so clear about who's demanding what.
|
|
12:55 - Oh boy, WMDs
|
(top) |
I don't normally post stuff from Stratfor, because a) it's typically under a for-pay umbrella and not something I'd feel comfortable reposting on a blog, and b) Stratfor is held in some suspicion by a lot of analysts, whether justly or not. But this bit is just a half-page brief, and I have something to say about it, so here:
U.N.: WMD Equipment Found? June 10, 2004 1501 GMT
Acting Chief U.N. Inspector Demetrius Perricos told the U.N. Security Council on June 9 that equipment used for producing weapons of mass destruction -- including 20 engines from banned Iraqi missiles -- were found in a Jordanian scrap yard. A similar discovery was recently made in the Netherlands. U.N. weapons inspectors believe the metal can be used both for legitimate purposes and for creating banned weapons. Perricos said, "The only controls at the borders are for the weight of the metal, and to check whether there are any explosive or radioactive materials within the scrap." Inspectors do not know whether the items were at the sites during the Iraq war, or looters sold them as scrap.
Hooray. All right. Huzzah.
But you know... even if such links are proven, it'll be a hollow victory, because all it will serve to do is answer people's bilious claims that the war was all about WMDs, which if nonexistent rendered the war "invalid" or "illegal". It wouldn't do anything to convince people that the war was necessary in a much bigger sense, WMDs or no WMDs—that arguing semantics over how many missiles of so-and-so range were allowed to Saddam, or whether they were built post-1991 or properly declared to the UN, completely misses the point of why we actually fought this thing (e.g. to bring about widespread revolution against autocracy throughout the Middle East), and why there will be—must be—more targets than just Iraq.
The doubters have managed to turn the discussion from "spreading freedom and democracy, which in turn smothers terrorism in its cradle" to "Well, okay, there's sarin and buried jet fighters and scrapped missiles, but if you can't produce a warehouse full of nukes, the whole war was just an illegal and opportunistic oil-grab that exploited post-9/11 paranoia". And that, coupled with Bush's lack of energy in getting the real message out and publicly refuting his opponents (though not all of that is his fault), is going to cause far more damage to the conviction we once had toward winning the war than any military defeat ever could.
Another case of something whose global significance is lost because people won't stop harping on the least interesting and most damaging aspects of it.
|
| Wednesday, June 9, 2004 |
18:54 - There's no pleasing some people
|
(top) |
All right, Comic Artists of the World: What would make you happy? Huh?

The handover of "sovereignty" is a sham! No, wait—the handover is premature and guarantees failure!
Make up your frickin' minds, will you?!
|
|
16:03 - What a difference a President makes
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/22564.htm
|
(top) |
Via VodkaPundit—this look at how bad our military was in the 70s, and how good it became in the 80s, is definitely worth reading. For its historical perspective from our 21st-century vantage point as much as for anything else.
This isn't the kind of article that will sway anyone who thinks that an army is a fundamentally ugly, dirty thing that we should keep hidden under a tarp lest we appear insufficiently meek and friendly to the rest of the world. But for people who do understand the importance of morale, leadership, standards of conduct, and true greatness and reputation in the barracks and on the battlefield, it's quite a stirring thing. When things are getting better every day, nobody likes a doomsayer.
Which brings me to my confession. Having grown up in the late '60s and early '70s, I carried some of my generation's prejudices along with me into the Army. While I realized that Jimmy Carter had been an inept president (if a good man), I didn't support Ronald Reagan in 1980. I believed that Carter remained the safer of two mediocrities. I bought into the bigotry of those who mocked Reagan as lacking the intelligence to be president.
And it's doubtless true that he didn't possess the highest IQ ever to enter the White House. That goes directly to what Reagan taught me: As we recently saw with another president, the greatest intelligence isn't a substitute for vision, courage and leadership. Above all, a president needs good instincts, guts and sound values. The world's overstocked with brilliant people who never get anything done.
Exactly. Or brilliant people who are diabolically evil.
I've long since given up considering "intelligence" to be the greatest hallmark of a person's character.
|
|
10:59 - The press writes the history books
http://nerepublican.blogspot.com/2004/06/tom-brokaw-interviews-president-bush.html
|
(top) |
Let's not be having any more skepticism that the major media are clutched in the grip of people who have an active interest in seeing America lose the war—or at least in defeating Bush.
This is a Tom Brokaw interview with Bush, in both transcript and video form. NE Republican has painstakingly highlighted some very eye-opening pieces of explanatory verbage in Bush's answers to Brokaw's questions—verbage that would have helped him make his case to the American people a lot more effectively, if only Brokaw or his editors hadn't chopped it out.
References to Zarqawi and Abu Nadal are completely removed even though they are examples of a terrorist connection in Iraq. This is important information that needs to be repeated to the American people but is filtered right out of the President's message. Don't tell me that those two sentences were edited out for time constraints either, as they were very short.
"All the news that's fit to print" indeed. Don't tell me there isn't censorship in America today.
|
| Tuesday, June 8, 2004 |
16:32 - Stupid pedantic Muggles
http://tomfranck.blogdrive.com/comments?id=27
|
(top) |
Yeah, well, we all knew that Quidditch didn't make any sense. But I guess it was only a matter of time before someone did a full analysis of just how little sense it makes...
|
|
14:23 - I guess the party's over
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&e=2&u=/ap/20040608/ap_on_re_eu/i
|
(top) |
Aww. So much for all that oil that we went to Iraq in order to steal.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi officials declared Tuesday that the interim government has assumed full control of the country's oil industry ahead of the June 30 handover of sovereignty from the U.S.-led occupation administration.
"Today the most important natural resource has been returned to Iraqis to serve all Iraqis," Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said. "I'm pleased to announce that full sovereignty and full control on oil industry has been handed over to the oil ministry today and to the new Iraqi government as of today."
The announcement came as Allawi and Oil Minister Thamir Ghadbhan toured the al-Doura oil refinery in southern Baghdad.
After meeting and shaking hands with the refinery workers, the two ministers thanked oil sector workers.
"We are totally now in control, there are no more advisers," Ghadbhan said. "We are running the show, the oil policies will be implemented 100 percent by Iraqis."
Damn! And I was so enjoying the historically low gas prices to which we've all become accustomed ever since the invasion.
Via LGF.
|
| Monday, June 7, 2004 |
01:13 - The sad part is...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11308_Haters_Converge_in_SF
|
(top) |
This guy:
...will tell you, quite earnestly, that he's marching for peace.
And further, that America is a Nazi police state in which Muslims are being sent daily to the camps.
Sweet merciful crap, there are things wrong with this world.
|
| Sunday, June 6, 2004 |
21:17 - Expensive week
|
(top) |
So this past week, short as it was, marked the doing-at-last of a piece of renovation that the house has demanded for more than a year.
Hint: It's what Stephen Green is also doing right now, though it certainly sounds as thought my HELOC (which I got as a standard part of my mortgage, through E*Trade Mortgage, a company that—judging by Green's horror story—I now realize is one that I can wholeheartedly recommend) has involved a whole lot less heartache.
The only kind I have is the kind that accompanies a near-depleted bank account. But ah well. It was worth it.
Here's why:

That's what the kitchen looked like upon move-in, one year ago. Who in Almighty Bob's name thought a light blue kitchen could possibly serve any purpose but to nauseate its occupants?
Right away we knew it needed to go, somehow, fast. So we took off all the doors and drawers and painted the cabinets green, and there it sat for a year. Sure, it was less than convenient, and not a little ugly. But the horror of the memory of the blue cabinets was enough to make it worth it.
 
But now those are just "before" pictures. Behold the finished (well, almost) product!
 
I swear, it's like being on a different planet, especially after a year of the green door-less cabinet skeleton.
Remaining work includes: repairing the jagged edge of the countertop tile above the dishwasher (we had to break the edge to get the machine into place, as it was just a mite too tall to squeeze in on top of the hardwood floor and under the tile lip); some final baseboard sanding and painting; and this:
When this is all done, it'll have a butcher-block countertop, a mirror (or mirror-tile) back face and sides, and a wine-glass rack attached between the hanging cabinets. True, it doesn't provide as much storage space as the pantry which used to inhabit this nook; but it'll hold lots of 2-liter bottles, and frankly we need the liquor-cabinet configuration a lot more than we need dry-goods storage space (especially if we manage to keep ourselves from accumulating crap we don't need).
It's a small kitchen, but that just means we get the fun of working in a space budget. And now it can hardly be said that this kitchen is an unpleasant place to be, eh?
Ow... my wallet hurts.
|
|
18:44 - Take it like a man
|
(top) |
When I hear stories like the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, or the FBI's wrongly apprehending and interrogating Brandon Mayfield as a material witness in the Madrid bombing, at first I naturally have the same reaction that just about anybody in this country can be expected to have: Well, that just sucks. Someone's head should roll.
But there are those who, once that initial shock wears off, make a certain logical leap: that a country or a government that can make such mistakes is clearly no better than, say, Saddam's Baathists. After all, we commit the same atrocities! We spirit away innocent people into the night! What claim to we have to the moral high ground?
But that's not the reaction I have. Maybe it's because I have a certain naďve optimism, the kind of feeling that "the best is yet to come" for America, like Ronald Reagan believed and exuded all through his presidency. My reaction, though, to these pieces of unequivocal bad news is always one almost of gratitude. Because I know that the way we respond to these kinds of demoralizing developments is far more important and self-defining than the developments themselves, and each such incident is an opportunity for us to prove once again what kind of people we are.
In short, I would never presume to claim that America never makes mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. Everybody on Earth is, after all, only human. It isn't some sort of preternatural infallibility that defines Americans; I'd imagine that we don't make any more or any fewer mistakes of this type than anybody else on the planet. But every time we do, we stand to account for them.
Look at the Mayfield case, for example. We mistakenly picked him up because the FBI's fingerprint-matching system reported a false-positive match. But once we had him in custody, and once the truth came out that he wasn't our man—think about how easy it would have been to simply have had him "disappeared", as the Nazis or the Soviets or the Baathists would have done. Think how easy it is to make 200 pounds of human, guilty or innocent, disappear without a trace. Think how simple it would have been to fabricate evidence proving we were right to pick him up; after all, Mayfield was a Muslim convert who did have connections to the "Portland Seven" conspirators. Imagine how little effort the FBI would have had to put in if they'd decided to spare themselves the embarrassment of having to admit in public that they'd made a mistake. In front of a country that knows full well that there are terrorists hiding in plain sight within our borders, living duplicitous lives to camouflage their true intentions until whatever day they're called upon to lash out at the nation whose laws protect them like none other on Earth, such a maneuver—underhanded and despicable, but historically popular as it is—would have been terribly easy to perfom. No one would ever have been the wiser.
But that's not what we did. The FBI released Mayfield, apologized to him, and vowed to review its fingerprint-analysis systems. And when Mayfield mounted the podium to denounce the United States government for leading the kind of witch-hunt against innocent Muslims that so many people insist is in fact happening, the FBI merely kicked at its heels, head down, and said "We're sowwy."
Which is also what happened with Abu Ghraib. Military commanders from the culpable unit all the way up to the Commander-In-Chief went on public record and international TV with shame-faced apologies, submitting themselves to public scrutiny and military investigation. It would have been easy to denounce the now-ubiquitous human-pyramid photos as frauds or forgeries; it would have been child's play to cover up any culpability in our ranks. But instead, we've shown the Iraqi people what it looks like when authority figures take blame upon themselves rather than do whatever it takes to preserve an illusion of perfection, like they've been used to seeing for the past thirty years.
Everybody makes mistakes. Only some, however, own up to them.
What defines America is a fundamental trust in our fellow citizens, a trust that those whom we elect to positions of power won't take undue advantage of us. For the most part, the people we elect to those positions recognize that trust as the highest authority over them in our political system—and they'll take upon themselves whatever burden is necessary for any transgression to be made good. Not painted over or whited out: made good.
The fact that we do this, voluntarily, naturally makes America look more fallible to the rest of the world than those powers in our past and present whose primary goal is to perpetuate a sense of infallibility. That's only natural. But it's an error of judgment to assume that the number of abuses and mistakes that we hear about Americans making is comparable, in a vacuum, to the number of abuses and mistakes that other governments allow their peoples to find out about.
We know mistakes are inevitable. But when they happen, we know how to solve the problem: We stand up and accept the world's judgment. We take it like a man. We won't stand for being judged on unfair grounds, or for having all our people tarred by the actions of an isolated few; but to the extent that fairness and common sense allow, we view mistakes as opportunities for us to improve ourselves, not as nails in our own coffins. We believe that the best policy is to allow the light of day to shine on the truth, because we feel we'll be vindicated once all is known. We don't fear the truth. We have nothing to hide from history.
That's what Ronald Reagan believed, and that's why partisans Left and Right—except for the few who inhabit the deep dark fringes—remember him today with the same honor we accord to the D-Day soldiers. They fought toward the same ideal; and that's something that all Americans feel in their bones.
Reagan wouldn't have been pleased to hear the news out of Abu Ghraib or Portland. But he'd have accepted no other actions in their wakes than the steps we've taken: showing that a government that holds itself publicly accountable for the mistakes it makes is not imperiled, but in fact makes itself and the people it governs ever stronger.
|
| Saturday, June 5, 2004 |
16:28 - The human race must be destroyed!
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0403/feingold.php
|
(top) |
Everybody's linking to this, with progressively larger and larger excerpts wherever I find it. So, hey, me too:
No U.S. president, I expect, will ever appoint a Secretary of the Imagination. But if such a cabinet post ever were created, and Richard Foreman weren’t immediately appointed to it, you’d know that the Republicans were in power. Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don’t give a hoot about human beings, either can’t or won’t. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.
That's from the opening paragraph of a theater review in The Village Voice.
Where it'll be read by people who, even if they don't particularly agree with the writer's sentiments, will smirk and chuckle and nod rather than write outraged letters to the editor.
At what point can we conclude that whatever mental illness has gripped the far Left over the past few years has finally metastasized into the fertile fields of the mainstream?
Ye gods. Unbelievable.
|
| Thursday, June 3, 2004 |
22:39 - The Roland Emmerich Congress
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/02/congress.continuity.ap/index.html
|
(top) |
So it seems the Doomsday Contingency has been voted down.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Determined to remain elected representatives, House lawmakers on Wednesday rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have allowed governors to name replacements if half the 435-member chamber died in a terrorist attack or other disaster.
Opponents said the House should never abandon direct election. Lawmakers supporting the amendment said that without the succession plan, the House would expose itself to a lengthy period of powerlessness should hundreds of members die at the same time.
"We feel very, very passionately about the need to ensure that no one ever serves in the 'people's house' without having first being elected," said Republican Rep. David Dreier of California, chairman of the House Rules Committee and critic of the amendment.
Rep. Brian Baird wrote the amendment to keep the House functioning with appointees until special elections could be held to restore depleted numbers. `Elections are sacred, but so too is representation," said Baird, D-Washington
His proposal was defeated 353-63, well short of the two-thirds needed to approve a constitutional amendment.
To me, there are genuine points on both sides, as tends to be the case in arguments over rather extraordinary circumstances. Yes, it's very important to hold to the principles of our governmental structure—Constitutional amendments have been ratified purely to tidy up trivialities in things like the succession of power during election season. But then again, it can hardly be denied that if a 747 were to plow through the House of Representatives, it would be no time to fret over whether the ten legislators left alive constituted a quorum for a vote on a war resolution, or whether they should be allowed to appoint some replacements to fill a few crushed and flaming seats.
The cynical or unhinged might say that the very proposal of the amendment is just so much more proof of a widespread shadowy conspiracy to stage terrorist attacks to freak the American people into voting dictatorial powers to the government. But perhaps the fact that it's been voted down now, and by a pretty bloody wide margin, might be construed as evidence that such a conspiracy has just been dealt a pretty serious blow—or maybe doesn't exist at all.
Like I said, there are real arguments both for and against the proposal. That it's been defeated doesn't horribly worry me, nor does it particularly relieve me. It does, however, further affirm to me that our government is capable of displaying remarkable restraint and integrity. Faced with an opportunity to quite justifiably vote themselves more (undemocratic) power, our Representatives overwhelmingly turned it down.
There's got to be some reassurance in that.
|
|
17:46 - Where credit is due
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040601-2.html
|
(top) |
From the transcript of the Q&A session following Bush's speech on Tuesday:
Q Given the perception --
THE PRESIDENT: I'm converting this into a full-blown press conference; it's such a beautiful day. (Laughter.) Do I get credit for it? (Laughter.)
Q Absolutely.
I doubt the questioner meant it, though.
It's a shame, because it's a good glimpse into how the Moron of the Century operates extemporaneously under fire.
|
|
17:22 - L'expatrié
|
(top) |
Follow-on to the French co-worker thing:
Today was the all-hands meeting where he introduced himself to the company. We all are supposed to sing at our introductions; he demurred and opted for an original poem instead, which read, in part:
Why, what's that stench? Can it be one of those French?
Yes, yes, I was born in France; But please, give me a chance.
. . .
The following things French can never be: Fries, toast, and Mr. John Kerry.
Snicker. Hey, welcome aboard.
|
|
11:19 - Nothing to write about, he says
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0604/060304.html
|
(top) |
And somehow, that's how you always know something good's coming.
Who, in 2004, can look at world where some madmen want to shove a crescent down our throats and decide that the most important thing they’re going to do is take the crosses off the city seal?
The crosses represent California’s history - but of course that’s no defense. History, alas, is full of inconvenient details. History can offend. The mere recognition of a historical truth can offend. Apparently that’s the worst thing you can do nowadays: offend. But it has to be a particular kind of offense. Lenny Bruce was celebrated for offending the right people, and this enshrined the act of offending as some sort of brave stance against The Man, The Grey-Flannel Suited Establishment, the whole Ike-Nixon Axis of Medieval, the straights. Gotta offend the straights or you’re not doing your job. The only function the bourgeouise have is to sit there with their mouths open, Shocked. If they’re having a good time, someone’s not doing his job.
Only the subversive kind of offensiveness is acceptable.
That sentence would make no sense whatsoever to Jefferson.
|
|
11:07 - Let high schoolers and undergraduates educate you
|
(top) |
I'm endlessly glad that the college I went to was as apolitical as it was.
Just think if I'd sent my application essays elsewhere:
"If anybody has a mortarboard, you can move your tassels from right to left, right to left, which is what I hope happened to your politics in the last four years." George Washington University president Stephen Trachtenberg, at a graduation ceremony
And don't forget to take the Peace Test, evidently aimed at college students, which examines your opinions as to whether military action or killing are ever justified, and then renders a judgment upon you as to how susceptible you are to being "'programmed' for moral disengagement in support of military action" or "easily persuaded to support war without giving it much thought". It then provides you with re-education resources to "boost your moral engagement" and "strengthen your resistance".
As Raoul Ortega says in the LGF comments:
At what point will the Looney Left figure out that insulting people, even when disguised as the "social cognitive theory of moral disengagement," is not a good way to pursuade people to support their views?
And Hhar:
Great. It says I need to hang out with highschool students and undergraduates in order to elevate my conciousness about war and killing things. I'm just so manipulable.
Morons. When I was a highschool student my conciousness was elevated to their liking. Then I did something that adolescents all around the world are supposed to do. I grew the *&%^ up.
"The truth shall make you free" is the motto of my alma mater. Elsewhere, it seems, college is a mental prison from which only a few truly escape.
|
|
09:48 - Well, I like him
http://www.sgthook.com/blog/oldblog/000603.php
|
(top) |
There are those who say, "Well, you may not like Bush personally, but you shouldn't vote for the guy you like better—rather, for who you think would do the better job, and voting for Bush on that basis shouldn't be construed as voting for the man's personality." And that's fine; that's valid. That's the basis on which I'll be voting.
But you know... I have yet to see a reason to dislike Bush on a personal level. I mean, isn't the stereotype of the Republican one of a haughty, plutocratic, top-hat-and-cane-bearing, spittle-flinging Bible-waver who won't let his daughter date a brotha from the wrong side of the tracks, let alone mingle with the commoners who can't afford to get into his country club, or the myrmidons he orders heartlessly into battle?
Character does matter, as Sgt. Hook concludes. And I think this guy's character is an area where he leads his opponent by such a margin that he's lapping him.
Just another anecdote to add to the list of stories of a guy who prioritizes things like comforting 9/11 victims' relatives, putting himself at risk of life and limb to visit soldiers on the front lines for Thanksgiving, undertaking a tailhook carrier landing to greet sailors whom he asks to take that risk on a daily basis, and—perhaps most importantly of all:
...Buying iPods for his daughters.
(Via Tim Blair and JMH.)
|
| Wednesday, June 2, 2004 |
13:50 - Uh-oh, Hobbes! She's stumbled into the perimeter of wisdom!
http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/2004/06/02/
|
(top) |
Is realization dawning?
I doubt it.
|
|
10:43 - Nails in the coffin
http://www.yourish.com/archives/2004/may30-june5_2004.html#2004053102
|
(top) |
In case I ever feel a twinge of sympathy for or desire to re-acknowledge the credibility of the UN, all I have to do is read the news.
Israeli Channel Ten television broadcast video footage this week showing armed Palestinians using UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Work Agency) ambulances to flee Israeli forces operating in the Gaza Strip.
The television report, filmed in Gaza City's Zeitoun neighborhood on May 11, on the same night the first IDF armored personnel carrier was destroyed, killing six Israeli soldiers, clearly showed armed Palestinians boarding a UN-marked ambulance with a UN flag, and fleeing the scene.
The Channel Ten reporter stressed that this was not a Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance, known to have transported armed Palestinians in the past, but rather a supposedly neutral ambulance of the UN.
Not that Red Crescent ambulances transporting terrorists ought to be looked at with any less horror. But remember that this comes after UNRWA commissioner Peter Hansen demanded that Israel apologize for the "damaging and baseless allegations" that this is what internationally-protected UN ambulance drivers do under the fluttering blue laurels.
They're on the other side. Get them the hell out of Manhattan.
|
|
10:32 - Unrepentant liars
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_05_30_dish_archive.ht
|
(top) |
Andrew Sullivan has a must-read synopsis of Howell Raines' Guardian column, in which not only does the former New York Times editor's mask of "impartiality" slip, it may as well never have existed (if it did at all).
As matters now stand, Kerry has assured the DLC, "I am not a redistributionist Democrat." That's actually a good start. Using that promise as disinformation, he must now figure out a creative way to become a redistributionist Democrat.
So the aim is to deceive voters about what you want to do. This might be amusing coming from a Dick Morris or a Karl Rove. But didn't Raines spend a year and a half lacerating the Bush administration for, er, lying? And now he thinks it's an essential tool for governance? Not all Bush-haters are as dumb or as crude as Raines. But it's useful to see how decadent the left-liberal mind can be in one of its more prominent exemplars. The American people are stupid, craven greed-hounds; lying is good if you can get away with it; American capitalism is a rotten, hollow promise; and even the Democrats refuse to take the advice of the few enlightened people who can help them, like Howell Raines. Well, that makes one thing to be grateful about.
|
| Tuesday, June 1, 2004 |
20:39 - The life of a frog—that's the life for me
http://www.lanuevacuba.com/nuevacuba/jchao-17eng.htm
|
(top) |
Also via JMH—Jesús J. Chao, writing for La Nueva Cuba (a primarily hispanohablante site for the exiled Cuban interest, and therefore apparently translated less-than-perfectly from Spanish), dissects the French with at least one searing zinger per paragraph.
There was an historical moment in which the character and moral fiber of the French people was defined. After the defeat of the Germans and their retreat from France the American and British had the courtesy to allow General De Gaulle along with his meager troops to enter Paris at the head the triumphal Victory parade.
Nevertheless, very soon afterwards De Gaulle decided to extricate France from the military Pact of the North Atlantic Pact between Western Europe and the United States that secured the peace and freedom in that part of Europe, saving them from falling under the Soviet boot as it happened to the East Europeans countries.
De Gaulle, in a bout typical of French arrogance, or perhaps to appease the Soviet Union and the very powerful French communists in control of much the bureaucracy, demanded the immediate shut down of the American bases in France and the return of the troops to United States.
Eisenhower, with great dignity, responded: " General, it is going to take some time to exhume all our dead soldiers from the soil of France."
We should have got started then. I guess it's not too late, either.
żWhat is your opinion on France's scientific research crisis?
H.R.H. Caroline responded: "It is deplorable. There is veritable scarcity. We are witnessing an intelligence flight. That is impoverishing the scientific and intellectual life. Sometimes it is necessary for a scientist to wait three months in order to have access to a microscope in a research laboratory. Those instruments frequently cost near 450,000 euros; so, there is only one per university, or one for almost 1,000 researchers, who are forced to wait in order to proceed with their experiments."
This is the legacy of socialism. This is the famous European socialized medicine. This is France, a country that allowed their old citizens to die without family or government assistance during a heat wave last summer. It was vacation time and the old folks were left behind in their city apartments under searing heat, and their children, doctors and nurses went on vacation to enjoy and relax.
That sacred time could not be interrupted, not even to save the lives of their own parents or to claim the corpses of those who died and were placed in funeral homes and food storage buildings waiting for weeks to be claimed and buried.
A French couple might spend 200 euros for a dinner in a not very luxurious restaurant; but they will not spend 300 euros in an air conditioning unit for making their parents' life more comfortable.
I spend Tuesdays lately eating lunch with a group of co-workers, one of whom is from France. I can't yet divine much of his opinions one way or the other; but when he regales the rest of us with tales of the glorious 35-hour workweek, the month of August that apparently all of Europe takes off, the automatic 28 days per year of nationally-mandated vacation time for all French workers, and the myriad three-day weekends that fall at least twice per month (the first thing he said today, grinning, was "So when is our next three-day weekend?" To which I could only answer, "Hell if I know"), there are those who give him an all too appreciative audience. "Geez, we've got a long way to go in this country!" one co-worker fawningly told him. "That sounds like such a great place to live."
In the interest of not turning a pleasant lunch hour sour, I didn't say, "Sure, as long as you're not an old person, or a traveller in De Gaulle Airport."
I know it can't be nuance that's restraining my tongue. Surely not. I'm sure I'm the simplistic one, after all. And the guy simpering over the joys of a nation that considers leisure and sleep more noble than that vulgar, "Anglo-Saxon" concept of working hard for an honest living—I'm sure he's the one who's got it all figured out.
|
|
11:52 - It only gets better
|
(top) |
Some months ago, I noted an online Flash game involving a Yeti, penguins, a big wooden club, and range markers. It was extremely well animated and sickeningly addictive.
But that was just the beginning. According to Mark O., it was "a bit of a pump-primer for a new gaming company that turned up at E3 this year".
Here is their site: Yeti Sports. Four awesome Flash games that you'll wish you'd never started playing, because you won't be able to stop.
Of course, the same cannot quite be said of The Anti-Bush Online Adventure (thanks to James A. for throwing himself on this grenade). It's a "fun and fact-filled adventure about the most appalling Presidency in the history of the United States". In which Bush is aided by Voltron in order to rape the Statue of Liberty, and the corporate pigdogs feeding at Bush's trough are referred to as "lobbiests".
I love getting my education through computers!
UPDATE: Then again, there's always this (thanks to JMH for reminding me). You know, maybe there is something to this whole "impressionable youth" thing—if it comes down to "making patriotism hip through video games", well, I guess that's what worked for recycling and saving the whales and hating big corporations...
|
|
11:04 - Ladies and Gentlemen, the next President of the United States
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/31/225546.shtml
|
(top) |
Good Lord, Kerry needs some handlers. Or to be frozen in carbonite until election day.
Ted Sampley, a former Green Beret who served two full tours in Vietnam, spotted Kerry and his Secret Service detail at about 9:00 a.m. Monday morning at the Wall. Sampley walked up to Kerry, extended his hand and said, "Senator, I am Ted Sampley, the head of Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry, and I am here to escort you away from the Wall because you do not belong here."
At that point a Secret Service officer told Sampley to back away from Kerry. Sampley moved about 6 feet away and opened his jacket to reveal a HANOI JOHN T-shirt.
Kerry then began talking to a group of schoolchildren. Sampley then showed the T-shirt to the children and said, "Kerry does not belong at the Wall because he betrayed the brave soldiers who fought in Vietnam."
Just then Kerry - in front of the school children, other visitors and Secret Service agents - brazenly 'flashed the bird' at Sampley and then yelled out to everyone, "Sampley is a felon!"
On Memorial Day, no less.
I want my tax dollars to stop paying for this asshole's Secret Service detail. Right now.
|
|
10:54 - Rosy Palme D'or
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200406\POL20040601a.
|
(top) |
Via Den Beste:
As Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess, two senators may need to revise one of their harshest critiques about the Bush administration's actions in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, especially now that Bush critic Richard Clarke has contradicted one of his own key statements.
It turns out that President Bush and other top members of his administration had nothing to do with the decision to let members of Osama bin Laden's family depart the United States in the days immediately after 9/11, despite the suggestions of Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer of California and Charles Schumer of New York.
Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism official and author of a recent book blasting the Bush administration's handling of intelligence leading up to the terrorist attacks, told The Hill newspaper last week that he gave the go-ahead for two members of the bin Laden family and other Saudi nationals to leave the U.S.
"It didn't get any higher than me," Clarke told The Hill. "I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again."
Since this was the whole premise for Fahrenheit 9/11, I wonder if Michael Moore will issue a sequel with a retraction.
Or if Cannes has any mechanism for revocation of awards.
Or if anyone involved gives the tiniest crap.
|
| Monday, May 31, 2004 |
00:38 - It's a conspiracy 'cause I say it's a conspiracy
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11225_Fighting_Music_of_World_War_II
|
(top) |
Charles Johnson says:
Has anyone noticed that, in the three years since the US homeland suffered its worst attack in history, Hollywood has not produced one single film that advocates the American side in the War On Islamic Fascism?
Yes, in fact I had noticed that.
I'd noticed that this summer's huge blockbusters, the first summer crop conceived and shot in the post-9/11 world, include (so far) a Trojan War epic by a director who sees it as analogous to the disastrous Iraq war, an incoherent global-warming diatribe, and (once it hits screens) a "documentary" beloved by the French that all but accuses Bush of piloting the 9/11 planes himself. I'd noticed that there hasn't been an Arab, Muslim, or Muslim country portrayed in any kind of negative light (let alone in connection with terrorism) since True Lies.
But forget about that. Forget. Forget.
America is locked in a vortex of all-encompassing jingoism that pervades our entire pop culture and political discourse, stifling all dissent from the approved party line of racist, McCarthyist state-approved terrorism both at home and abroad.
Forget. Forget.
Now doesn't it feel better without all those nasty facts in the way?
|
| Saturday, May 29, 2004 |
20:36 - Vast Omnipotent Conspiracy Brought Low By JavaScript
http://www.spymac.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=65219
|
(top) |
Marcus found this one.
Go to this site, a German Mac-rumor site's forum. Take a moment to ponder the ineffable mysteries of the crossing of topics you see.
Then try to vote in the poll.
Update your dictionary's definition of "irony" accordingly.
|
| Friday, May 28, 2004 |
02:44 - Wow, he speaks in complete sentences and everything
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/121/51.0.html
|
(top) |
Newsweek, judging by last week's issue and its cover story on the Left Behind series of Armageddon novels, would have us believe that the books serve as an echo and an amplification of "the born-again President Bush's apocalyptic rhetoric". It's mostly just sort of taken for granted, by the journalists in question and by many people I know, that Bush mounts the dais every week and shouts incoherent, monosyllabic fire and brimstone to the chanting masses, waving a Bible and pounding the lectern as a heavenly choir sings and a beam of light pours in on him from a high window.
I just can't seem to reconcile that, though, with the transcripts of the things Bush actually says. Like in this Christianity Today interview (via LGF), where he answers a string of quite probing questions—on everything from faith to the 2000 elections to Abu Ghraib—with aplomb, humor, and a fully articulated noun and verb in every sentence.
There are things people could easily pick apart, such as the inevitable disagreement from people who take exception to the idea of a no-gay-marriage amendment. But you'd think that if there was one place where Bush would feel secure spouting apocalyptic proclamations, it'd be here, wouldn't it?
You'd think.
|
|
23:21 - Yeah, that's what we need
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/031233074X/qid=1085811286/sr=1-1/ref=s
|
(top) |
Recommended by Newsweek, so you know it's gotta be good.
I love the customer recommendations. "Friends don't let friends vote Republican, not when THESE are the Republicans. Sad thing is, the book isn't exaggerating one bit."
And check out how the comment-ratings breakdowns go. The only comment that expresses disgust at the book gets a "2 out of 42" helpfulness rating; whereas the rest of the slavering, fawning 6/5 star ones are all unanimously agreed with.
My God, some people are angry. And they have no idea what they're angry at.
|
|
17:45 - Crying Wolf
|
(top) |
Denny's is known for being rather pathologically racist in its hiring practices across the country, a tendency which has earned the chain a lot of negative name/brand association and a lot of people who refuse to eat there on principle.
It would be a shame, then, wouldn't it, if this turned out to be for real, huh?
Samuel Mac, manager of the Denny's in Avon, isn't happy with the response he got from the FBI when he reported that two [al Qaeda suspects] ate at his restaurant Wednesday.
When he called the FBI in Washington, D.C., Mac said the man who answered the telephone said he had to call the Denver office and declined to take down any of the information.
When he called the Denver office, he was shuttled to voice mail because the agents were busy, Mac said. It was five hours before a seemingly uninterested agent called back.
Mac said two men - he subsequently identified them from their photographs as Adnan G. El Shukrijumah and Abderraouf Jdey - came into Denny's, which is just off Interstate 70, about 8 p.m.
One ordered a chicken sandwich and a salad, the other just a salad, Mac said. They were demanding, rude and obnoxious, he said.
They said they were from Iran and were driving from New York to the West Coast.
When the FBI agent called him back, she took a few notes and said she would pass the information along to the field agents, according to Mac.
I can hazard a guess why the FBI didn't leap at the opportunity to call him back.
|
|
15:56 - I'm sure it's nothing
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP72304
|
(top) |
Or I'm sure we've brought this all on ourselves, or something.
Hassan Abbasi, a top Iranian "intelligence theoretician", via MEMRI and LGF:
"'(President Muhammad) Khatami speaks of the dialogue between civilizations, and I have grave doubts about this. It is a dubious idea. We do not want to take over the British Embassy, since they (the British) have already cleared the embassy of documents; we must take over Britain [itself].'
"After [H.A.] harshly attacked Khatami and the reformists, he said in his speech: 'The West sees us as terrorists, and depicts our strategy as terrorism and repression. Had our youth agreed to Khatami's teachings and interpretations, it would never have fought the arrogance, and would never have defended the holy places – because Khatami speaks always of being conciliatory, of patience, and of rejecting terrorism, while we defend [the line of] toughness and war against the enemies of revolutionary Islam. I take pride in my actions that cause anxiety and fear to the Americans.
"'Haven't the Jews and the Christians achieved their progress by means of toughness and repression? We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilizationand for the uprooting of the Americans and the English.
"'Our missiles are now ready to strike at their civilization, and as soon as the instructions arrive from Leader ['Ali Khamenei], we will launch our missiles at their cities and installations. Our motto during the war (in Iraq) was: Karbala, we are coming, Jerusalem, we are coming. And because of Khatami's policies and dialogue between the civilizations, we have been compelled to freeze our plan to liberate the Islamic cities. And now we are [again] about to carry out the program.'
"In his speech, he added: 'The global infidel front is a front against Allah and the Muslims, and we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front, by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them.'
"In another part of his speech, he emphasized, 'If Israel dares attack the [nuclear] installations at Bushehr, our losses will be very low, because [only] one structure will be destroyed – while we [i.e., Iran] have means of attacking Israel's nuclear facilities and arsenals such that no trace of Israel will remain.'"
Boy, I'm sure glad Mohammed ElBaradei and the UN have assured us that Iran doesn't actually have any nukes.
|
|
10:03 - And knowing is half the battle
http://www.techcentralstation.com/052704B.html
|
(top) |
Via InstaPundit—here's a TCS column that's music to my ears:
Bad cartoons tend to make bad citizens. And my generation suffered from the worst cartoons of all. Pity the poor male children of Generation X: there we sat, on Saturday mornings in the '70s and early '80s, clutching our bowls of Count Chocula and enduring the soul-sucking monotony of ugly Filmation cartoons populated by heroes who fought without actually fighting. You could watch cartoons for hours and never see a superhero actually sock a supervillain in the gut, or a commando pump hot lead into a live non-robot terrorist, or a ranger thrust a pointy-sharp arrow into some dragon's malevolent guts. Preachy mini-sermons abounded, though; the Super Friends couldn't lay a gloved fist on Lex Luthor, but they could sure manhandle those sugary in-between-meals snacks. ("Super Friends," they called them, instead of the Justice League. The difference tells you everything you need to know about the seventies.)
Consequently, we Gen Xers grew up achingly bereft of simulated mayhem and destruction. We turned to cap guns, stick fights, and dodgeball to meet our aggressive needs, but it wasn't the same. We craved red meat, but our cartoons served up tofu.
I always assumed that the threat of litigation had driven violence from Saturday morning. After all, if you show Superman frying a supervillain with his heat vision on Saturday morning, then, sure enough, some idiot kid in Dubuque will fry his little brother with heat vision one fine Saturday afternoon, and then everyone loses except the lawyers. But I was wrong. Federal regulators, rather than nervous trial attorneys, wussified Saturday morning TV in the early seventies. Uncle Sam made our cartoons insipid, in the hope that a nice stiff dose of cultural chloroform would deaden our proto-male violent tendencies and transform us all into prissy poindexters who would eat our vegetables, sit still in our seats, and eventually vote for French-speaking politicians.
Read on for more on what I'm relieved beyond reason to know is a reduction in recent years of reliance on government control of our kids' minds. Maybe this has something to do with declining murder rates, hmm?
And all things considered, Unreal Tournament is better than lawn darts, right?
We've been in a Golden Age of cartoons for nearly fifteen years now; the groundbreaking crudity of the early-90s cartoons gave way to the entrenchment of Cartoon Network and shows that no longer insult kids' intelligence. The quality of some of the shows started to really suffer toward the end of the 90s, but now that Adult Swim is here, the slack is well and truly taken up. It's easy to plot a carjacking when the alternative is watching Thundarr the Barbarian. But not when the Mooninites are invading...
|
| Thursday, May 27, 2004 |
23:46 - They're all good, but...
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0404/041604.html
|
(top) |
...This is the best Bleat in a long, long time.
Or maybe I just needed to read something like it.
|
|
13:56 - And his hair is Gore-tex
http://www.imao.us/archives/001510.html#001510
|
(top) |
Frank J:
* Part of the reason Al Gore gave such an insane tirade yesterday is because a refrigerator magnet was stuck to his head.
By no means the best part, either.
|
| Wednesday, May 26, 2004 |
21:18 - Which is it?
|
(top) |
So which is it, conspiracy theorists?
Did the Bush administration incompetently ignore warnings of terrorist threats prior to 9/11—or did CIA or Mossad agents perpetrate the attacks in an act of globally-reaching calculated conspiracy for imperial conquest?
Did we invade Iraq on information we knew was false, in order to grab Iraqi oil and contracts for Halliburton—or were we honestly but gullibly snookered into an unjust war against an innocent, defenseless country by Ahmed Chalabi's con game?
Is the Iraq war a distraction from the real War on Terror, which is still taking place in Afghanistan and elsewhere and must instead be given top priority—or is the terrorist threat a trumped-up farce so overblown that the words "al Qaeda" make you wave your hands around and put your voice into that low-pitched "duh" voice and go OoooOOooh, al Qaeda!?
Were the dozens of countries who went to war with us in Iraq fooled and bribed and coerced—or are they in it for the imperialistic conquest like us?
Are Muslims in the US the targets of hysterical, McCarthyist-style witch-hunts, complete with pogroms and lynchings—or is the government being so reluctant to pursue an effective, targeted antiterrorism campaign within our borders as to cast doubt on its desire to fight terror at all?
Was the 2000 election rigged to produce a Bush win (somehow, after a clear dead heat everywhere but Florida)—or is the American populace too stupid and/or evil not to vote for Bush through honest polling?
Is the fact that Bush didn't scramble fighter jets as soon as he heard that the 9/11 planes were in the air indicative that he was in on it all along—or was he just too stupid to realize something big was happening, and thought the book he was reading to those third-graders was more fun anyway?
Is bringing our troops home the only way to "support" the poor dears—or is it "patriotic" to "support the troops when they frag their commanding officers"?
Is the June 30th sovereignty turnover date a sham that we have no intention of sticking to—or is the war's leadership so incompetent that it doesn't even realize the date is unrealistic?
Is Bush a devious, mad liar with designs on global dictatorship—or a bumbling, babbling idiot who can't tie his shoelaces?
Make up your minds, guys!
|
|
17:37 - Job security
|
(top) |
In Mickey's Christmas Carol, Scrooge McDuck justifies not giving donations to the two alms-collectors who show up at his door as follows: "Well, if I gave to the poor, then the poor wouldn't be poor anymore! And then you two would be out of a job! I wouldn't want to put you out of a job, not on Christmas Eve...!"
It's silly and farcical. But I wonder how many people actually do think like that these days?
I'm speaking, of course, of those people who form groups intended to Do Some Good. The ACLU. The NAACP. PETA. Greenpeace. International ANSWER. MoveOn.org.
Specifically: why are they really doing it? Is it because they actually think they can change the world? Or is it because what they enjoy is the process, the feeling that what they're doing is changing the world?
I ask this because it seems the only way to explain how the same people (comedians, human rights groups, actors, leftists of all kinds) who spent the entire 90s agitating about how great a threat Saddam Hussein posed to the world—always quoting figures about weapons of mass destruction and his abuse and mass murder of Iraqi citizens—spun on their heels immediately after 9/11 and dedicated themselves to the cause of our not taking him out.
As though the fact that we actually seemed willing to respond to their decade-long calls for action against Saddam made them suddenly think, Whoah, whoah, whoah, we didn't mean for you to take us seriously! We didn't mean for you to actually do something about Saddam! We were just playin' around! C'moooon!
The same people who applauded Clinton's barrages of cruise missiles (unilaterally, no less!) into Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan (regardless of how many hospitals and orphanages he actually ended up destroying), after 9/11, call any kind of action at all—including Afghanistan—an unjustified act of aggression and imperialism. Whether our stated goals are to topple dictatorships, banish theocracy, defeat terrorism, uplift women in a culture where they're treated like cattle, or spread democracy, we're doing exactly what all the do-gooder groups ought to love us to do. But they're almost without exception dead-set opposed to our doing any of that. Now their tune is "The Arab world is incompatible with democracy!" and "Women in Islam are actually treated well!" or "What right do we have to force our way of life on anyone else?" or "Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction after all! We had no right to take him to account for anything he's done in the ancient past!" or "Terrorism is only our just desserts—we have no right to try to eradicate it directly, only by capitulating to terrorists' demands!" or even "Terrorism doesn't exist at all, and official attempts to prepare us for another 9/11-like attack are to be ridiculed!" (as funny as that link is).
Which leads me to think: What would happen if all the do-gooder groups I mentioned earlier actually got their way? What if, for example, Congress introduced a bill for legislation that in accordance with PETA's demands, the sale or consumption of meat or any animal products in the US should be banned?
Something tells me PETA would lose about 90% of its membership instantly. They'd take to the streets waving signs in support of meat-eating. "We were just kidding!" "Meat is Neat!" "Vegans are from Vega!" "No Bull—Only Cow!" "I've Got a Beef with PETA!" KFC would cater entire marches. The nation's meat processors and ranchers would enjoy a huge stock surge (the Wall Street kind, not the stampede kind).
Because I think what people enjoy about joining these groups is the process... the feeling of belonging to some group, and a group that's guaranteed to confer some righteousness upon you the next time you mention it on a college application. Far more than the actual purpose of the group, though, its fecklessness is actually critically important—it wouldn't do for the group to actually have an effect on anything. No way. Because if it did, there wouldn't be anything to complain about anymore... and worse, it might mean actually having to confront the consequences of the changes you're advocating.
It's really damned easy to sway back and forth in a sea of like-minded protestors holding a PEACE sign, just bobbing along in your buoyant commitment to people not killing each other. But let the newspapers ring with the headline WE SURRENDER, and all but the most intractably rotten core of the throng will feel a stab through the heart: What have we done?
Just like the "human shields" felt when they actually got to Iraq and found out what they were signing up to protect.
I believe it takes a certain mentality to be susceptible to joining an activist group. At heart it's a mentality of goodness and benevolence, of wishing to see other people happier than they are, and of wishing to leave the world a better place than it was when you inherited it. There's nothing wrong with that. It's admirable.
But there's a temptation to join a group just because it tells a good story, or does a good job of outlining an injustice that must be put right. Once you're in it, though, the mob mentality takes over—the self-perpetuation of the group becomes paramount, and it becomes easier and easier to chant whatever slogans the guy next to you is chanting. If he's not worried about the danger to our economy if we abandon coal-fired power plants, or if she's not concerned with the fate of the meat-packing industry or the culinary tradition of the entire meat-eating world, or if they're not afraid of what a communist America would actually look like, or if nobody here gives a crap about whether it might actually be good to eliminate terrorist threats, especially long-term avowed enemies of America, then I guess I won't be worried either! DOWN WITH EVERYTHING!
So all I'm saying is, perhaps the people who cry out the most derisively against "sheep mentality" ought to think a little harder about the likely real, concrete outcome if the group you're thinking about joining gets its way, before joining it for the comfortable reassurance of expressing your individuality by chanting slogans from a printed sheet, in unison with ten thousand like-minded people. And only take up the chant if you really, truly are willing to live with the consequences of getting your way.
In other words, put up or shut up.
UPDATE: This, via CapLion, is an interesting case in point.
|
|
16:45 - Who is this man? Really?
http://www.wm.edu/news/index.php?id=3650
|
(top) |
You know, I just can't seem to figure out Jon Stewart. I mean, on stage he's funny as hell and seems to have his head screwed on straight, but then The Daily Show is really, really hard to watch if for no other reason than that Stewart spends the first five minutes of every show running a video clip of Bush stumbling over a word or a publicity still from the Flying Naked Iraqi Human Pyramid (now appearing nightly at Mandalay Bay), then smirking knowingly at the audience.
But then you turn around again and he's giving a commencement speech at The College of William and Mary (his alma mater), and it's balanced and sensible and must have been difficult to deliver over the raucous appreciative laughter.
Especially at that last line. My God, I'm dyin' here.
|
|
14:33 - Jon Schaffer Interview
http://www.bravewords.com/news.html?id=14029
|
(top) |
Via Tim Blair—here's an interview of guitarist Jon Schaffer, conducted by a Canadian, Chomsky-reading 22-year-old political science major, at the music news site Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles.
Schaffer certainly takes command of the situation.
|
| Monday, May 24, 2004 |
15:36 - Wired for God
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-03/religion.html
|
(top) |
This is an interesting piece (forwarded by Brian D): an in-depth, rational analysis on how religion interacts with the human mind, and that specifically avoids and eschews the traditional dismissive condescension that so often accompanies scientific-type items like this. This isn't a "Gee, look how stupid people are; let's study them through the one-way mirror!" kind of thing; it's a respectful, yet inarguable bit of spelunking into how we integrate ideas of the supernatural into our lives, whether we think we're too smart to do so or not. Even the truest skeptic will no doubt find himself nodding in agreement throughout this, as will the most die-hard zealot.
I can certainly see how these same mental processes can apply to a person hewing to a certain brand of politics, as well.
|
|
12:16 - Folk remedies of the benighted 21st Century
http://www.osh.com/Cultures/en-US/Projects/OSHTips/Projec+OSH+Tips.htm
|
(top) |
Something was nagging at my mind as I read Lileks' Jetsam Cove entry on the endearing 1911 snake-oil panacea Celery-Fo-Mo. The package included a bunch of random "Worth Knowing" household tips, like how to whiten your skin by rubbing epsom salts in, or how to wash your hair in tartar sauce.
Barbarism! Alchemy! We chortle at it today, nearly a century on. But then our TV comes on with one of the many ads for Orchard Supply Hardware, which recommends fixing squeaky floors with baby powder, cutting paint fumes by stirring in vanilla, preventing clogged sinks with Alka-Seltzer tablets, and enhancing the aroma of your roses by burying onion slices next to the roots. All delivered through the demonstrative power of actors on the tube.
Someday I suppose our great-grandchildren will giggle at our foibles too...
UPDATE: Like, for instance, this. Which I saw in the local Safeway. No kidding.
|
|
11:15 - Bill Cosby Rules
http://www.rosenblog.com/2004/05/21/cosbys_tough_message_at_naacp_gala_censored_from
|
(top) |
But then, he always did.
Too bad some people seem to be trying to kick him under a carpet now that he's saying things that don't match the NAACP's party line. Reading his all-but-suppressed speech, why do I get the feeling that he's a relic from a time of a more self-respecting Black community than what we have today?
|
| Sunday, May 23, 2004 |
17:47 - Yeah, that's what I thought
|
(top) |
Okay, so maybe this (and not this) is the real California.

Tells an interesting little story there, doesn't it?
UPDATE: Several people have commented that this could simply be the house of a local high school athletics coach, whose property gets TP'ed as part of the usual traditions around this time of year. Considering that the festooning was left intact all day, with nobody making any attempts to clean it up, I guess that's the more likely explanation. The TP is a flag, in its own way...
|
| Saturday, May 22, 2004 |
03:09 - Time for a snifter of choicest Engrish
|
(top) |
Chris has in his hands one of the finest examples of Engrish I've ever seen. It's a toy wind-up car from China, which flips and spins and does other kooky stuff.
Like "take the ex-round clockwise hover around", and "empress round", and "refresh the bore", and "vacillating stunt".
 
Beware, though—"play attention, you of finger, hair, clothes, etc." Jun Long Toys wants you to know that "if the car dash to piecesed, and should pass by the per son check or profession personnel maintain the rear can continue to use." Oh, and "Is not suitable for the 3 years old and the following child."
Chris showed the manual to a Chinese co-worker, and he assured us that the Chinese in it is just as bad. So there's balance, somehow, in the world.
|
|
02:53 - Silence, you fool
http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/006788.php
|
(top) |
What is it about John Kerry, that he can't prevent himself from issuing snide and deeply embarrassing comments in front of reporters whenever anyone—or he—falls down?
Alert Kerry-watchers will recall his snowboarding holiday two months ago, in which he explained a fall by telling the cameras that "that son of a bitch"—referring to one of the Secret Service agents charged with defending his life, even though he isn't even the official candidate yet—"knocked me over."
Then there was that incident when he fell off his bike, which was immediately rushed to the emergency room.
No embarrassing comments were immediately forthcoming. But that's just for context. Because today, Bush fell off his bike. (On mile 16 of a 17-mile ride, at that.)
If Drudge is to be believed, Kerry went in front of the cameras, eager to reap the PR windfall somehow, and chortlingly said, "Did the training wheels fall off?"
I hope the Democrats are pleased with themselves: they've selected a candidate with the maturity level of an Indymedia commenter.
This man is a candidate for the highest and most powerful office in the free world. Remember how the 2000 election was supposed to be about "bringing some dignity back to the White House"? If Kerry wins, we're going to get something far worse than a Bubba who can't keep Slick Willy under wraps: we'll get a combination of genteel, nuanced rhetoric and juvenile schoolyard taunts. Presumably to be used alternately upon foreign countries that he likes and dislikes, respectively. (It's the French way.)
If Kerry is interested in winning the Presidency, perhaps his best bet is to keep his fool mouth shut from right this moment until Election Day. Every time he opens it, a foot hurls itself in. Which just makes him look all the more dorky.
I guess I know now why Bush has put so little effort into campaigning, or communicating at all with the American people: he figures that all he has to do is sit back and watch Kerry talk himself right out of a job.
Via Tim Blair.
|
| Friday, May 21, 2004 |
18:00 - Ivory Tower of Peace and Tolerance
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2004-05-19/feature.html/1/index.html
|
(top) |
Then again, who needs wargames? Just read this massive four-page article by Anneli Rufus in the East Bay Express (via LGF), and try to keep from picturing yourself as a student walking the halls and courtyards of UC Berkeley, head down, hands in pockets so nobody can see them clenching into fists.
After the lecture, attendees filed out of the hall to discover that the protesters had massed so as to allow only a narrow passage between themselves and a retaining wall. In effect, all those leaving the lecture were forced to walk a gauntlet. Some ducked their heads, others set their jaws in anger, squeezing past the dozens of assembled faces chanting "Shame! Shame! Shame!" as fists pumped the air in unison.
A young woman in a kaffiyeh screamed up at a Jewish student significantly larger than herself. Her lips were wet with fury. "If I don't agree with you, then you call it anti-Semitism!" she shouted, as friends arrived to support her. The young man was surrounded. "You call it anti-Semitismmm!" she raged. "Why can't you tolerate anti-Semitismmm?"
"I can tolerate it," the student replied, his voice a low, tired rumble. "I have to. It exists. I just don't have to like it."
Why do I keep trying to post examples of why I think California is so cool? Because I feel so filthy living so near to Berkeley.
I need to go do something to take my mind off this. Really. I don't think it would be healthy for me to dwell on it any further.
|
|
16:45 - Gaming realism
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/wargames.html
|
(top) |
I didn't go and read this item/article/gem when Den Beste linked it a few days ago, for some reason; but I'm starting to run into it on quite a few blogs now, and having followed the link this time, I can see why.
It's worth your time.
|
| Thursday, May 20, 2004 |
19:37 - I wanna know
|
(top) |
WHY are there always SHOES on the side of the freeway?!
I mean, what the hell?
|
|
17:13 - More of this, please
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005102
|
(top) |
Via Dean Esmay—Irshad Manji has a piece in the WSJ calling for Muslims to face up to the possibility that the Quran may not, in fact, be as "perfect" as the faith always claims it to be.
It's not the end of the world if it isn't, guys. Seriously.
All it means is that you get to be one more religion among many, tolerant of the others' existence, and able to admit flaws in your own. That's the big piece of cognitive dissonance preventing Islamic leaders from spreading stern denunciations—that stick—of terrorism. It needs to happen now.
This is one frickin' tolerant modern world for religious diversity; more so than ever in history. There's never been a better time to bring Islam out of the closet and quit acting like admitting flaws in its texts will be fatal to it. It'll turn Islam into something modern that can coexist with the rest of the world peacefully, preserve it for the future, and protect the rest of us from the fanatics. The sooner this reformation comes, the better for every human on Earth.
...Or, you can always put out a fatwa on Ms. Manji. Your call.
|
|
13:32 - First sings first, ve vill kill all ze lawyers
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/05/update_on_gov_s.html
|
(top) |
Holy crap! Arnie is whipping out the big guns on punitive damages. He's proposing a 75% tax on them.
• Of the eight states (Alaska, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Oregon and Utah) that currently impose similar taxes, seven let the lawyers eat first (the state takes their share only after attorneys' fees are paid). California would join Indiana in taking its 75% share before the payment of attorneys' fees.
• The article predicts that Gov. Schwarzenegger's proposal may succeed if the tax is whittled down to 50% and the lawyers are allowed to eat first.
So frivolous lawsuits (currently bleeding us dry as a country, as well as building the ever-more-entrenched Zero-Fault Society, where every problem can be solved by suing somebody) are squarely in the Gov's cybernetic crosshairs; but not only that, he intends to use them as an engine, for as long as they last before the tax drives them away, for replenishing the state's bank account. If it works, brilliant.
Especially if he can push it through without allowing the lawyers to "eat first". Wouldn't that be catastrophic for the personal-injury-lawyer industry? Halle-frickin'-lujah.
Lance has often spoken of a solution whereby punitive damages are paid to a public charity, rather than awarded in the form of lottery winnings to the plaintiff. Real damages, yes, fine—medical bills, property damage, lost employment, all that stuff, that's as it should be. But punitive damages—the penalties imposed on the losing defendant purely as punishment? Why should those go to the plaintiff? Better they get reinvested back into the system, so the rest of us can benefit from the money, not just the lawyers and the people who see a door ding as the clarion call of Payday.
Sounds like this proposal is pretty damn close to just that. Now if only we can keep the lawyers out...
|
|
11:24 - Just a dumb question
|
(top) |
Okay, so this has been nagging at me for a little while.
Remember in Bowling for Columbine, when Michael Moore was interviewing that wild-eyed, backwoodsy, soybean-farming brother/cousin/whatever of Terry Nichols, asking him about the rationale behind Americans owning guns? Remember when Nichols stared back at him and intoned with a twitchy, breathy voice that "The people will rise up in furious anger against a tyrannical government!"? Remember when Moore said, "Well, what about Gandhi? Wasn't he able to bring down the whole British Empire, without firing a single shot?" (And remember how Nichols just stared back like a deer on train tracks and said, "I don't know nothin' 'bout that"?)
Well, I was wondering: How does one reconcile that with Moore's later statement that The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win?
Maybe someone should let al-Sadr know that Gandhi's methods are a lot more effective, huh? Maybe, if they want to drive out the American invaders, they should sit cross-legged in village squares and refuse to move? Maybe they should live on ashrams and go on hunger strikes? Moore doesn't approve of them defending themselves with weapons.
Oh, wait. I remember now. Everybody's allowed to have guns, is what Moore says... except for Americans.
|
|
11:05 - Ho for the old days
|
(top) |
Heh. He wants to talk about post-postmodernism? About buildings that don't look so much like "buildings" as "things"? Okay, well, his example is pretty horrendous; no disputing that. But for your edification I present: the Gehry Building at MIT!
Check out this NY Times article. It positively glows. "A toybox at dawn!" "A Disney animation!" "A medieval Italian hill town rising amid the gray rectangular sameness of its section of campus in an industrial part of Cambridge!" And Victor Zue, one of the staff inhabitants, says, "Every week I'm in this building, I feel happier than the week before."
According to my Caltech-grad friends who now live in Boston, though, Zue is just about alone in his sentiment. The students and the faculty loathe this building, which in my friend Erik's words looks, simply, like a "pile". On the inside, it's designed to a bizarre utopian ideal that states that all spaces should be "public" spaces—so as to encourage interaction between people of all stations—and the result is that the people who would normally want private offices and cubicles no longer have any place where they can concentrate. It's always noisy, there's always traffic, and there's no privacy.
Erik also described the architectural scheme as "a combination of communism and Colorforms," and it sure sounds (and looks) that way. (And not just because it went something like 5x over budget, mostly because nobody could figure out how to build all those insane shapes—and because the architect insisted that they be built in place, rather than built on the ground and hoisted up once completed, which naturally stretched the limits of the contractors' sanity. But Stalin would have been proud.) If everybody is the same in the eyes of the State—er, the architect—then nobody needs privacy! Privacy is a tool of the bourgeoisie. All spaces belong to all people. The vision is more important than function. Never mind if masses of students are already drawing up petitions to have this horrible building decommissioned, or at least to have themselves moved to a building a little less deranged.
Caltech's Avery House had the same sort of goal—encourage interaction between undergrads, grad students, faculty, and staff, by building lots of public areas and having them all live in the same sorts of rooms interspersed throughout the building—but whether that idea itself is sound or not, at least Avery looks just like one of the Kaufman-designed South Houses, built in the early 30s. It refers back to the same blueprints, even: stucco arches, red-tile corridor floors, Corinthian pillars, wrought-iron railings and bars, all surrounding a Mediterranean-style courtyard with olive trees and cypresses. It looks like it could have been built on the same contract. (Granted, it was built a lot more cheaply; I didn't know you could even get 1/8-inch drywall.) The functional concept may or may not make sense, but at least the building looks like a building.
It's using that avant-garde "building" motif that's all the rage in some quarters.
I think it may be just about time for people like Gehry to observe the business end of an onrushing cultural backlash.
UPDATE: J Greely sends another example of "progressive architecture" run amok. Sweet merciful crap, I'm beginning to loathe the word progressive...
UPDATE: Keith & Fred send this previous Gehry concoction, which "hangs over the Mississippi, looking like a derelict car stuck on the bank among the trees".
UPDATE: More thoughts from Sissy Willis, in response to this and Lileks' followup assessment. Yikes—I've never seen a groundswell of crosslinkage like this, around these parts. I guess Gehry wouldn't be too pleased to hear of it.
AFTERTHOUGHT: What do you suppose we'll think of these buildings in, say, twenty or fifty years?
|
| Wednesday, May 19, 2004 |
11:29 - Be right, or be popular?
|
(top) |
It is (or ought to be) the practice of every blogger to spend a good deal of time in someone else's brain, trying to figure out how the world looks from behind their eyes. It can ease the eventual solution to an argument and bring it about quicker, by showing both sides exactly what their opponent's sticking points are, even if the opponent may be unwilling or unable to articulate it himself.
It's hard, though, to figure out anti-Americanism from within the confines of America. Unless you're a college student who has developed a mental model of America so hideous that the news out of Abu Ghraib excites you rather than horrifies you (because it means you get to tell all your European friends that you knew it, you were right all along, most Americans are evil, but you're one of the good JewsAmericans, which ought to make you good and popular), it's not that easy to see where this resentment of America—which existed prior to the Iraq war, but was given a convenient subtext for release when the war began—comes from.
I think I might have figured out a perspective shift that helps explain it, though, or at least to me.
I've had European friends sniffily tell me, and I quote, that "Patriotism is the feeling that your country is superior simply because you were born there." (Steven Den Beste had someone send him a slightly more, er, diplomatic version of the same sentiment recently.) My first reaction to such a statement is, Well, yeah—but it is! I mean, I'm quite convinced that the American system of government and society is the best yet developed by mankind, and I don't think that my being born here has much to do with that; I like to think that if I were born elsewhere, I'd come to the same conclusion, if I started from the same premise of "freedom is good" and "man has basic human rights". But would I? On sober reflection, the answer isn't so clear.
America is fairly unique in the world in that it's a country founded not on accidents of ethnicity, language, culture, and incidental boundary lines, but on an ideology. You're an "American" in name if you're born here, but philosophically being "American" has only superficially to do with your citizenship in the United States, as Den Beste observed a while ago. You can be "American" even if you live in Spain or Russia or Iraq, and you can be "un-American" even if you live inside the United States, in a way that it doesn't make much sense to call an analogous person in France "un-French". European countries mostly have socialist semi-democratic governments run by members of a ruling elite, from whom the voters pick the aristocrat they like best, rather than dreaming of growing up to be President themselves. These countries are defined along cultural/linguistic/ethnic lines, and ideology plays only a small role in how the citizens think their government should work. It's the way it is largely through accident and default.
It wasn't always that way, though. The USSR, too, was a country founded on an ideology. Like America, the Soviet Union thought it had "the right idea"; it thought it had the solution to all the world's problems, and it thought everyone would eventually come to be just like it. If other countries didn't come around to its way of thinking, their citizens would flock to the Worker's Paradise once they saw how great it could be. Never mind that the country people still flocked to throughout the 20th century, just as throughout the 19th, was America; the Soviets still believed in their ideology just as strongly as the Americans did in theirs. And the rest of the world, in their non-ideologically-defined countries, looked on with more than passing interest, to see which one of these artificial, experimental national constructs would turn out to be right.
Well, now that the Cold War is over, we know the answer to that. We're right. We don't apologize for it, either. We think we've figured it out: a way of being a country and a society that defers more to a piece of 230-year-old parchment than to any common bonds of birth or language or skin color, and that elevates the idea that the individual person is the most powerful and most honorable force within that country, rather than a ruling government. We've stuck to this ideology for over two centuries, and it's remarkably similar today to when it was first written down; it still speaks just as strongly both to us native-born Americans, and to those Americans in spirit who live abroad, as it did when it was drafted. And at the same time, we've managed to become so powerful, so rich, so happy, that we've inherited the global-policeman role that Rome once had—nature's way of identifying the winner in a survival-of-the-fittest-country contest if there ever was one. We never even had to exterminate our "undesirables", or send any "political prisoners" or "dissidents" to the gulags. So we have a hard time taking seriously claims from outside that we're doing things the wrong way.
But how does this look from the outside? Sure, most people in Europe or Asia or Africa might, on sober reflection, believe that America is on balance a force for good in the world. But there's still the glaring fact that it's not their countries that have won; it's some other country, way off across the ocean. It's some young upstart nation without any ethnic/cultural/linguistic heritage that it considers to be crucial to its identity—no "team colors", as it were. It would be one thing if, say, the country that "won" were the British Empire, or the Chinese; at least then there would be a traditional nation on top of the heap, citing its cultural—or tribal—identity as the reason why it's won; and at least that people could deal with (because, like it or not, tribalism is still the kind of side-taking that people have more of a reptile-brain affinity for; it's the kind of thing we feel we understand implicitly). But that's not how it's worked out. What's won isn't a natural "tribal" construct (which would have been easy to hate), but a modern, human-made construct: the worship of a piece of paper. And not just any worship of a piece of paper: the wrong one, in many people's estimation. Not the one that guarantees equality of wealth and equality of success, but the proposition that all men are created equal. And because it's a human construct, other "tribal" countries don't know how to relate to it: hate it? Admire it? Envy it? Reject it? It's like seeing a robot win the chess championship: Okay, so you're smarter than us mere humans. But can you dance? But regardless, the Americans have won, and they know they've won; just try to tell 'em different.
So: on to the inevitable metaphor. America, then, is the national equivalent of a born-again Christian, walking smugly down the sidewalk. (I'm being stereotypical here; bear with me.) He meets various people in his travels; they tell him, "Well, um, I'm Jewish," or "I'm Muslim," or "I'm Buddhist." And the Christian looks at them, smiles sadly, and says, "Well, I'm sure you're a nice person and all... but I'm afraid you're going to Hell."
And nobody likes to hear that.
The world at large might look at us and see someone who's got it made: rich, powerful, self-possessed, insanely happy. But it's not them. They'd love to be in that position too; but that would mean giving up their own identity, renouncing all they hold dear. In other words, converting.
Even if someone can convince himself that converting is the only way to achieve that kind of power and confidence and happiness, he still isn't going to want to do it. He'd much rather his own position come naturally to that same level.
And if it doesn't, well, he can always scowl darkly at the Christian in his suit and tie and draw up reasons why his adopted persona is immoral, selfish, overbearing, shallow, obnoxious, insensitive to others, and stupid.
It's a form of "sour grapes", yes; but it's also a perfectly understandable defense mechanism. If I lived in Canada or Brazil or Greece, and I didn't particularly want to move to America to get a better life for myself and my family, certainly I wouldn't spend all my time convincing myself why I should move. I'd more likely concentrate on finding reasons to justify staying put, and beyond that, not sucking up to the Great Deceiver. "It's not so great," I'd tell myself. "Just look at how they act. Is that what you want for yourself?" The shortcomings of my own country would cease to be relevant, because they're a given; what's important is finding reasons not to be so attracted to America.
But as an American, what am I supposed to do? If I were interested in winning the approval of the people in other countries who despise me because of my country's success (and success in spite of a lack of cultural depth, the way they see it—McDonald's and Wal-Mart and Coca-Cola are of a piece with America being an artificial construct of the modern human mind right from the get-go), I'd have to renounce what I believe are the reasons why America has won. That means standing up and telling the world that I think all the things we believe in, the things that have been integral to our society's growth, are shams. Individual liberty. Capitalism. Manifest Destiny. Rugged Individualism. Westerns. Big Macs. Guns.
I can't do that, though. I'm quite convinced that these things are our culture; the fact that they sprang from whole cloth in the latter 18th century doesn't make them any less valid than the Code of Hammurabi or the Magna Carta. These things are our culture, and we are a real country. The only difference between us and the rest of the world is that we believe more strongly in the piece of paper that describes our government than in our government itself; anybody else who feels the same way, we welcome here with open arms. You can be an American no matter where you live, as long as you believe what we do.
And just like the born-again Christian with the benevolent smile and the dark suit and the big hair and the pocket full of cash, we know we're right. We know we've got something special, something worth promulgating and defending. But are we willing to throw all that away just so people won't resent us so much?
We don't believe in punishing success by taking away the winner's winnings and giving it to the losers; that's part of our ideology right there. So it stands to reason that we're not about to back down from what we think is right because we feel sorry for the rest of the world and want to level the playing field. That's not in us. If it were, we wouldn't have won.
It's our curse, then, to remain self-righteous, as well as our blessing. As long as we hold to this same attitude as a country, we'll stay on top—and the rest of the world will resent us. Anyone who resents self-righteousness will resent us. But it's unavoidable. It's just the nature of the beast.
The rest of the world, though, is welcome to join us at any time.
UPDATE: Paul Denton appears willing. Deserves a blogroll link, too.
UPDATE: A response from Alisa in Wonderland.
|
| Tuesday, May 18, 2004 |
22:08 - Dude!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004223179,00.html
|
(top) |
I guess it's not just the El Salvadorans who are serious hardasses when outnumbered and out of ammo:
OUTNUMBERED British soldiers killed 35 Iraqi attackers in the Army’s first bayonet charge since the Falklands War 22 years ago.
The fearless Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders stormed rebel positions after being ambushed and pinned down.
Despite being outnumbered five to one, they suffered only three minor wounds in the hand-to-hand fighting near the city of Amara.
The battle erupted after Land Rovers carrying 20 Argylls came under attack on a highway.
After radioing for back-up, they fixed bayonets and charged at 100 rebels using tactics learned in drills.
When the fighting ended bodies lay all over the highway — and more were floating in a nearby river. Nine rebels were captured.
An Army spokesman said: “This was an intense engagement.”
The last bayonet charge was by the Scots Guards and the Paras against Argentinian positions.
William Wallace lives on, it seems.
What kind of media would we have to have for stories like this not to be trumpeted with pride, outside the Foxes and Suns of the spectrum?
(Don't answer that. Probably the same kind that would only print this story if it could follow it with a reminder that evil empires throughout history and fiction have always reported superhuman deeds with huge kill ratios like this to their bedazzled populaces.)
I guess we'd better keep looking for adjectives.
Via Emperor Misha I.
|
|
11:10 - Black is white, up is down, and short is long
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/22/1082616260498.html?from=top5
|
(top) |
Tim Blair may have already given this a righteous poking, as it's a month or so old, but still. It's another one of those instructive things, instructive in that it really shows how the deft use of language can have you singing that the sky is made of mud and the sun revolves around the moon.
I'm sure the author, one David Campbell of Australia's The Age, got an A from his Sarcastic Journalism 201 professor for numerous pieces just like this.
It's genius in its way. I mean, if anybody can read this piece—in which we conclude that through the pure and innocent eyes of The Children™, the real terrorists are us—and not see the fallacies on which it's predicated for what they are, and the piece for the insidious bit of fluffery that it is, then he or she is truly beyond reasoning with. But look at the sheer brilliance of it: by casting the Socratic conversation into the voice of a child with no sense of historical perspective or handy facts at his disposal, you can be sure you'll never have to hear the tricky questions:
- "Daddy, wasn't Saddam in violation of 17 UN resolutions, and repeatedly violating the cease-fire agreement?"
- "Aren't chemical and biological weapons really easy to conceal, and just as easy to store as harmless components?"
- "What about that sarin bomb that blew up on a roadside? Doesn't that count?"
- "Remember Somalia? Isn't there something to be said for being extremely firm, and a little bit overeager, in response to 9/11—because the fact that we retreated whenever we got bloody noses like in Somalia is exactly why 9/11 occurred?"
- "What about Ansar Al-Islam? Haven't there been all kinds of links drawn between al Qaeda and Iraq?"
- "Even if Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, wasn't it worth getting rid of him for all the crimes he'd already committed, and just in case he decided that if 17 UN resolutions against him weren't going to be enforced, then there was no point in trying to avoid incurring an 18th?"
- "Isn't it a good idea, when the Middle East is exporting Islamic terrorism daily, to make sure that there aren't any avowedly anti-US dictatorships operating in the Middle East, whether they're sponsoring terrorism or not?"
- "How is one of our soldiers making fun of an Iraqi prisoner's wee-wee to get information about terrorists remotely the same thing as Saddam feeding people feet-first into shredders for failing to agree with him?"
- "Daddy, this is Iraq we're talking about! Saddam Hussein! The guy who gassed his own people and killed 300,000 of his citizens! The guy who's been the personification of evil in every sitcom and stand-up routine produced in the 90s! The guy that all America's been aching to get rid of ever since 1991! And now all of a sudden it's a bad thing, because we actually seem to be willing to do it?"
Kids don't say these sorts of things, see. Because they involve a certain amount of historical awareness and moral surety. We're doing a great job, though, of making sure our kids grow up with the ability to see the good in 9/11 and the evil in saving a million lives.
Yeah, this piece is old. But it just showed up as a forwarded item in my inbox. Courtesy of whom? The Ar-Rahman list, naturally.
|
| Monday, May 17, 2004 |
01:15 - Boom boom boom
|
(top) |
If there's any valid point to this, it's the following obliquely connected one:
For someone to spend every day reading people like Lileks and Charles Johnson, to digest all their words, follow their links, and yet to conclude that they're all just "warbloggers" full of "misinformation" whose ideological drums are now "falling silent" in futility at the bleakness of the news—well, yeah, that's bound to discourage a guy.
The idea that all these man-years of dutifully posting hundreds or thousands of words per day, sourcing links, moderating comments, following-up on back stories, tying yesterday's news in with today's to underscore a point, and painstakingly researching facts with which to pick apart an opponent's argument have made no more an impression on some day-to-day readers' heads than a ping-pong ball fired out of a toy bazooka... it makes one think: Who's the fool here? The reader who still isn't convinced or even swayed by any of this hard-won evidence and reasoning, or me for thinking they can be convinced?
I'll keep at it because I find it rewarding for more reasons than just the possibility of convincing people. I know that people scouring the web for opinions about the war are doing so to find people who agree with what they already believe, rather than to seek opposing viewpoints and try them on one after the other, seeing which one fits best. I know that the people reading this are most likely already predilected to my own leanings, or else they'd have buggered off long ago. But still, I like to entertain a fantasy that I might be able to sway someone here or there, to make a point that has a chance of sticking, however small it might be.
And it's no fun to discover that there's nothing to that fantasy but wishful thinking.
UPDATE: Greg Kihn is having similar thoughts; apparently he's taking all kinds of heat from listeners via e-mail regarding his opinions that he injects between the classic-rock tracks, and he's likening them to his second ex-wife who used to respond to things she didn't want to hear by sticking her fingers in her ears and going LA-LA-LA-LA-LA! "There's no money. We're going bankrupt!" "LA-LA-LA-LA! I can't hear you!"
It's like the airwaves are filled with Rage Addicts...
|
|
22:09 - There's two sides to every Schwartz
|
(top) |
Well, now that it's a fait accompli, at least in one state, I guess I may as well weigh in on the gay marriage topic once more.
Yeah, it's a good thing. Yeah, I'm for it. But I guess I have to be something of a spoilsport on what's being hailed from end to end as a great day of victory for Civil Rights, and note that there's still a discussion to be had, still issues to be settled, and still a lot of hearts and minds to be won. And even once all is said and done, there will still be room in the discussion to look back and say, "Did we do the right thing?"
Yes, it's a Civil Rights thing. But then again, no, it isn't. This is something new, and the precedents we have don't adequately describe the situation. That's what's got everybody so screwed up, and it's why there's still such a polarization over it in the country between two sides that both think they're irrevocably right.
Andrew Sullivan is in full superhero mode, and well he might be. But he might do well to not get cocky (as it were). He's casting gay marriage as the kind of unassailable expression of Civil Rights—or inalienable rights, or natural God-given Basic Human Rights, depending on the vocabulary you like—that automatically grants the plaintiff the moral high ground in this day and age. He's partially right, but also partially wrong. There are two sides here, not to get too ambivalent and Calvin-in-the-Cubist-universe about it, and both have a point.
Look, for instance, at this quote from a James Dobson, a religioid being ridiculed by Sullivan with his "Derbyshire Award":
Barring a miracle, the family as it has been known for more than five millennia will crumble, presaging the fall of Western civilization itself. This is a time for concerted prayer, divine wisdom and greater courage than we have ever been called upon to exercise. For more than 40 years, the homosexual activist movement has sought to implement a master plan that has had as its centerpiece the utter destruction of the family. The institution of marriage, along with an often weakened and impotent Church, is all that stands in the way of its achievement of every coveted aspiration. Those goals include universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of Scriptures that condemn homosexuality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, granting of special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education, and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies.
This is, as Sullivan puts it, "unhinged". It's a stream of obdurate vocabulary steeped in an ideology that speaks to a throng of the converted, and it's very repugnant. But... there's a kernel of truth in there. Look under all the fearmongering, the churchified moralizing, and the blithering about a "homosexual grand master plan". And you'll find that there's a substrate of what can only be seen as fact.
Few can deny, to be blunt, that there have been some very significant changes to our country's social structure over the past half century. Most would characterize these changes as good: an almost unhesitating acceptance of racial mixing (I don't use the word "tolerance", deliberately, as it's become too charged to be useful anymore) being the prime example. But the concept of family has changed fundamentally, too, in many ways. Few would disagree that, on balance, these changes are positive: more empowerment for women, more earners in the workplace, kids no longer having the luxury of a teenaged period of "innocence", instead having to grow up a lot faster to deal with what's arguably a much more complex world (I'm not so naďve as to believe that the Fifties were that much simpler than today just because the pictures were in black and white and people thought swearing was a bad thing, but there's certainly truth to it as well).
Only the most deludedly optimistic, however, can claim with a straight face that there have been no downsides to the evolution of the "family" in the last fifty years. Kids growing up with no parents in the house, because they're both working. Kids being raised by the TV. Divorces seen as harmless business decisions, treated no more seriously than getting a second mortgage. Marriages of novelty. Single-parent households. Sex outside of marriage seen as the norm, not the exception, and certainly nothing to be ashamed of or avoided. I would, in fact, go so far as to say that the erosion of the American family lies at the heart of a lot of the problems we keep bitching about day to day: a generation of sarcastic, TV-minded cretins determined to see only the irony and the hypocrisy in any action the U.S. does, projecting a cracked self-image into a looming shadow of self-loathing as large as a whole country. Today's college-age kids have grown up being taught that everybody's a winner regardless of the sacrifices anyone has to make, and to expect a gold star for figuring out how to parrot the lines that adhere a person's image to the prevailing social constructs of the day. Once upon a time it was the family the kid was expected to emulate, even if he rebelled against it. Today it's the gang, the study group, the sign-wavers with a cause and the ear of the admissions board, the graduate stipend committee. Just do what you have to do to get the "in"—say what you have to say—and your way is paid for. In the absence of role models, family values, and those other antiquated two-word phrases that became objects of mockery on Saturday Night Live in the 90s, the if-it-feels-good-do-it bubbliness of the Sixties has been reincarnated in the form of a bitter, angsty nihilism that Lileks talked about today. It's out there, it's real, and it wouldn't be anywhere near as strong—I daresay—if we hadn't embarked on the Grand Experiment that began fifty years ago, moved the mother out of the kitchen and into the workplace, and gave us the vibrant, energetic, edgy, always-on-the-edge-of-breakdown social landscape we have today.
So it is with gay marriage. Yes, there are the upsides. Yes, it's a good thing. Yes, stories like this stir the heart. But one must always remember that this victory comes at the expense of a defeat for someone else, and that "someone else" is the part of America that thinks there's something—not sure what—that's just a little bit eerie, or worrisome, or (dare we say it) wrong about merely smiling benevolently while two guys suck face in front of the altar as the throngs cheer and the TV cameras roll. These aren't people who hate gays. These aren't people who would burn crosses or wave Bibles on streetcorners. These are people who sense that the idea of marriage is truly something sacred, something important, something ancient—older than civilization itself—that shouldn't be messed with. Interracial marriage they can handle; nothing wrong with that. But same-sex marriage? How exactly are we supposed to explain this to our kids?
And there's two ways of looking at gay marriage. One way is as a Civil Rights issue, as something whose time has simply come; regardless of what slippery-slope notions it might be seen as paving the way for, it's serving a very real need, and it's got all kinds of political and social precedent behind it. But the other way to regard it is as a factor in the concept of the family, and a potential answer to the question of "How different from the idealized Fifties do we want to make ourselves?"
It's easy to see gay marriage as just another of those things that have eroded the traditional family since that time—a cheapening of the concept of marriage, the willingness to extend membership in this special club to a group of seemingly incompatible applicants, just for the sake of "fairness"; just another reason for a couple who get tired of each other to split up and surrender the kids to the mercies of the courts, or never to bother getting married in the first place. But then again, it's just as easy to point out that gay marriage is a positive action—a grant of the right to marriage, something that should strengthen the concept of marriage by encouraging more people to get married and think about what that act really means. It could be that the effect that gay marriage will have on marriage in general will be to set a positive example, to re-establish "marriage" as something we all consider worth fighting for and defending and cherishing—to create a heightening of the awareness of "marriage" in the social landscape that makes people think all the harder about just how much it means to them to stay married for the sake of their kids, or to pledge their vows so as to form an unbreakable unit that blends with so many others to become part of a firm and proud community.
But whichever side a person takes of the above, he'll have to acknowledge that the other side exists, and is morally and intellectually consistent. We can pour the sarcasm on each other; we can puff up our chests and crow about our stances on the moral high ground; we can ridicule each other and paint each other as desperate caricatures of our real selves until we've made a mockery of the whole issue and reduced it to a comedy routine. But none of that will get us anywhere; neither side of the argument is going to understand the other until they both decide to want to understand each other, and make honest and respectful pledges to go about this as deliberately as necessary to keep everybody happy. If we must disagree, let's agree to disagree—let's not parody each other with invective. Let's understand just how serious this issue is—to the other side, not just to our own—and treat it with the delicacy and the respect that such a serious argument deserves.
UPDATE: Now this is an interesting point.
|
|
16:34 - P-P-P-Powerbook!!
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/dumbmrblah/Scamming%20the%20Scammer.htm
|
(top) |
Says the site: "It started with a scam, and turned into the greatest prank ever."
Having been directed to this item via Mark O., I must say I agree with hand over heart.
The tale is only a week or so old, and it's already got several mirrors and its own domain name. Mac lovers and Mac haters alike, this one is worth your time. The eyes, how they stream. The sides, how they ache.
And it's instructive, too. On subjects such as: Ebay scam techniques and how to recognize them! Proper international FedEx shipping practices! And the potential for the grass-roots power of TEH INTARWEB, when wielded by a global network of SomethingAwful goons armed with digital cameras, multi-linguistic friends-of-friends, and foot presence all over the world, right where they need to be!
Like the RIAA's underhanded attempts to "poison" P2P networks with MP3s ostensibly of popular songs, but that instead contain nothing but static or ads, this is a fantastic example of a grass-roots solution arising in response to a grass-roots problem. There is, as Chris says, balance in the world.
"Safari Internet Adventure!" Dear, dear me. And get a load of the "Bluetooth mouse"...
Kris points out, by the way, that if the scammer were smart and/or ballsy, he'd recognize the street value of the P-P-P-Powerbook!! and put it on Ebay. He'd probably make back the money he lost...
|
|
10:21 - "It's a gazebo!" "Quick, cast Magic Missile!"
|
(top) |
Well, well—look what got finished while I wasn't around to see (or take part, or slow down progress)?

Is that cool, or is that cool?
|
| Sunday, May 16, 2004 |
02:00 - The more things change
|
(top) |
Well, I'm back.
After making the drive from LA to San Jose in four hours and twenty-nine minutes, which is pretty dang respectable, I think, especially for not traveling any faster than traffic.
The reunion was very cool, though.
The ol' hovse is pretty much the way I remember it—with a few weird exceptions, like the fact that all the alleys have had their end walls bashed out and connected to each other, ostensibly for fire-code stuff. When I was living there, the Pasadena fire department was struggling to get us to stop building bonfires. Now, like the ACLU or the fat-police, they see they've got the upper hand and their quarry on the run, so they're busy eradicating even the merest hint of fire hazards from the building; they've removed the firepot from Ricketts house, and are pushing for a complete redesign and renovation of the South Houses to do away with their funky, 1930s, single-sex, no-elevators-or-handicapped-accessible-ramps nature. In other words, all their personality. If they get their way, all the character of these ancient houses will be stripped away from them, their charming asymmetry and fifteen different floors all offset from each other by knee-height and secret passageways through the crawl space will be a thing of the lamented past. But such is progress.
Through one of the newly opened-up alley ends was one door with a printed flyer from Misleader.org; it reinforced my theory that no matter how bright your IQ tests and your SAT scores say you are, just because you can do contour integrals all day doesn't mean you're intelligent. It doesn't stop you from thinking that tacking a printout of a shallow and fact-free polemic to your door in hopes of appearing a Deep Thinker™ will only serve in the opposite capacity. (But then, I guess it could be worse—over in Dabney House, the walls are covered with even more Chairman Mao quotations than I remember.)
But the fact that this was such an exceptional thing in Blacker reminded me of something: Caltech is a very apolitical campus. I'd forgotten why this was, if I'd ever known it; but sitting in the lovnge by the fire, talking with a couple of guys from my class and a couple of current students, I discovered the answer: most students there, or at least a highly significant percentage, are destined for jobs at the Department of Defense. Or most of their graduate stipends come from the DoD. Or their livelihoods depend, in one way or another, on putting their technologically and scientifically oriented minds toward designing the aerospace and software and semiconductors and other such materiél that will likely end up in Predator drones and the like. Seminar day keynote speech by AeroVironment, Inc. maven Paul McCready notwithstanding, the student body tends to have a very practical outlook on life.
My class president, it turns out, served a stint in Baghdad, escorting VIPs from Baghdad to Basra. He's back now, and everybody in the lounge nodded sagely in relief at the news, and nary a snide comment was uttered.
(Oh yes: at the reunion banquet at the Athenaeum on Friday night, when one of my classmates—we were seated at big round tables based on graduation year—said offhand that he couldn't wait for November so he could vote for Kerry, the whole rest of the table fell pointedly silent, much to the guy's consternation. I suggested that we not discuss politics at this event, so as to avoid needless bloodshed.)
Anyway, the Tea was outstanding, and the campus appears to be in good hands. I got some pictures to help augment my visual memories, which after five years were beginning to fade.
I also got to say hi to an old friend in the area, had several social lunches and dinners, saw some good seminars on the campus' architectural tradition and other topics, and checked a whole bunch of things off my mental to-do list. A weekend well spent, all around.
|
| Thursday, May 13, 2004 |
00:11 - Soon we will be sliding down the razor blade of life
|
(top) |
I'll be following the lead of everybody else lately and taking a brief break—this weekend is my five-year college reunion down at Caltech, and I'll be driving down tomorrow morning so I can get there in time for the dinner at the Athenaeum.
If I do any blogging over the weekend, it'll be from campus. But I suspect that I'll be consumed with nostalgia, and won't have anything substantive to say until Monday.
And even then I'm making no promises.
|
|
00:07 - The good ones are always taken
http://www.rightrainbow.com/archives/000351.html
|
(top) |
Wow. This looks like someone worth linking.
I watched with my partner, Michael, sitting next to me. Michael is a U.S. citizen now, but a native of Syria. He’s an Arab. An Arab-American, in the parlance of hyphenation. And his reaction to the video, described below, is telling.
Michael came to America as an adolescent and learned English with no help from the Los Angeles schools he attended. By the time he and I met, shortly before his graduation from Baylor University, a Baptist institution in Waco, Texas, he had become a fully acculturated American.
When the video ended, Michael and I sat here for awhile in silence. Then he turned to me and asked,
“Baby, are you mad at me?”
No, Habibi (Arabic for ‘my love’), I’m not mad at you. What makes you even ask that?
“I don’t know. Maybe you’ll associate me with that.”
Of course, I do not associate him with that. But Michael, now well-acquainted with the psychology of his fellow Americans, intuitively knows what Mr. Berg’s murderers evidently do not. An act of barbarism against one of our own will shock and hurt and repulse and horrify us. But it will also enrage us. If radical Islamists think this act will induce us to cower, they misjudge the American character. We aren’t the French, or even the Spanish.
"A right-of-center, gun-owning, gay Texan". Via VodkaPundit.
Let's have more of this.
|
| Wednesday, May 12, 2004 |
13:54 - Is there a draft in here?
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20040512
|
(top) |
None of whom are talking about "the draft being reinstated".
Especially since re-enlistement and recruitment rates, once again, are so high—as much as 110% of normal in some branches—that the military is having to turn down applicants and lay people off. There will be no draft.
But more people believe Doonesbury than seek out the truth. After all, nothing's true unless it's funny.
Fargin' blargin'.
|
|
10:05 - Total Perspective Vortex
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11009#c0255
|
(top) |
Last night, in the beheading-video thread at LGF, a new reader (with the apt name of "possum") popped up to offer everybody his considered opinion that Islamic terrorism is "a tiny threat". To have some sense of perspective.
Americans can't figure this one out, how to respond. In reality, the whole Moslem world is a tiny threat. Late 20th century media takes what goes on between them and the western world and blows it up a million fold. The video is an example. That's the best they can do. Stop and think about that for a minute. The germans quielty and calmly got the jews and others to queue up in an orderly manner before they gassed them and used their body parts to stuff pillows and make lampshades. Several million people. And the germans would have dominated the world eventually if they hadn't had the audacity to declare war on everyone except the japanese at the same time. The islamist snatch someone here, somewone there and make a video of their murder and put it out and its impact is way beyond the reality of what these people are capable of. 9/11 was their crowning glory.. probably. And even if they set of a nuke or dirty bomb, they won't come within a mile of doing the damage that was done to europe during the second world war or america during the civil war.
In other words, all the Islamists are ever going to be able to do are these little one-on-one, emotionally charged, but otherwise harmless pinpricks. If we just deal with these things proportionally, and don't get all worked up into a holy lather about how threatened we and our way of life are, then we can just go on living more-or-less happily. Right?
You mean like in the "warren of the snares" in Watership Down, right? Where one's food and security are provided for, but you do not speak of the snares or the ones who are lost? Where everybody knows that rabbits occasionally just... disappear? And that's just the price they know they have to pay for their comfortable life?
Or to take a more temporaneous example: in Van Helsing, the villagers mistrust the eponymous vampire-hunter when he arrives, but once he starts killing vampires, they despise him. Why? The vampires only take what they need to survive, they tell him. Only one or two per month. As long as we don't actually try to eradicate them, they leave us for the most part alone!
Because enduring one or two grisly murders a month, and hushing up the talk of it, is preferable to risking it all on an attempt to actually put a halt to it.
Well, that may be how Europe thinks people should deal with their problems: cope with them. Accept them. But for God's sake, don't try to solve them, like the "cowboy" Van Helsing suggests doing. (And succeeds.)
You'd think, with all these memes floating around and so central to our consciousness, we'd understand as a people the importance of moral absolutes in cases like this? You'd think we'd understand Douglas Adams' admonition that the one thing one cannot afford to have is a sense of perspective?
But no, Viggo Mortensen was apparently unmoved by the lessons of Lord of the Rings. So maybe we've become capable of completely dissasociating the stories we tell from the morality we follow.
What an awful future that leaves us.
|
| Tuesday, May 11, 2004 |
16:13 - Recycle of violence
|
(top) |
Some people are big into issuing studied statements like "Eye for an eye" and "violence begets violence", because it sounds good even though it's utterly meaningless (like "Tearing down the wall between culture and politics", on his sidebar. The hell does that mean?).
But remember: even though every American is required to self-flagellate over the actions of the prisoner-abusers in Iraq, we're not allowed to ask that Muslims take responsibility for the actions of people like this.
(The best we can hope for is parodies, weakly satisfying though they be.)
UPDATE: Here's a translation of the statement that was read.
"Have you not had your fill of the war of conferences and battle of words? Is it not time for you to take the path of jihad and carry the sword of the Prophet of prophets? We ask you not to condemn what we will do just to please the Americans.
So, I guess, never mind then.
|
| Monday, May 10, 2004 |
00:00 - Spreadin' the word
|
(top) |
I've just heard that my dad has gotten his first hole-in-one at the Ukiah Municipal Golf Course.
Woo-hoo!
|
|
12:44 - The credibility standard
|
(top) |
See, this is the problem with being America. We can either choose to be as flawed as all other countries have been in history, following all the same tired old scripts that governments keep reading from today; or we can stick to our grand experiment, and face an entirely unique kind of criticism.
In the post-Cold-War era, it's difficult for people to criticize the American system. We've clearly won; we're the superpower, and we've somehow managed to become so without any imperial armies bestriding the globe or gulags full of political prisoners. By any standard of history, we've come up with the system that works—it makes us all wildly rich and unprecedentedly free and insanely happy, and our biggest problems come from our interfaces with other countries that aren't anywhere near as much of any of these.
So if people can't criticize us for being inferior or for our experiment failing, they try a different tactic. They say, "Okay, wise guy. If you're so perfect, how come you're not perfect?"
Because we're not perfect. Duh. Nothing is perfect. Our system survives and thrives because it is fault-tolerant—because it has mechanisms for minimizing the impact of failures of the system. People can try to take advantage of the freedoms and benefits of our system, but the system itself has methods of dealing with those kinds of attacks against it that are internally consistent. We don't execute "political dissidents", for example; rather, we find the term wholly alien, and instead simply allow all voices to speak as loudly as they can, putting our faith in the majority to make sensible decisions. It's a leap of faith to allow such a thing to happen, but it's paid off. We've learned that if we don't try to micromanage our economy or our political landscape, and instead trust the system to take care of itself, by golly, it does. Imagine that.
But the failures of parts of the system, while we see them as opportunities to observe the system in action taking care of them, appear to the rest of the world as proof that our system itself is flawed after all. We look at the Abu Ghraib incident with revulsion; every American with a sense of decency is shocked and appalled, and the President has had to go on foreign television apologizing for the actions of our own soldiers.
To us, this is not just horrifying—it's also vaguely thrilling, because it proves the basic decency of Americans, including the President we elected. We don't try to deny Abu Ghraib ever happened; on the contrary, once it became clear that it was a big deal, we use it as a demonstration of how the rest of us react to such an atrocity. When Bush says Americans won't stand for it, he means it; and he's telling the truth.
But to the rest of the world, it's not our reaction that's important—in fact, our reaction, and Bush's, are to be derided and ignored. What's really important, what's really indicative of how America operates, is the aberration itself.
So when this happens (via Tim Blair:
Fallujah native Abdul-Qader Abdul-Rahman al-Ani, his left elbow wrapped in bandages, his right forearm bound in a cast, recounted how he was beaten by soldiers who picked him up last month. The soldiers tied him and two others arrested with him to a tree and sodomized them one after the other, he told journalists.
"I ask President Bush," he said. "Does he agree with this?"
As Ani, 47, repeated his story, he was interrupted by Jabber al-Okaili, a member of one of the human rights groups that organized the gathering. "He's lying," al-Okaili shouted. "He's a liar!"
Al-Ani was rushed to an office, where al-Okaili and others unwound the bandage on his left arm and found the elbow unscarred and healthy. They cut off half of the cast on his forearm, even as al-Ani insisted, "By God, it's true, everything I say is true."
... foreign news stations pick up on the detainee's claims, and don't mention the takedown. Tim's update:
SBS television just showed German news footage of Ani making his disputed claim -- and that's all. No mention of anybody calling him a liar.
Where else do you suppose we'll be seeing mountains of reports of abuse of Iraqis by American soldiers—all trumped-up, all faked, but none debunked? My money's on "everywhere".
Because the credibility of the plaintiffs in this case is worlds higher than the credibility of America. Everybody wants to believe the Iraqis, especially when they're lashing out at the Great Satan; nobody wants to believe the Great Satan itself.
Our system deals well with cases where our own citizens try to game the system. What we're not so good at, though, is dealing with cases where people in other countries—where they don't play by our rules—game our system. Our weak spots are much weaker outside our borders; and our strong spots are also far less strong. When we try to treat the rest of the world as though it's America, it doesn't play along; rather, it sees us as a pathetically vulnerable target to its own tactics.
Nobody can believe that our military is actually as good as it is. It just doesn't compute. So people naturally believe the stories of complainants of "abuse" and "torture", especially if there's a documented case to point to—one that makes headlines where the rest of the military's exemplary behavior never does. Nobody can believe that morale is as high as it is in our military, or that re-enlistement and recruitment rates are so high that the Army and the Marines are having to turn down applicants; so people naturally believe dark rumors that we're thinking of instituting the draft to prop up our failing ranks. Nobody can believe that the rebuilding of Iraq has gone as well as it has in 95% of the country; so people naturally believe tales of a war-torn wasteland straight out of Mad Max, given credence by a few photos of corpses hanging from a bridge in Fallujah.
Is our experience in this country really that different from how the rest of the world works? I grew up being soothingly told that everybody's the same all the world over; but only time and experience are beginning to shatter that pleasing illusion.
According to all the lessons of history, says the rest of the world, America shouldn't work—it's a statistical outlier, it shouldn't last, it shouldn't exist.
It's funny how seldom America itself seems to be allowed to teach a "lesson of history", though, isn't it?
|
| Saturday, May 8, 2004 |
22:39 - House Fast Flyby
|
(top) |
For Mother's Day, we decided to fly up to Redwood Valley, where my folks live, land at Ukiah to visit for a bit on the taxiway, and then give them fifteen minutes so they could drive home before we took off and did a couple of flybys of their house.
Damn, this stuff is fun.
UPDATE: What's even more fun is being in the middle of a news story when it happens. As we were passing San Francisco International Airport at about 4500 feet on our way up the peninsula, we happened to be being handled on the same Nor-Cal Approach control frequency that was also handling a minor emergency concerning a Northwest DC-10 jet that had taken off from SFO only minutes before. The pilot of the jet was reporting that he was circling over the ocean off the coast, dumping fuel; he was requesting a special landing clearance on runway 28R, the longest runway at SFO.
Turns out, the jet had blown two tires during takeoff. The runway he had used—28R—was closed at that moment as cleanup crews cleared away the debris from the blown tires, and the runway was still closed as the approach center cleared him into a pattern for a long, soft-field-style approach (using a loooong runway and floating down onto it ever so gently, to protect the remaining tires, after dumping fuel to reduce weight, and knuckling over onto the good landing gear as it comes to a stop) to that runway. He came barrelling in over the peninsula just as we, in our little Cessna, buzzed past; the tower had us descend a thousand feet and shuffle on out of the way while they took care of the near-emergency.
Finally, runway 28R was reopened, just as the jet turned to the base leg of the pattern; by that time, he had switched to the SFO tower frequency, and the airport was far enough behind us that we couldn't watch him land. But after we returned from our trip around Northern California and landed at Reid-Hillview, we turned on the radio and the first news item we heard was: "A Northwest Airlines jet out of SFO en route to Tokyo was forced to return to the airport after two of its tires blew out upon takeoff..."
How cool is that?
|
|
22:34 - Dismantling Abu Ghraib
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_05_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#10840
|
(top) |
JMH sends me this fascinating piece. Who knows how authentic it is, but at the very least it's a voice from the front lines.
There are those who say that Abu Ghraib should be dismantled. I doubt anybody who says so knows anything about Abu Ghraib except the name and the fact that the prisoner torture took place there; but if anyone is of a similar mind, it might be good to read this:
Yesterday a friend of mine, who’s also a doctor, visited us. After chatting about old memories, I asked him about his opinions on the current situations in Iraq. I’ve always known this friend to be apathetic when it comes to politics, even if it means what’s happening in Iraq. It was obvious that he hadn’t change and didn’t show any interest in going deep into this conversation. However when I asked him about his opinion on GWB response to the prisoners’ abuse issue, I was surprised to see him show anger and disgust as he said:
...No, it's not something that can be easily quoted. Just read it.
And then tell me Abu Ghraib needs to be razed.
|
|
21:30 - Who's calling whom simplistic?
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/05/Campaignendorsements.shtml
|
(top) |
Steven Den Beste links this article that seems to capture the highest concentration of jaw-droppingly dumb European man-on-the-street pronouncements that I've yet seen. I've heard all these arguments before, but just not all in one place. Where do they find these people?
Or do they actually represent the way the European populace thinks? I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, because I like giving The People the benefit of the doubt. But it's becoming difficult.
Let's see here:
"The thing that Europeans cannot understand is how you can vote for a liar," said Peter Schneider, a German essayist and novelist. Great. Good. I sure hope most Europeans are better capable of understanding the generally accepted definition of lie than this guy is—and can distinguish deliberately misleading others by contradicting known facts from making statements based on available information which later turns out to be incorrect. By his standard, Rutherford lied when he said that electrons were studded throughout an atom like currants in a currant bun, and Copernicus lied when he said the Sun revolved around the Earth. Gotcha. Noted. I guess this is that "nuance" thing we keep hearing about.
"The idea that you have a leader of the U.S. who's not interested in listening to his allies is important in the way people perceive Bush." So Bush should have "listened to our allies" and obeyed their wishes that we not attack Iraq, overriding the popular opinion among Americans? What is he—President of the United States, or Governor-General of the American Protectorate of the Global European Hegemony? Listen: if 80% of the American public and their elected officials say we go to war, we go to war—and that's true whether a Bush or a Clinton or a Kerry is sitting behind the big desk. European opinion does not trump our own when it comes to the actions of our government.
Nor are Europeans thrilled about the American values they feel Bush has encouraged, in which anti-Europeanism is applauded as a virtue, people boycott French wine to protest France's position on Iraq, and Kerry is ridiculed by Republicans for being able to speak French. Okay, look: I don't know if Europeans have some kind of FrancoTV channel where they can watch re-enactments of Bush standing at a podium issuing proclamations such as "My fellow Americans: I order you to all stop buying French wine and cheese, and cancel your upcoming French vacations, because it is important for you to support your government's position against the French," but sooner or later they're going to have to come to the understanding that Bush is not responsible for Americans boycotting France. Americans are. It's us. We make these decisions. On our own. We elect the government; we issue the commands; we decide where to spend our money and who deserves it. Bush could go on prime-time TV and tell all the country that supporting the French economy is the duty of every red-blooded American citizen, and we would not change our minds. We'd probably change our president.
Maybe our error here is that in attempting to use economic influence on the popular level to retaliate against France, we're misinterpreting French diplomatic positions and governmental actions as the will of the French people. Maybe the French people don't deserve to be deprived of American tourists' dollars and trade monies, because they don't agree with their government. It would be just like us to make that kind of mistake, wouldn't it?
Unless, of course, they do agree with their government. In which case, <Snake>Bye!</Snake>
And if they're lashing out at Bush because they see him as an extension of the American People, but believe politicians are meaningless shills that can be safely attacked without betraying their real hatred—of the Americans who elected him—well, then they'd better not complain when we treat the French People as an extension of their government, to be treated with commensurate revulsion.
Perhaps the real battle lines here are between the American People and the European Rulers: between two entirely different and mutually incomprehensible systems. But then, it always has been thus, hasn't it?
|
| Friday, May 7, 2004 |
12:14 - We had a point! I swear, it was here somewhere!
|
(top) |
MoveOn.org in a mass e-mail:
In the wake of revelations of torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners, John Kerry has launched an important petition calling for President Bush to fire Donald Rumsfeld. Getting rid of Secretary Rumsfeld would be a huge step forward for all of us who oppose the Bush war policy, and Kerry needs to hear our support.
"Getting rid of Secretary Rumsfeld would be a huge step forward for all of us who oppose the Bush war policy". Read that line again.
Now explain to me: How? How would firing Rumsfeld "be a huge step forward" for war opponents? Especially since Kerry is for the war (today, anyway)?
Is Rumsfeld seen as culpable for prisoner abuse? Considering that the Pentagon already took care of this problem when it was an issue back in January, months before CNN even "broke" the story, through sweeping demotions and dismissals? This would be like suing McAfee today for damage caused by the Michaelangelo virus.
Does MoveOn.org think that by firing Rumsfeld, we'll lend more "legitimacy" to the occupation? No, that surely isn't what "all of us who oppose the Bush war policy" are hoping for.
Or is this nothing more than the baldest of opportunistic slashes at their foe's unprotected belly—a chance to eradicate one of their ideological arch nemeses, just because he's peripherally connected to something bad that happened?
I love the implication inherent: that Bush needs to fire Rumsfeld, and, uh, hire someone new for the position of Secretary of Defense. Someone who doesn't condone prisoner abuse. Because, y'know, obviously Rumsfeld has no problem with that sort of thing! Bush can't have someone like that around!
It's telling that this MoveOn.org mail consists of nothing more than this brief paragraph and a Kerry statement that accuses the Pentagon of "being the last to know what is going on in the ranks". It then includes a timeline of events which, laughably, categorically deny the claims they're making. Rumsfeld was in the loop early on. The Pentagon took action. Only months later did CBS and CNN suddenly go insane over the story.
Don't we have a "double jeopardy" clause in the Constitution preventing people from being excoriated twice for the same crime? Especially if the second time only happens because people weren't paying attention the first time?
"Getting rid of Secretary Rumsfeld would be a huge step forward for all of us who have always wanted to get rid of Secretary Rumsfeld, no matter how or why!" Let's at least be honest here.
Criminy.
Thom T. sends the following comment:
Actually, I think these vermin are even worse than you suggest, at least if the snipet you posted is representative of the whole.
What is the implication from this statement? That the scandal should be used to get rid of Rummy because it would be a huge step forward, etc., AND NOT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO, GIVEN THE SEVERITY OF RUMMY'S BREACH OF DUTY.
In other words, there is nothing to suggest that Rumsfeld should be fired simply for his dereliction of duty, but rather only because it would advance their cause. Missing from this is any mention of concern for the Iraqis injured (okay, maybe they don't deserve it), or any view toward improving how our military operates. Rather, to them the value in having Rumsfeld removed is in advancing their own goals, so what they're advocating is not action to rectify what has occurred, but rather a cooption of it to in aid of said advancement. And any attempt to actuaaly correct the problem and see that it doesn't happen again be damned.
More and more, the message I get from the Left is the famous one attributed to Richard Nixon: "Screw the doomed".
Yeah. The MoveOn.org message is actually quite different from the Kerry statement that it's built upon. Kerry says, "The Pentagon didn't move fast enough; we need to do something decisive to show resolve and good faith." MoveOn says, "It's Rummy! Let's get 'im!"
|
|
11:16 - The revolution proceeds apace
|
(top) |
Looks like the iTunes Music Store is starting to get swept up in the great self-powering forces for meme propagation that drive our age. J Greely says:
Now that they've managed to unstick my shopping cart, busted since the 4.5 update, I went exploring in iTMS again and discovered something that I shouldn't have been surprised by: Google is indexing links to the store, correctly.
If, for instance, you search for "William Hung", at the end of the first page you'll find links to his album on iTMS. This has some very interesting implications for the future of online music sales.
Indeed, Ken.
|
| Thursday, May 6, 2004 |
15:07 - Stupid forest!
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/05/ForestsandTrees.shtml
|
(top) |
Steven Den Beste has a post up that is undoubtedly already resulting in a deluge of reader mail, picking away at it point by point and (seemingly) deliberately missing the general thrust of his argument, which is exactly what he's complaining about.
Now, I'll be the first to say that deliberately missing the point is right at the top of the list of Things That Piss Brian Off. I don't like it when people deliberately miss the point that social conservatives try to make about gay marriage; I don't like it when people formulate opinions on George W. Bush without ever bothering to check the relevant facts. That really irritates me, and every time someone does it it makes me feel as though people are less interested in seeking the truth and a fair solution than they are in vindicating their own preconceived position on whatever they happen to feel strongly about.
But that's beside the point. Den Beste's post grumbles about readers who endlessly pester him with pedantic details about his essays, stinging him like a million tiny mosquitoes, driving him underwater just for the blessed relief—until physical need forces him to come back up for air, and write again.
I won't reach every reader no matter how hard I try. I don't even expect to reach the majority. But if nearly all the mail I get about a specific post is pedantic, then it suggests that I didn't reach hardly anyone. If that goes on and on, post after post, it makes me feel as if I'm not succeeding overall in what I'm trying to do when I write for this site.
That's what gets me down. Perhaps it meant that the forests I've been describing weren't really very important, or weren't there are all. Perhaps I failed to write well enough about them to make them real for my readers, and all they could see was trees. If nearly all the comments I receive about some article are nitpicks, it means that article failed. If that goes on day after day, post after post, then I'm failing as a writer.
I'm not about to accuse Den Beste of doing what he's accusing his readers of doing. But I will suggest that he's overlooking a possibility: namely, that the people who write to him to point out details like Jefferson was in Paris at the time of the Philadelphia Convention or Hey, we know lots about how the brain works, thankyouverymuch are not in fact doing so because they see a point of piffling detail that they can use to pry open Den Beste's armor and disprove his argument. They're doing so because they understand his larger point, and agree with it... but they think it would be made still stronger if all the technical details in it were correct.
"Fact-checking your ass" isn't just a tactic of attack. It's also a means of bolstering an argument you think is sound, by helping to remove potential weaknesses.
I'd wager that a good number of the people sending nit-picks to Den Beste, particularly those who say, in effect, "Long time listener, first time caller," are actually doing so because they want to forward the URL of a given article around to all their friends. They'd just like to be sure that some little detail that they happen to know could be phrased better or made more factual is ironed out, so the recipients of the forwarded URL won't be distracted by a factual error (which might be more glaring to certain readers than to the writer) from the main point of the article.
A while back, I read this by Den Beste:
Though African Wild Dogs reproduce sexually, packs of dogs reproduce by fission. When a pack grows too large, some members will split off and found a new pack. They'll take with them the learned behavior patterns from their parent pack, so that knowledge passes from the original pack to both of its offspring.
And with tongue planted firmly in cheek, I posted this:
Just look what Den Beste said today:
...Dogs reproduce by fission.
He said it! He did! Right there in black and white! I agree with Philip Shropshire-- who could possibly take this man seriously?!
I can't claim I was even thinking this at the time, but what this pokes fun at—besides Maureen Dowd—is the same forest-for-the-trees problem that frustrates Den Beste himself. People whose sole purpose in life seems to be to sit on Sisyphus' rock, jeering, and pelting him with pebbles in an attempt to get him to give up.
But that's not what I think is going on. I know that when I e-mail a comment to a blogger regarding a post that I agree with, as often as not it's to correct a factual flaw in hopes of making the article stronger, as well as to simply congratulate the author. I'll usually start off the e-mail with a paragraph that says something to the effect of, Hey, great piece! I agree with it wholeheartedly, and I appreciate the insight it offers. However, there's something I noticed...
Sometimes I forget to add that preface, though. It doesn't mean my motive is different.
If I disagree completely with the author, I won't bother sending a message at all. If I disagree completely with the author, more to the point, I'll find lots more factual errors and logical missteps to point out—and picking just one would seem silly and futile. The only reason I ever send a message with a nitpicky factual correction is because I'm trying to strengthen the author's point—that I hope the author will correct the bit that I deem mistaken, so future readers (who aren't as well-disposed as I am toward the author in the first place) won't be put off if they notice the error too.
If nearly all the comments I received about a post were pedantic, it would suggest to me that it reached tons of people—but that each and every one of them, from their individual perspectives, saw ways in which the point could be made yet more ironclad so they could add it to their "essential libraries".
So I don't think this is a question of people deliberately missing the point, or blinding themselves to forests in favor of poking at tree-borne cellular fungi with tweezers; I don't think this is a problem of readers who simply can't stop themselves from ignoring pleas of [DWL!] because they believe they see an opening where they can drive an awl into Steven Den Beste's eye. I think it's more a matter of people who take for granted that Den Beste will understand that they agree with his point, or else they wouldn't be "regular readers". They're not articulating their concurrence with the same number of words that they use to articulate their nit-picking, because they figure it's better left said by Den Beste himself.
They're only trying to help. Many of them could be better at putting that into words; but, well, look at the standard they're up against.
|
|
13:15 - You ducks are really trying my patience!
|
(top) |
How's this for something I didn't think actually happened in real life?
I was on my way back from picking up a burrito at Chipotle (and getting some twenties at the local Wells Fargo, where I noted with some interest two twentysomething guys at the ATM next to me, poking at the keypad and talking animatedly to each other in a language I couldn't identify. They looked European and touristy, but I couldn't figure out of what variety). I'd just come through the intersection of De Anza and Stevens Creek, the largest crossroads in Cupertino, with four lanes in each direction and several turn lanes to boot, and lunch-hour traffic pouring through.
I was the second car through after the light changed, in the leftmost lane. Suddenly, just after we left the intersection, the car in front of me screeched to a halt. There were two guys standing in the raised and landscaped median and moving into my lane and the next, raising their arms to the oncoming traffic in the international signal for "Either I'm very inebriated, or there's a dead body in the road." My lane, and then the lane next to me, stopped and strained to see what was going on.
It was a mother duck, with four ducklings in tow, hurrying across eight lanes of midday traffic. Where did they come from? Where were they going? There wasn't a river, significant corporate landscaping, or any major water features anywhere nearby. But there they went, waddling across the asphalt, being shielded by these two motorists who had pulled to the side of the road to herd them across and fend off the cars.
I put on my hazard blinkers and sidled past as the ducks purposefully left my lane. By the time I'd reached the end of the block, they were all the way across.
Boy, do I wish those guys from the ATM had been there in traffic next to me. If nothing else, it might have provided them a little Stateside experience to take back home that didn't involve McDonald's, Wal-Mart, gun-toting rednecks, or pyramids of naked Iraqi prisoners.
|
|
13:04 - Another football test
|
(top) |
Compare this:
Bored with the political speechmaking in Harlem's Alhambra Ballroom, 6-year-old Iris Kerry Kaler reached out with both arms for her uncle, Sen. John Kerry, to pick her up.
The Massachusetts senator, however, ignored his niece's entreaty, offering Iris only an awkward pat on the stomach despite the array of television cameras poised to record the potentially precious moment. It was a missed opportunity to demonstrate his warmth by holding the little girl in his arms just days before last month's New York primary.
...With this.
"This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11."
Bush stopped and turned back.
"He changed from being the leader of the free world to being a father, a husband and a man," Faulkner said. "He looked right at her and said, 'How are you doing?' He reached out with his hand and pulled her into his chest."
If elections were decided on the basis of in-person, first-hand impressions, this one would be no contest.
Ted Rall will pen a cartoon mocking the young lady in five... four... three...
|
|
11:36 - Ugly bedfellows
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4908305/
|
(top) |
Okay, this is just all kinds of wrong.
Michael Moore is making headlines with his controversial documentary, but one group is targeting the filmmaker for his waistline.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has selected the gadfly filmmaker as one of its “Flab Five” and is treating him to a Veg Eye for the Fat Guy makeover. “Looks like the ‘Downsize This’ author has been doing too much supersizing,” notes PETA.
“We’ll be sending him a nice little care package, a makeover kit filled with health and diet tips, PETA’s vegetarian starter kit, and suggestions on how he might change his lifestyle,” PETA’s Michael McGraw tells The Scoop.
American Idol winner Ruben Studdard is also getting targeted by PETA. “If ‘The Velvet Teddy Bear’ doesn’t want to become known as ‘The Velveeta Teddy Bear,’ he might want to idle his meat and dairy intake,” notes the group.
Wow! PETA's getting nasty! Nasty as a blogger!
...Wait. Did I say getting?
It's the cage match of the century! One's an activist force with the mass of ten thousand men, and the other is PETA! Who will win? No one knows! Which one's powers of ritualized self-loathing and shrill, offensive terrorist-like tactics can vanquish those of the other? It's too close to call!
Can they settle their differences and unite against their mutual enemy—the common man? Or will their respective philosophical stubbornness and fanaticism destroy them both, each making casualties of the other's fans?
We can but hope and pray!
|
| Wednesday, May 5, 2004 |
17:07 - I fooled you! I fooled you! I got pig iron!
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200455.asp
|
(top) |
(My dad ought to appreciate this one.)
I've just gotta say: If, as Jim Dunnigan suggests here, the Iranian mullocracy is on the brink of obtaining nuclear weapons, it would be an awful event that totally changes the landscape of the War on Terror if they were to succeed. Duh. That would suck.
But if Iran were to suddenly announce that it's got nuclear weapons... well, what would that mean for the credibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed ElBaradei, and by extension the United Nations?
Would it imply that all the inspections, all the statements that Iran is "cooperating" with international bodies, all the assurances that Iran's nuclear program is purely peaceable, were just toilet-paper scrawls all along—and that the UN gullibly swallowed it all up? Would it mean that the UN is this absurdly easy to hoodwink and play like a cheap violin, on matters of the utmost global import—that they pathologically take liars at their word and believe the best of dictators? Would it mean the UN ought to be declared thenceforth unfit to serve in any international capacity for the purpose of preventing genocide or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, on grounds of demonstrated gross incompetence?
And given what else we know of the UN's credibility on these matters, would that be altogether a bad thing?
Why, it puts me in mind of a song:
Now this here's the story about the Rock Island Line The Rock Island Line she runs down into New Orleans And just outside of New Orleans is a big toll gate And all the trains that go through the toll gate They gotta pay the man some money But of course, if you got certain things on board You're okay and you don't have to pay the man nothin And just now we see a train comin down the line When you come up to the toll gate The driver, he shout down to the man I got pigs, I got horses, I got cows I got sheep, I got all livestock, I got all livestock I got aaall liiivestock The man say, you alright boy just Get on through, you don't have to pay me nothin And then the train go through And when he go through the tollgate The train gotta have a little bit of steam And a little bit of speed And when the driver think he safely on the other side He shouts back down the line to the man I fooled you, I fooled you I got pig iron, I got pig iron I got aaaall pig iron, Now I'll tell you where I'm goin boy
You know where.
UPDATE: Perhaps even more damning, though, would be if Iran developed nuclear weapons even with the UN breathing sternly down its neck. What would that say about just how effective the UN is at dealing with a threat that even it recognizes?
|
|
16:16 - Blame Kris
|
(top) |
I ain't taking credit for this one.
On this date in 1941 (May 5th) a not very well know clash of WWII took place. This event was overshadowed by the much bigger news a couple of weeks later of the sinking of the Bismarck.
After the Germans had captured France they used some of the French fleet for sea raiding of Allied freighters. The British created strike forces to go after these raiders. One French frigate in particular was particularly onerous to run down. The French had named it, for some strange reason, "Water of Mayonnaise", but, that's the French for you. I guess it sounds better in French - "Eau de Mayonnaise".
Finally, with the British, playing catchup, spotted the frigate and gave their battle cry:
"Sink Eau de Mayo!"
I'll be over here, convalescing.
|
|
15:16 - Cheap shot... but nice shot
http://www.tammybruce.com/
|
(top) |
Via JMH—Tammy Bruce has this juxtaposition of images up on her main page:
Ow! I felt that one from here.
|
| Tuesday, May 4, 2004 |
17:56 - Relentless (except for pulling out of Gaza, except when they're begged not to)
http://www.honestreporting.com/relentless/new_version/
|
(top) |
This looks to be quite interesting.
Check out the "Long Trailer", the 7-minute one. Requires WMP.
Interestingly, IMDB has a page for this movie, with a rating of 8.4 stars. But it's only out of 13 votes, and the top user comment is a whine about how one-sided and pro-Israeli it is. Yeah, well, maybe it's time someone made something to counter Jenin, Jenin.
And I wonder why clips from official Palestinian TV broadcasts of sermons advocating Jew-killing don't count as "interviews"?
|
|
11:24 - Can we take off our beards now?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10919_UN-_Genocide_and_Slavery_Compati
|
(top) |
I'm getting really sick of living in Bizarro World.
First it was Libya being elected—by a 33-to-3 nigh-unanimous vote—to chair the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
Then it was North Korea, Syria, and Iraq (I forget which ones exactly) chairing the UN's commission on Nuclear Proliferation.
Now, by a unanimous vote, Sudan—with genocide being practiced daily within its borders under government auspices—has been elected to the Human Rights Commission.
As LGF reader TMF says:
Other recent Appointments at the UN:
1. Bill Clinton appointed to head the Commission on Marital Fidelity and Sexual Abstinence.
2. Mike Tyson appointed to head the Commission for the Eradication of Domestic Violence
3. John Gotti appointed to head the Commission for Ethical Business Practices
4. Michael Moore appointed to head the Commission for Truth and Accuracy in Journalism
5. You get the point
And here's the really excruciating part. As insane as this is, and as much of a parody of anything with a morally consistent grounding as the UN has become, Sudan gets to smirk at the US when we (alone) walk out on the vote, shouting out their newly captured moral-high-ground slogans to our retreating backs:
Sudan’s delegate immediately shot back that the U.S. delegation was “shedding crocodile tears” and turning a blind eye to atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq against civilians as well as against prisoners.
I used to have the same kind of wistful belief in the UN that all good-hearted people did during the post-WWII era: the League of Nations, but this time it would work. World government that all would obey. Not soldiers, but "peacekeepers"—because peace would be the default condition, and they'd only have to "keep" it. An invention of transnational European minds, to be sure, but was that so bad in a world that was about to see the end of history?
But now look at what the UN has become.
They stand aside and watch with paternalistic indulgence as Tutsis are slaughtered in Rwanda and villagers are mowed down by gunfire in Srebrenica. They pour money into Arafat's Palestinian Authority while passing condemnation after condemnation of Israel's increasingly desperate attempts to defend itself through targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders like Yassin and Rantisi. They siphon off billions from Iraq's Oil-For-Food program, funding themselves and their lavish diplomatic lifestyles—and the pockets of their pet companies and family members—on vouchers for millions of barrels of oil handed to them like so many dot-com stock options by Saddam himself. They stonewall to prevent Saddam's removal, because who wants to lose a sugar daddy? And through it all we provide them with a huge building on prime Manhattan real estate, diplomatic immunity for their limos and three-hour downtown lunches, and a nation's beatific laudatory obeisance. For our trouble, now, we find that the UN is all too willing to dispense with any pretense of promoting democracy or human rights when it means they can snub the U.S. and gloat over our slightest isolated missteps—applauding Sudan with a unanimous election to the UN Human Rights Commission while our delegate walks out under derisive catcalls, mocking us for our antiquated and hypocritical notions of "democracy" and "justice" and "human decency".
Oh, and we also pay them 22% of their operating budget, or $232 million, every year. And when they ask us for more—bumping that amount up to $322 million—we happily comply.
On the way in to high school every morning, in Ukiah in the Northern California wine country, my school bus passed a giant billboard on a hillside above the freeway that said in huge letters: Get US out of the United Nations! It was a John Birch Society thing, apparently, and the slogan bemused me to the point where I wrote a research essay on it (as an example of a grass-roots organization with a bizarre and outlandish goal) for my History class.
Little did I ever imagine that that sentiment would one day come to make so damned much sense.
|
| Monday, May 3, 2004 |
09:52 - Macs buy you Kerry
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aIzb2nc.YIIE
|
(top) |
Wuh-oh.
May 1 (Bloomberg) -- Billionaire investor Warren Buffett and Apple Computer Inc. co-founder Steve Jobs are advising Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on economic issues.
I guess he wanted to hear from someone who left his company before he came back to it, who followed up the success of the iMac with the Flower Power iMac, and who has been continually going out of business since 1985.
Kerry, 60, the four-term Massachusetts senator challenging President George W. Bush, ``reached out to them and they're giving him economic advice about the deficit and job creation,'' said David Wade, Kerry's campaign spokesman.
``Political campaigns are always looking for celebrity endorsements and these are two eminent celebrities in the investment world,'' said James Lucier, a political analyst at Prudential Equity Group LLC. ``But I don't think investors are looking for celebrities, they are looking for policies.''
Hey, people won't invest in Apple. If they release bad quarterly numbers, their stock goes down; if they release good quarterly numbers, their stock goes down.
Gee, that's what I want out of the U.S. economy!
(Via Marcus.)
|
| Sunday, May 2, 2004 |
22:36 - Obligatory backyard update
|
(top) |
The sun saw that a weekend was coming, and so it decided to save up all its energy for beating down upon people working in their backyards on Saturday and Sunday.
But it couldn't hold back progress. Sweaty, sore, and hydrocarbon-stained, we got to this stage with the gazebo:
Now all it needs is a roof and some latticework on the sides, and some furniture, and it'll be a superb anchor-point for the "outdoor room" that we're turning this tiny slip of a backyard into.
After this, and after the deck is all trimmed out with benches and such, all that will remain is the flagstones and lawn portions...
|
|
21:13 - Don't chop California off into the sea just yet
http://homepage.mac.com/btman/PhotoAlbum11.html
|
(top) |
Up the Almaden Valley in the southern end of San Jose, literally just out my back door, there's a long and winding finger of the Silicon Valley lifestyle: an almost creepily new and modern series of neighborhoods with manicured lawns, large houses on small lots, big new Safeway-anchored shopping plazas, and mansions on the hillsides overlooking the valley where people on rolllerblades walk their elegantly coiffed dogs down the paved path next to the creek.
But take Almaden Road when it forks off from Almaden Avenue, and the first thing you see is a huge American flag flying over a biker burger bar with a row of Harleys parked outside, and a handful of guys talking and laughing around a roadside barbecue.
It's at this point that Silicon Valley gives way, in the space of less than a city block, to a rural farming region full of horse ranches one after another. Almaden Road winds its way up into the hills, toward the hunched Santa Cruz mountains that raise their dark wooded bulk up behind my house, and you'd think that there was nothing past the horse farms except for more horse farms, a canyon through which squids on sportbikes wind, and a reservoir or two.
Well, you'd be wrong. At least on the horse-farms part.
Much to my surprise, and my parents' (who were along for a car trip through the mountains up Hicks Road, where the giant square building that once housed an Air Force communications tower leans mysteriously over the valley below), there's a vibrant little row of cute and perky houses, nestled into a canyon at the base of the mountains, where the Almaden Valley narrows to a crinkle in the hillsides, and the road narrows to a two-lane tributary through the tunnel of trees. According to a sign next to the road by the biker bar where Almaden Road begins, it's called "New Almaden", and it's 2.5 miles from the intersection of the two worlds.
It's also home to someone named Kevin.
 
Check out this slideshow for a look at the California that seldom makes news. Remind yourself at all times that you're not five minutes' drive from the McMansions that house the technoveau riche that filled up the nooks and crannies of Silicon Valley in the last two decades; you're just a couple of turns of the wheel from the Bay Area, the region that also contains Berkeley and Market Street. It's all the same California, believe it or not.
Just imagine what it's like once you're actually over the hills and out into the rest of the state—the wine country, the Central Valley, the Salinas Valley, Fresno, Bakersfield.
And lest you get the feeling that people like this represent the entirety of the Golden State, take a look at how the Almaden Valley chooses to remember Pat Tillman.
Up on Bald Mountain today, overlooking this same valley from a shoulder of the Santa Cruz mountains where the trees clear to give you a panorama of everything from Mt. Tamalpais to Gilroy, my mom told me that she thinks I've landed in a pretty good place, here.
You know, I'd tend to agree.
UPDATE: Particularly as long as I'm guaranteed to be far, far away from Ted Rall.
|
| Friday, April 30, 2004 |
14:39 - "Americans will give their hearts to you"
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10861#c0137
|
(top) |
Since it appears that the story of the prisoner-torture is what we're all going to be discussing for the next six weeks, whether because we believe it's necessary to prove that the rest of the U.S. military is not exemplified by these contemptible morons, or because we believe it's indicative of our society's intractable corruption and racism and cruelty and therefore we must withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and apologize to the UN for depriving it of its illicit funding via Oil-for-Food—I for one am in the mood for a reminder of what America is.
A Canadian on LGF, in response to one of the obligatory Canucks who crawled out of the woodwork to dispense a torrent of variations on You Americans disgust me, said:
Two summers ago, I was in Covington, KY and Cincinnati, OH with my son and father for a conference relating to his special needs. Everyone was so nice, and friendly and caring. When they said, I'll be praying for you, they meant it. When they asked how we were doing-they really wanted to hear.
We were checking out of the hotel and the clerk asked me how was my stay. I said it was fine-but that the reason I was there had to do with my son's condition. She smiled and said she knew all about children in hospital. Eight years before her son was born with a fatal heart condition. The doctors said that he was not going to live without a heart transplant. She named him Michael.
She sat at his bedside, praying for her baby. The doctors said that they came up with a risky procedure to use some kind of plastic rod to fix one of the veins, but that he could die in surgery, too. She decided to go ahead with the surgery. They were prepping her infant son when another baby died in the NICU.
The mother of the dead infant walked right over to this lady at her son's bedside and said "My son just died, and I heard your baby needs a heart."
She gave her baby's heart to that woman's child. And you know what that mom's baby was named? Michael.
I said to the clerk that she had been graced by an angel, and we both started crying.
You get it Zephyr??? Americans will give their hearts to you. So piss off.
We're also a country that stands 100% behind our soldiers, as long as those soldiers don't shockingly break our sacred trust in them. But if and when they do... no justification. No excuses. No rationalizations or moral relativism. Some of us—other commenters in that LGF thread, for example—may try to let us console ourselves that "At least Saddam was worse", but others among us will tell those people to shut up. Our anger, like the anger we feel against anyone who breaks the trust of the social contract by taking advantage of it for his own personal gain (for instance, someone who defrauds a charity), must be visibly and loudly targeted upon those directly culpable. If this story is to be made raucously public, let it be so we can bitch-slap the soldiers in the Guard unit responsible and ask, "What on Earth could you possibly have been thinking? Did you think your country would be proud of you for doing this? Do you realize you may have just lost us this war? Do you realize you've betrayed us all?"
It's in this way that we demonstrate, because nothing else would suffice, that this kind of behavior is not just anomalous among Americans, it's antithetical to what we believe in.
If there's any silver lining at all, it's this: This incident gives us the opportunity to show not just how we behave when things are going mostly our way, and when we have little to apologize for... but also how we behave when we have a slate to wipe very thoroughly clean.
Pass the pumice, please.
UPDATE: Sgt. Stryker has given it the first good scouring.
|
|
11:12 - American ignorance is rubbing off
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040429/323/esclg.html
|
(top) |
...Or, possibly, it's nothing more in the first place than a bitter, vindictive myth.
Around one in 10 people in Britain are looking forward to Luvania joining the European Union this weekend. That's right, Luvania.
Telcoms provider One.Tel invited participants in an marketing survey to identify the 10 EU accession nations -- and cheekily added fictional Luvania to the list as a red herring.
Eight percent of all 2,500 respondents plumped for the mythical country -- a proportion that went up to nine percent among Scots, and 11 percent among over-50s.
"People aren't generally aware," One.Tel spokesman Carol Barnes said Thursday. "They're more involved in their day-to-day lives rather than the bigger picture of what is going on in the EU."
What are you doing, Ms. Barnes—trying to provide justification for this kind of ignorance among the British masses?
Oh really? You take exception to being called masses? Well then how about cutting us a little slack as well, huh? This goes for Michael Moore too: just because we don't all have frequently-used passports or know useless foreign languages doesn't make Americans any more ignorant than anybody else.
It means we have lives.
(Via Chinpokomon.)
|
|
09:57 - Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
|
(top) |
The way I see it, there are two possibilities for what Newsweek will use as the world-shattering cover story on next week's issue:
1) UNSCAM. 2) This.
Ooh! Ooh! I know! Teacher pick me!
|
| Wednesday, April 28, 2004 |
17:07 - Keepin' it fresh
|
(top) |
Yesterday Tim Blair said:
Boondocks cartoonist Aaron McGruder doesn’t even draw the strip these days. The street-talkin’ honky-hater just sits around thinking up great jokes which he then hands over to an underling:
He passed the sketching and inking duties to a Boston-based artist, Jennifer Seng, around the time of the Condoleezza Rice flap, last fall. “If something had to give, it was going to be the art,” he told me. “I think I’m a better writer than artist.”
Too close to call, Aaron.
It sure is a good thing he's all freed up to come up with fresh new material like this. Synonyms for "stupid" don't just write themselves, you know.
Preview of tomorrow's groundbreaking Boondocks strip:
BUSH iZS SToo00p!D!!11``` LOOOOOOL!!!!11~

|
|
© 2004 Aaron McGruder
|
|
(Gifs courtesy of Marcus.)
|
|
15:41 - Now that's patriotism
http://www.takeoneforthecountry.com/
|
(top) |
JMH forwards this link, which is a hoot and a half: Operation Take One For the Country.
Better not question these ladies' patriotism.
"So you want to know how Take One for the Country started?". McDonough leans back in her chair, "It was back in February of 2003, when a lot of troops were leaving Ft. Benning. My girlfriends and I were partying at a bar frequented by soldiers. At some point one my friend leaves with a young soldier. The next day we questioned her and commented that the soldier didn't seem her 'type'. My friend just shrugged and said, 'Hey, his unit was going to ship out in a few days, so I decided to take one for the country', I knew right then and there that this was an incredible idea, so I started Operation Take One for the Country".
Since it's all their idea, and a voluntary and principled action wholly in the women's hands (as it were), the objections raised by Berkeleyites just seems all the more laughable:
TOFTC has not been able to maintain complete secrecy and word has leaked out. I contacted Annette Spargas of the UC Berkley chapter of NOW and asked if she had ever heard of Operation Take One for the Country. Spargas said that she, in fact, had heard of TOFTC and was working to find and protest the group at the first opportunity. "These women are really sick, they are prostituting themselves", Spargas ranted, "they are objectifying their bodies to the killers of the Bush cabals war machine. They need to examine how men have made prostitutes of women throughout time". McDonough is un-phased by this type of objection, "What a bunch of bay-auches! Those femi-nazis really make me mad. Yeah, we have a TOFTC 'battalion' in Oakland, but nothing else in the bay area. Berkeley girls are too femi-nazi granola and the Stanford girls are too stuck up intellectual. Not to worry though, we're getting some good indications of interest from Sacramento and Amador Counties (outside of San Francisco) and we'll be able to take care of the men of the Pacific Fleet, don't you worry".
Memo to Ms. Spargas: this is feminism. Empowerment. Choice. Independence.
Take notes.
|
| Tuesday, April 27, 2004 |
02:15 - Simple joys
|
(top) |
This past week I've seen a higher-than-usual level of apocalyptic glooming and dooming on various mailing lists and comment boards and high-def PBS cable channels about the environmental catastrophes we face, the danger our ever-mounting numbers pose to the Earth, and so on.
I feel I can largely pin this on the fact that Earth Day has just been and gone, leaving in its wake a nation-weight of impressionable high school students, mewling out their well-intentioned pronouncements that Humans are the only species that murders its own kind for sport and There are only two kinds of creatures whose numbers grow beyond their environment's ability to support them—humans and viruses (dutifully repeating the mantras of Agent Smith right along with the tracts they receive at on-campus talks about the merits of an Edenic Earth where five of the six billion inhabitants have been—humanely, somehow—culled from it).
It's enough to make a fella ashamed of his species, you know? Homo sapiens: Nature's Folly.
Well, let's say you've got a large and ungainly dog; let's say that at 1:30 in the morning, he develops the urge to go out for a walk. You get dressed, you go downstairs (to his glee), you strap on the leash. You head out to the vacant dirt lot next to the river in its mini-canyon. You do your business, you turn around. Just as you near the sidewalk again, you notice that the dog is limping, taking only a couple of steps at a time before knuckling over on one side and stopping. He holds up his right front paw, bewildered, helpless to move on.
You pick up the paw, turn it over, and immediately find one of those evil little two-pronged thorn seeds, the kind that are clearly designed in a fit of mischief by a vengeful bicycle-tire-hating God. You pluck it out. The dog stands there for a second, wondering what just happened.
"Try that," you say. The dog takes a step or two, then realization dawns: no more pain! And he bounds off in the direction of home, you trotting behind at the length of the retractable leash.
It's moments like that that you realize, you know, humans are a pretty neat invention after all.
|
|
23:38 - Flat is beautiful
http://www.1up.com/slideshow2/0,2096,a=123522,00.asp
|
(top) |
So this is what the next Mario game is going to look like, huh?
2 1/2-D lives! The spiritual descendant of not just the original Mario games—the ones I thought were fun particularly because of the fact that they were linear side-scrollers rather than the aimless 360-degree immersion worlds in vogue today—but of things like Parappa the Rapper, this game looks like it would actually be a lot of fun. I'd wondered, for example, whether we'd seen our last-ever true side-scrolling platformer, given modern game engine technology; but it looks like they're going retro and dipping back into ages past to try to recapture the kind of atmosphere that made the NES so revolutionary.
I dunno. There's just something oddly reassuring about this. I don't know what it is.
The animation is what will define what kind of game this is. The stills make it look like a living, 24-fps version of a Saturday morning cartoon or something. If I see this playing on a demo screen at Fry's, I'll probably spend a little while staring at it...
|
|
11:17 - Kids don't like things with "Old" in the name either
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/007148.html#007148
|
(top) |
Dean Esmay notes the passing, at long last, of the Oldsmobile brand.
And I find I have to ask: Is Oldsmobile the only remaining carmaker on the planet that has "-mobile" in its name?
If so, it's truly the end of an era.
(Then again, was Hupmobile the only other one?)
|
| Monday, April 26, 2004 |
01:14 - THIS IS A TEST
|
(top) |
Okay, so I'm running a little experiment here.
I'm sure we all saw this charming little picture, courtesy of Lileks:
Mike M. at VodkaPundit said:
Every time something like this is published it drives the wedge between liberal and mainstream America just a little bit deeper. The places that this cartoon appears are the same places that have been severely bleeding audience over the last few years. All it does is help cement the dominance of conservative thought in this country. Ironic, ain't it?
And I thought, Well, hey, why not harness that power? Channel it—into the flux capacitor?
What I found myself wondering was this: Do you think it is possible to create a Leftist-type cartoon that is SO offensive that even the hard-core Left will repudiate it? Even if just for fear of their own skins, because they realize that nobody will find it funny—that it will only harm their cause?
What would such a cartoon look like? More to the point, what would a cartoon look like that would unexpectedly fail this test? I have to imagine it would pull together as many Leftoid clichés and conspiracy theories as possible, while yet remaining compact and pithy; it would have to be simplistic in theme, yet subtle in its scope. See, it would have to tread a fine line: it would have to seem like "just another biting and insightful piece of commentary" to people who think the above picture is funny, so that it would at least fall into the same category in their minds; but yet it would have to be so foul in its message that the average person on the street, whether pro- or anti-war, pro- or anti-Bush, would react with horror and revulsion toward whomever would draw such a thing.
If someone were to create such a cartoon, and it were to somehow slip into the network of crosslinking and glad-handing that is the DU/Indymedia universe, without any attendant details as to its source, it would get passed around gleefully from hand to shock-addicted hand, and pushed under at least a few sensible noses which would then turn up at it—and them. Viral marketing works, apparently, if the Ford Sportka ads are for real; imagine what would happen if the usual suspects were to fall into a trap of backing something that's just a bit too visual, a bit too fundamentally offensive, for anyone of good heart and conscience to want to be associated with it even peripherally.
I have a modest proposal here, though if someone else has a more apt idea I'm all ears (as it were):
Remember: if this should somehow get out and off the reservation, it didn't originate here, 'kay? That's why the signature is intentionally illegible. Heh heh.
Here's the thing: All the Left has to do, to prove its decency and honor and to be vindicated in its status as a legitimate political voice, is to find this thing offensive. If they do, then this is just a parody of extremist thought, done to make a point, like the ProtestWarrior signs. But if they don't—if it's something they agree with—well, then finally we're all being honest.
(Then again, I'm a terrible judge of the efficacy of these things, so it might be a) not very good or b) not very offensive, or c) both; I honestly can't tell. If the whole premise is stupid, feel free to ignore it entirely—I won't be offended.)
Sorry, everybody. This has been itching the inside of my brain all weekend. Some things you've just got to scratch.
UPDATE: Well, that was pretty much a bust, I guess. Ah well—that'll teach me to try to pretend I know how these guys think. Or to pretend that I'm mean-hearted enough to go undercover there successfully.
Nonetheless, thanks to Sean S. for doing the, er, artificial dissemination.
|
|
00:08 - Swelter shelter
|
(top) |
Incidentally, this is what we spent the weekend doing.
That's the platform for the gazebo that will go in the corner of the backyard. It's just big enough for a little table and a couple of chairs; the curve will echo a circular lawn area in the middle of a bunch of flagstones with grass or sedge in between them. It's gonna rule.
And on Sunday, Lance and Chris made these:
Big super-strong benches with very, very flat and level top surfaces, for building the airplane that's sitting in a box in our garage.
Oh, but I've said too much.
Holy damn, it was hot this weekend.
|
|
13:48 - Ties for the People
|
(top) |
How long has the modern-style necktie been around?
I can't imagine it goes back much further than, say, the 20s. A friend at lunch said that he'd seen a photo of one of his great-grandfathers wearing a modern-looking, straight, pointed silk tie around 1900.
So that's over a hundred years in which the necktie—one of the most variable pieces of fashion in the Western world throughout cilivized history, from Elizabethan ruffles to Civil War-era dickies to Southern bolos—has barely changed at all. Sure, it's gotten wider and skinnier; but in general it's remained the same for as long as there have been automobiles.
And that Deep Space Nine episode thought that twenty years from now, in 2024, we'd have totally discarded the traditional necktie style, in favor of a weird, oblique, sashlike arrangement that sits diagonally across the chest. That and the Chicago font were what indicated the San Francisco of The Future™.
Something tells me the necktie will be with us for a good while yet.
Why? Because style in men's fashion is converging. It's becoming standardized. Everybody wears the same thing nowadays. Slacks or jeans, and a button-down or polo shirt or T-shirt—or else a suit coat and slacks—are the uniform of the man on the street, the baseline from which all variations (such as the dickies and ascots and bellbottoms of the 70s) spring, and to which they all eventually return.
And it's the same across all social classes. Whether you're a rich and powerful CEO, or a guy living in a trailer park, you don't consider jeans and a t-shirt to be "above" or "below" your station.
Which is what I got thinking about today. Men's fashion, indeed, might in fact be the greatest indicator of the great Classless Society that all the Trotskyites of the early century yearned for. They envisioned a world where everyone would occupy the same position in the social order, because they all made the same amount of money. The young Bolsheviks thought that to achieve social parity, equality of wealth was necessary. But what's come about is a denial of that: we have the classless society, but without discarding the idea of some jobs paying more than others.
They seemingly pictured a glorious future in which every man would dress in snappy suits and go to opera performances—everybody appreciating the highbrow, intellectual achievements of humanity, only without a lower class to have to feel superior to. Well, what's happened instead is a lowering of the level of "culture" that we enjoy when given the wherewithal and the opportunity. What do Americans do when they become independently wealthy? Do they retire to smoke-filled rooms and play whist while ordering their servants about? Do 7-11 customers play Lotto in the starry-eyed hopes of attending fancy dress balls and climbing the ladder of high society, leaving their former mudstained lives behind for a whole new crowd? Hardly. They buy boats. They restore old sports cars. They build airplanes. They go parachuting. They build extravagant home-theater systems on which they can view Jackie Chan films in HDTV resolution while eating nachos. From burger-flipper to CEO, Americans by and large dream of nothing so much as remaining the same people they are—just having more fun.
Europeans, and those who sympathize with them, see this as proof of America's lowbrow, uncultured nature. "Why can't Americans watch more opera?" they moan. "Why won't Americans appreciate foreign films, or go to art museums, or emigrate to Provence, or show some semblance of culture?" The short answer is that we don't want any part of "culture". We see it as tedious and pretentious, a vehicle for self-righteously creating rifts between social classes. We'd rather keep wearing our jeans and t-shirts if we get rich, but do it in the cockpit of a Shelby Cobra or a Piper Cub.
Every since this country was founded, social classes have gradually been eroding, even as the shrill voices on the Left insist that the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer. We have social mobility unprecedented anywhere in history, and not because we artificially removed any upper social strata to which poor people could aspire. Instead, we made it so classes still exist, but they don't matter. When your garage poker club has members who are in debt up to their eyeballs and members who own their own entrepreneurial businesses, you know you're about as far from the days of personal wealth being denoted by how much gold thread and how many ruffles were sewn into the clothes you wore out into public as you can possibly be.
Hell, we don't even wear hats anymore; if we do, it's the ubiquitous baseball cap, which (like a silk tie) looks just as at home on the head of a CEO as on a trucker. So we can't tell how rich someone is just by looking at him.
Which is just how we like it.
|
|
11:20 - Hey, they said it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x147
|
(top) |
Huh.
If by ‘America’ you mean the majority living here now, then I hate America.
If by “America” you mean the vision of the Founding Fathers, then I love America. But it’s hard to keep that vision in front of me when the majority of “Americans” are fundamentalist, fascistic, homophobic, racist, sexist, ignorant, American Idol-loving morons who think Bush is a strong leader. I think that the America I love is beyond retrieval because it would take more than a new President, it would take a re-awakening of a whole group of stupid people who don’t want re-awakening. Bush didn’t destroy America. Americans who had no idea of the wonderful country they were given destroyed America, and will continue to destroy it whether Kerry is elected or not.
Did I call this one or what?
Thanks, LGF: "Can we question their patriotism yet?"
|
|
10:34 - Now that's a true statesman
http://drudgereport.com/flash5.htm
|
(top) |
Ladies and Gentlemen, the next President of the United States.
God help us all.
|
|
09:46 - "We at Japan Toy Company are very concerned about your... concerns."
http://www.beaterz.com/reviews/0100/p39.htm
|
(top) |
Agh!
Two great tastes that taste great together! Pokémon & Hummer!! The perfect combination! What could go better with the macho, go-anywhere image of the Hummer than a fuzzy little yellow rat bent on taking over American culture and draining the bank accounts of soccer moms throughout our swell nation!
I'm going to go gouge my eyes out with an X-Acto knife now.
Thanks (or something) to Marcus...
|
| Saturday, April 24, 2004 |
22:58 - Dowdifying Reality
|
(top) |
Have you ever seen a testimonial quote on a DVD case that says something like, "This is ... a good movie"?
Makes you wonder exactly what the ellipsis is leaving out, doesn't it? Like, say, the word not?
Anyway, that's how I often feel these days when trying to work out exactly what ails the Left so severely as to completely alienate me from all the Leftist ideals that I once held so dear, not to say from all my Leftist friends who (with a few rare exceptions) want to have nothing to do with me once they've discovered I'm no longer batting for their team.
It has to do, I guess, with being able to formulate complex hypotheses about how the real world works, founded upon completely, provably incorrect basic assumptions. They'll take some concept that they picked up somewhere, like "The Republicans and the KKK are basically the same thing"—and use it as the foundation and the springboard for a whole worldview that assumes that anyone who votes for someone with an R next to their name is a racist, or at least condones racism.
Sigh and trot out unpleasant facts that specifically refute the fundamental assumption, and you get sputtering, hemming, hawing, and furious attempts to reclaim some kind of moral high ground—certainly not anything like an "Oh, I guess I was wrong."
You can see this happening in our media and politics all the time. Just today there was more news of American casualties in Iraq. Of course, there's a knee-jerk reaction among many in the media and all over the country that "This was never supposed to happen! I thought we were all done with Iraq. I mean, didn't Bush tell us that the war in Iraq would be a cake-walk, and that it would all be over quickly?"
A quick perusal of his speeches shows that Bush said no such thing. In fact, he said (and continues to say) the diametric opposite:
This is a massive and difficult undertaking -- it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. (Applause.) The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. (Applause.)
Nor did his "Mission Accomplished" speech from the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln suggest that our job was over:
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. (Applause.)
The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. (Applause.)
Nor, for that matter, did Bush ever "promise" that invading Iraq would make us safer, indignant bumper stickers on Volvos and minivans notwithstanding. He's pitching an entirely different approach than "making us safer" in the immediate term. From the 11/6/03 speech:
Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo. (Applause.)
Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. (Applause.)
Furthermore, all over the place people are claiming that Bush said Iraq was an "imminent threat". They'll even point triumphantly to the Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union speech, claiming that Bush specifically used the word "imminent" regarding the threat Iraq posed. However, very few people on the Left seem willing to actually read the speech, preferring to take it as an article of faith that it says what they've been told it says.
In fact, it says:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
In other words, he said, in only slightly more words, "Iraq is not an imminent threat". But the media and the politicians determined to grill Bush are somehow managing to mentally toss that little not right out the window, inserting a mental ellipsis for the testimonial on the DVD case for Bush: Smackdown 2003. "Iraq is ... an imminent threat."
Hey, we're just saving space. How much difference can one little word make?
Only turns the entire premise of the discourse one-hundred-eighty degrees, is all. But hey, that's not important, right?
But that's old news even for the Leftists who have somehow accepted reality enough to shut up about this particular issue. Some have Moved On to carping about the economy, like a member of my social circle who was over at our house last night. We were watching a Deep Space Nine two-parter, in which Our Heroes are space-time-wedgied back to the San Francisco of 2024, where the poor and homeless are processed into barricaded-off "sanctuaries"—derelicted neighborhoods where there is no law and no hope, just the cast-aside refuse of a depressed urban world who have been moved to an out-of-sight, out-of-mind location for the benefit of the champagne-and-caviar set. Plenty of opportunities for Sisko and Bashir to walk slowly about the lawless streets and give long, excruciating, whining soliloquies about how "This is a society that has simply given up... if only people would wake up and realize what they must do to become a truly enlightened culture, none of this ever should have happened!" (This is in the days before the Federation passed laws against poverty, you see, and simply transported poor people into space or somehow "lost the signal due to interference", or however the hell they "abolished" poverty and greed and sickness and money.)
Someone made a comment about how even in 2024, the urban peacekeepers (the National Guard) were still using those old Deuce trucks from WWII. "Well, they're in a depressed economy," someone else pointed out. "When that happens, they'll press old equipment into service."
This friend, from behind the dinner table, harrumphed over his turkey. "Well, we're working on getting to that point ourselves," he growled.
The economy is getting worse, you see. Unemployment at 1996 levels, industry at a 20-year high, tens of thousands of new jobs being created every week—all stuff you can read about in any financial-news source you care to check out. But never mind—it's an article of faith that the economy is still careening down the toilet, dragging ourselves inevitably into 1933, with Hoovervilles for all of us.
I didn't want to break up such a happy scene of Friday-night bonhomie, so I said nothing. Ah well, there was always this cheerful Trek episode to watch.
So now the flavor of the month, brought to us by LGF (of course), is what that bunch of perennial winners over at Democratic Underground are doing: namely, running a poll to try to figure out what can possibly explain Bush being ahead in the polls.
Poll question: Is Bush ahead in the polls because most Americans are racist?
The polls show most Americans support a foreign policy that embraces preemptive strikes outside legal bounds (ie. Iraq).
They are willing to kill foreigners willy-nilly behind a policy that says “all Muslims are a POTENTIAL threat.” Never mind the ramifications of killing innocent people, as long as these attacks hinder terrorists they are justified. After all, in the end us Americans represent the good guys: Christian/Jewish brotherhood, and the Muslims represent the terrorists. Generalizations like this are what leads to mass genocide. It’s no different than the anti-Jewish propaganda that Hitler promoted as a cover for his brutal imperialism.
As of right now, 67% of the respondents (deep thinkers all, I'm sure) have voted Yes. (And the rest, judging by the followup comments, believe that, no, it's actually because most Americans are ignorant.)
And let's not forget Jermaine Jackson:
Jermaine, also a singer, told Reuters in an interview: "I do not agree with the U.S. government. What they are saying about Muslims and Arabs is all propaganda and brainwashing."
Now: what I want to know is, have any of these people even read a speech by Bush on Islam, Muslims, or terrorism? Have they even heard one?
Or have they heard every last one, and simply discarded them because what they heard didn't match the presumptions about Bush that they'd already stuffed into their brains, whatever cereal box they originally read them on?
I'll freely admit: if our President were going up in front of the microphones every couple of weeks and delivering speeches that called upon Americans to ferret out any and all Muslims or suspected Muslims living in their towns, call their local authorities, and turn them over for internment and questioning because, you know, all Muslims are potential terrorists, y'all—well, sure, I would in fact be all about condemning such hateful and unsupportable incitement. It's uncalled-for, it's un-American, it's Nazi-esque, and it's just plain wrong.
Only problem is, it's not happening.
It's not even close to happening.
Here is a handy summary page of all of George W. Bush's statements on Islam and Muslims over the years. Let's look at a few random examples of what this hateful Nazi racist redneck Republican has said, tarring innocent Muslim Americans with the brush of terrorism and fomenting anti-Muslim sentiment throughout this country:
• "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war."
• "Here in the United States our Muslim citizens are making many contributions in business, science and law, medicine and education, and in other fields. Muslim members of our Armed Forces and of my administration are serving their fellow Americans with distinction, upholding our nation's ideals of liberty and justice in a world at peace."
• "The Islam that we know is a faith devoted to the worship of one God, as revealed through The Holy Qur'an. It teaches the value and the importance of charity, mercy, and peace."
• "It should be clear to all that Islam -- the faith of one-fifth of humanity -- is consistent with democratic rule. Democratic progress is found in many predominantly Muslim countries -- in Turkey and Indonesia, and Senegal and Albania, Niger and Sierra Leone. Muslim men and women are good citizens of India and South Africa, of the nations of Western Europe, and of the United States of America."
• "This new enemy seeks to destroy our freedom and impose its views. We value life; the terrorists ruthlessly destroy it. We value education; the terrorists do not believe women should be educated or should have health care, or should leave their homes. We value the right to speak our minds; for the terrorists, free expression can be grounds for execution. We respect people of all faiths and welcome the free practice of religion; our enemy wants to dictate how to think and how to worship even to their fellow Muslims."
• "According to Muslim teachings, God first revealed His word in the Holy Qur'an to the prophet, Muhammad, during the month of Ramadan. That word has guided billions of believers across the centuries, and those believers built a culture of learning and literature and science. All the world continues to benefit from this faith and its achievements."
• "We're taking action against evil people. Because this great nation of many religions understands, our war is not against Islam, or against faith practiced by the Muslim people. Our war is a war against evil. This is clearly a case of good versus evil, and make no mistake about it -- good will prevail."
Anti-Muslim? I have a hard time imagining how he could possibly be more pro-Muslim in his speeches, short of converting.
Not only has Bush never said a single word treating Islam as the "enemy" or casting a glowering scowl upon the Muslims within our borders, as he's charged to be constantly doing by the DUers and Leftists everywhere—he's said precisely the opposite. He's rained down these statements of politically-correct peacemongering with such zeal that people like Charles Johnson, who see acts of Islamic terror condoned and cheered by mainstream Muslims on a daily basis, grow increasingly frustrated with Bush's steadfast refusal to even use language that approaches the subject of making war upon even a specific and tiny subset of Islam. Bush is saying all the right things, all the things the Left would demand to hear from a President who's fully on their side. These quotes are not just not racist or anti-Islamic, they're fawning. They're simpering. They're about what you'd expect to hear if Noam Chomsky or Ibrahim Hooper were writing Bush's speeches.
And yet not only are they ignoring all these statements, they're treating Bush as though he's been saying precisely the opposite of all of them, all this time.
Hell, ever since 9/11/2001, he could have been pounding his fist on the table, ranting about nuking Mecca in a brown military dress uniform and a little toothbrush moustache, and the Left could not possibly vilify him any more than they're doing now.
I fail to see how anybody could aspire to want the job of President. If you're the wrong kind of person, you see, you can simply do nothing right, in the eyes of a certain segment of your constituency. No matter how good you are, no matter how many of the right moves you make, you're guaranteed to be loathed with a murderous, fiery rage. Boy oh boy—where do I sign up?!
If DU were a real place, you could walk in with a clipboard, stop people at random, and ask random questions:
• "Do you think that Bush has characterized Iraq as an 'imminent' threat to America?" • "Would you say that Bush has used anti-Muslim rhetoric in his speeches to the country about terrorism?" • "Did Bush give the impression in his speeches that the war in Iraq would be easy and quickly accomplished?" • "Do you think Bush has unfairly fomented anti-Muslim sentiment in America in the wake of 9/11?" • "Would you say that Bush is a racist?" • "Would you describe the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as being characterized by widespread, reckless destruction of civilian property and lives?" • "Would you say that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are fundamentally 'racist'?" • "Do you think Bush's speeches regarding Islam and Muslims post-9/11 are similar to Hitler's speeches regarding the Jews in the 1930s?"
You know that a depressingly large majority of the respondents would answer "Yes" to every last question.
Reality be damned. They know what's goin' down.
These people wonder why nobody takes them seriously. They know they're right; they know they're educated and sophisticated and intellectual, so they can't be wrong. Obviously. They don't need to read the news. They know it supports their assumptions. Why would they have to confirm what they already know?
So to explain away this bizarre tendency of Americans to view them with dismissal and bemusement rather than the awe they feel is due them as the intellectual superiors of the average Joe, they concoct increasingly freakish theories, theories which make perfect sense to them. Like: Americans support Bush because Americans, by and large, are racists. And Bush is a racist, so obviously they like him. He plays to their hateful, bloodthirsty impulses, just like Hitler.
These are people who grew up thinking they were better than everybody else: the smart kids in high school, picked-on by the jocks. They had to concoct some reason why the jocks kept getting the chicks and not them, and why the idiots in the school weren't simply herded into the gym and gassed so the smart kids could actually learn something. I believe I understand something of their mindset, having once been there myself; they hold a grudge toward humanity already, and naturally they hate the unseen force that unjustly held them down during their formative years. Nowadays the stakes are simply higher, and the conspiracies are commensurately vaster and more evil.
It must be terribly depressing in the DU world, to live in a reality that's so dismal, that deliberately ignores everything that's going right so as to convince themselves that everything is shit. They can shut out the fact that we live in the richest, most tolerant, safest, most culturally/racially diverse country in the history of planet Earth, which ought to be the vindication of every "progressive" ideal they hold close to their hearts; they can convince themselves, somehow, that we're a nation of inbred, white-trash, racist rednecks with single-digit IQs and no interest in anything beyond pro wrestling and shooting beer cans off fences. Theirs is a world with a perpetual soundtrack of morose Goth music and R.E.M. and Jello Biafra and Rage Against the Machine, where Peter Schilling lyrics spark nods of rueful agreement rather than outrage:
How I love the life I lead Cannot think and cannot read Watch our values slip away play the game of U.S.A!
I find myself wondering which is worse: "cannot think and cannot read", or "will not think and will not read"...?
UPDATE: Sigh. Twice today I've had friends approvingly tell me that in this post, I've very effectively made my case: that most Americans are morons who don't read.
That was the exact opposite of the point I was trying to make. (Is there a theme here?)
What I'm trying to say here is that most Americans are not morons; they're way more in-tune with reality than most of "us" (the self-described Enlightened Elite) are willing to believe. Most people are rational, open-minded, and willing to listen to reasoned discussion from both sides of an argument. I mean, think about ten random acquaintances, and think back on twenty random people you met or saw during the course of the day. How many of them would you describe as clinically stupid? By which I mean, how many of them—driving on the highway, walking past you in the mall, serving you your Arby's sandwich, delivering your package—would you call idiots, people on whom you wouldn't feel comfortable conferring the sacred trust of democracy?
How many would you guess are racists? How many would you guess are ignorant?
DU says "most". Are they right? I don't think so.
The problem I'm trying to highlight is that the Leftists, the DUers, the elitists who are positive that Bush is a Muslim-hating racist and that Americans can't be trusted with sharp scissors because they're actually (gasp!) polling in his favor, are singularly and unusually prone to this behavior. I believe they're worse than the statistical average when it comes to being open-minded about alternate viewpoints. I believe they're (perversely) inured to rational, multifaceted discussion because they're convinced of their own superiority, whereas most everyday folks tend to have a humility about them that lets them accept that they might not be aware of the whole story on a given issue.
A contemptuous lack of faith in the decency, intelligence, and social competence of the majority of Americans is a clear sign of the kind of immaturity that you see concentrated, primarily and almost exclusively, on the Left these days.
And I want no part of it.
|
| Thursday, April 22, 2004 |
09:55 - Tabloids Become Seanbaby
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/news/index.cfm?instanceid=61499
|
(top) |
Wow! I've been pooh-pooh'ing the Weekly World News and other checkout-lane tabloids all these years. As it turns out, they actually appear to have some real, live, serious humor writers on staff. Could this be the beginning of a trend from "bizarre news that pretends to be real" to "mainstream parody news"? I'd sure feel a lot better about it.
EUROPE TO BECOME GIANT THEME PARK!
Member nations of the European Union have announced plans to discontinue their status as individual countries in order to merge into one giant theme park!
The new park will be called EuroWorld and will cover the entire continent of what is now known as Europe. The decision was made by the EU countries in response to their collective realization that no one in Europe has had an innovative idea in well over a century.
With nothing new to offer visitors, the European countries decided to stop pretending they were still relevant, and to start celebrating their colorful pasts.
"Our stagnant continent has been a virtual museum for decades," explains an unnamed EU representative. "Many could argue that we already were nothing more than an amusement park. The decision to legally become a large theme park is really only a formality."
Via Tim Blair, who says to be sure to take note of "planned prostitute races in Amsterdam". (Shouldn't that be drag races?)
|
| Wednesday, April 21, 2004 |
18:51 - Good question
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200404210839.asp
|
(top) |
Jonah Goldberg, via VodkaPundit:
For generations, Democratic candidates and liberal journalists have asserted with impunity that Republicans, by their very nature, hate blacks, gays, children, the poor, the environment, animals, and immigrants.
Al Gore ran as a champion of the "people against the powerful," claiming he cared about Americans more than Bush. His campaign manager declared that Republicans "have no love and no joy. They'd rather take pictures with black children than feed them." Clinton routinely said that the GOP wanted to "punish" children. The organizers of the Million Mom March insisted that "good" moms support gun control.
Again: Why is it fair game to question conservatives' love or loyalty to children or to their fellow man, but beyond the pale to question liberals' love of country?
In fact, I think liberal defensiveness sometimes undermines their case. After all, if I angrily asked, "Are you saying I'm gay?" as often as liberals say, "Are you questioning my patriotism?" a lot of people would think I'm hiding something.
In Goldberg's "funhouse" of the Left, patriotism is something vile and slimy, to be avoided at all costs—except when it looks like you might be able to accuse someone else of being less patriotic than you. In the funhouse, the military is to be viewed with contempt, as a bunch of unschooled, violent rednecks—except when you can claim that the reason you want to pull out of the war is for the sake of the noble troops. In the funhouse, it's okay to make racist jokes and support fundamentally racist public policy, because everybody knows it's the Republicans who are racists. Not you.
There's something horribly, bizarrely immature in the way the Democrats are trying to steer the political discourse in this country. It may be my inexperience talking, but it feels somehow like it's way worse than usual.
|
|
14:54 - Didn't you get the memo?
|
(top) |
So are there any comics out there that aren't going to feature a character getting his leg blown off in Iraq as this week's theme?
Guys, al-Sadr reads comics too.
I hope I don't have to start reading Garfield just to avoid this kind of crap.
|
|
11:13 - Same planet, different worlds
|
(top) |
Sometimes, I wish that some people who get profiled on LGF could read the words of other people who get profiled on LGF.
For instance, here's Jermaine Jackson, a Muslim convert, acting on his own recognizance as a sort of "cultural ambassador" to the Middle East:
Jermaine, also a singer, told Reuters in an interview: "I do not agree with the U.S. government. What they are saying about Muslims and Arabs is all propaganda and brainwashing."
Considering that what Bush and the U.S. government have been saying about Muslims and Arabs, constantly, ever since 9/11, to the frustration of people who increasingly see evidence to the contrary, is that "Islam is a great and peaceful religion, and a very tiny minority of extremists are trying to pervert it through terrorism" and "Arabs are as capable of democracy, and as deserving of it, as anyone else in the world"— is Jackson saying that that's what he disagrees with so fervently? I wonder if he's ever heard a speech by Bush on terrorism.
Meanwhile, here are a bunch of twenty-something Muslim professionals, sitting down to lunch at a chicken joint in Luton, England:
"As far as I'm concerned, when they bomb London, the bigger the better," says Abdul Haq, the social worker. "I know it's going to happen because Sheikh bin Laden said so. Like Bali, like Turkey, like Madrid - I pray for it, I look forward to the day."
Someone better tell these guys that all the bad stuff people are saying about them is "propaganda" and "brainwashing". Who could ever believe these sweet young men could be capable of violence? After all, says Jermaine:
"I understand their feelings but do not approve of their methods. Islam is a religion of peace. They are wrong," he said.
Something's not jivin' here:
"I agree with you, brother," says Abu Yusuf, the earnest-looking financial adviser sitting opposite. "I would like to see the Mujahideen coming into London and killing thousands, whether with nuclear weapons or germ warfare. And if they need a safehouse, they can stay in mine - and if they need some fertiliser [for a bomb], I'll tell them where to get it."
It's clear where Jackson thinks the problem lies:
"I don't think it is right for us to go to someone else's country and tell them what to do and how to do it," said Jermaine, who is a guest of the royal court in the pro-Western kingdom, which hosts the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet.
Wonder how he'd react to hearing this?
According to Sayful, the aim of al-Muhajiroun ("the immigrants") is nothing less than Khilafah - "the worldwide domination of Islam". The way to achieve this, he says, is by Jihad, led by Bin Laden. "I support him 100 per cent."
Does that support extend to violent acts of terrorism in the UK?
"Yes," he replies, unequivocally. "When a bomb attack happens here, I won't be against it, even if it kills my own children. Islam is clear: Muslims living in lands that are occupied have the right to attack their invaders.
"Britain became a legitimate target when it sent troops to Iraq. But it is against Islam for me to engage personally in acts of terrorism in the UK because I live here. According to Islam, I have a covenant of security with the UK, as long as they allow us Muslims to live here in peace."
How downright decent of him. LGF commenters are taking this bit slightly out of context-- Charles' quotation leaves off the final paragraph, without which the interpretation is easily that "All lands are Muslim lands, and all non-Muslims are invaders and occupiers of their own countries." That doesn't appear to be quite what this guy is saying, but honestly, how comforted do you feel?
(In fact, that last paragraph has the feel of a hasty bit of backpedaling. Considering the way these guys talk to the reporter as described in the article, freely giving their names but refusing to be photographed, it would be in character. You don't suppose the penultimate paragraph, the "Brits are the occupiers of Muslim England and must be driven out" one, is their true sentiment, do you?)
But Jackson knows better. He has cred.
"I think Muslims have become the new Negroes in America. They are being mistreated at airports, by the Immigration -- everywhere," he said.
How, then, is one to take this?
But Sayful and his friends laugh at the idea that they are local pariahs. "The mosques say one thing to the public, and something else to us. Let's just say that the face you see and the face we see are two different faces," says Abdul Haq. "Believe me," adds Musa, "behind closed doors, there are no moderate Muslims."
These guys would laugh in Jackson's face when he talks about "Islam" meaning "peace", or says that Muslims are living under the equivalent of Jim Crow laws in the US. These guys are living the yuppie high life and they know it; Sayful says right out that he has "never experienced racism" in the UK, and he smirks gleefully over the idea of overthrowing the very country on whose dole he happily lives. The fact that the West is willing to tolerate their presence at all, without demanding loyalty oaths (jingoist! Anti-multi-culturalist!) or conducting nighttime raids against people willing to talk to newspapers like this, and that the West treats people like Jackson as "cultural ambassadors" and gives them the benefit of the doubt, doesn't signal friendship. It signals willingness to surrender. All it takes is a little bit of subterfuge, a little bit of camouflage, a little bit of patience, and a little bit of C-4.
Who do we believe, Mr. Jackson? How sincerely can we allow ourselves to believe the constant refrain of Islam means peace? We keep getting mixed signals, and the consequences of choosing the wrong people to believe are either a) making a group of people feel uncomfortable, or b) getting slaughtered by the thousands. At what cost comes our commitment to decency and fairness?
The strength of our society—trust—is also its weakness. See, we all trust each other to a certain degree, all day long, to act in a certain way, and to behave in a certain predictable manner that's in accordance to what we say we're going to do. When that trust is intact, our society blossoms. But when we rely too much on that trust, it's so easy to subvert.
The USSR learned this long ago: communism requires the cooperation of everybody to work, but it takes only the rebellion of one person for it to fail. ...Unless you kill that person.
We have a lesser version of that problem here. We don't know how much we can trust Muslims. The article in ThisIsLondon is interspersed with statements from moderate Muslims (like the president of the Islamic Cultural Society in Luton) who insist that the firebrands are the exception, but what are we risking if we take his word over theirs? In a world where we're accustomed to far more honesty in our interpersonal dealings than we really even believe, can we even recognize deceit like this anymore, or distinguish it from harmless bluster?
Our culture, in these Western countries, is a lot more fragile than we think—fragile and complex. Americans (and especially Canadians) are fond of sniffily dismissing the idea that American "culture" is anything worth being proud of, let alone exporting. But it seems to me that if we found ourselves bereft of that culture, and thrust into a world where all the things we take for granted are different or nonexistent, from movies to food to music to being able to wear shorts on a hot day or (if you're a woman) drive a car or go to school, or even being able to trust the word of your neighbor even though he's of a different religion, we'd sure as hell miss it.
Besides, as one commenter says:
Anybody want to tell me that an evangelical Christian handing out tracts is more dangerous to society than this kind of bile? Guess which one the Left is fighting though.
All I can conclude is that the Left wants a different culture. Better? Worse? Doesn't matter; they just want change, like Jermaine Jackson in white robes that allow him to transcend a racial past that everybody but him seems to have been able to come to terms with.
Change. Progress. Anything but what we have now.
|
| Tuesday, April 20, 2004 |
18:36 - Columbine explained
http://slate.msn.com/id/2099203/
|
(top) |
All this time we'd all assumed that Michael Moore had at least this much right: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the "Trenchcoat Mafia", the Columbine killers, were the products of a society that had lost its heart—an America where violence was institutionalized, where video games and the nightly news desensitized a generation of youths to the point where they thought it would be cool to shoot down their teachers and the jocks who tormented them day by day.
Dave Cullen, however, appears to be in exclusive possession of a new interpretation of all the official analysis that has been done since the event: FBI psychologists' work, operating independently of all the pundits in the news and behind the documentary camera, has reached an entirely different conclusion about the nature of these two boys and what they—particularly Harris—were trying to do.
School shooters tend to act impulsively and attack the targets of their rage: students and faculty. But Harris and Klebold planned for a year and dreamed much bigger. The school served as means to a grander end, to terrorize the entire nation by attacking a symbol of American life. Their slaughter was aimed at students and teachers, but it was not motivated by resentment of them in particular. Students and teachers were just convenient quarry, what Timothy McVeigh described as "collateral damage."
The killers, in fact, laughed at petty school shooters. They bragged about dwarfing the carnage of the Oklahoma City bombing and originally scheduled their bloody performance for its anniversary. Klebold boasted on video about inflicting "the most deaths in U.S. history." Columbine was intended not primarily as a shooting at all, but as a bombing on a massive scale. If they hadn't been so bad at wiring the timers, the propane bombs they set in the cafeteria would have wiped out 600 people. After those bombs went off, they planned to gun down fleeing survivors. An explosive third act would follow, when their cars, packed with still more bombs, would rip through still more crowds, presumably of survivors, rescue workers, and reporters. The climax would be captured on live television. It wasn't just "fame" they were after—Agent Fuselier bristles at that trivializing term—they were gunning for devastating infamy on the historical scale of an Attila the Hun. Their vision was to create a nightmare so devastating and apocalyptic that the entire world would shudder at their power.
Harris and Klebold would have been dismayed that Columbine was dubbed the "worst school shooting in American history." They set their sights on eclipsing the world's greatest mass murderers, but the media never saw past the choice of venue. The school setting drove analysis in precisely the wrong direction.
The whole thing is worth reading. This is important stuff. Particularly revealing are the entries from Harris' personal journal, which depict not a picked-on kid with delusions fueled by violent pop media, but a cold-hearted serial killer and mass murderer in the making—a prodigy in the psychopath department.
"YOU KNOW WHAT I HATE!!!? Cuuuuuuuuhntryyyyyyyyyy music!!!
"YOU KNOW WHAT I HATE!!!? People who use the same word over and over again! . . . Read a f---in book or two, increase your vo-cab-u-lary f*ck*ng idiots."
"YOU KNOW WHAT I HATE!!!? STUPID PEOPLE!!! Why must so many people be so stupid!!? . . . YOU KNOW WHAT I HATE!!!? When people mispronounce words! and they dont even know it to, like acrosT, or eXspreso, pacific (specific), or 2 pAck. learn to speak correctly you morons.
It rages on for page after page and is repeated in his journal and in the videos he and Klebold made. But Fuselier recognized a far more revealing emotion bursting through, both fueling and overshadowing the hate. What the boy was really expressing was contempt.
He is disgusted with the morons around him. These are not the rantings of an angry young man, picked on by jocks until he's not going to take it anymore. These are the rantings of someone with a messianic-grade superiority complex, out to punish the entire human race for its appalling inferiority. It may look like hate, but "It's more about demeaning other people," says Hare.
In fact, I'd say it sounds like he might have been a Michael Moore fan.
Ohhhhh! Ohhhhh!
|
| Monday, April 19, 2004 |
23:50 - Lorne Greene for President
http://www.grotto11.com/blog/LorneGreene4Pres.mov
|
(top) |
Gee, where have we seen something like this recently?

"If we mind our own business, there is every reason to believe that the Cylons will leave us alone..."
TiVO'd and encoded and sent to me by James Sentman.
|
|
18:21 - The descendants of slaves
|
(top) |
Further to my Fear of God post from last week, reader Thom T. sent me the following, which I believe crystallizes a very important historical perspective:
Just read the "Fear of God" post. While I normally simply appreciate your blogging very much, for the past few days, it seems like either I'm channelling you, or vice versa. Scary, I know. :)
Anyway, I'd been thinking about precisely this issue lately, about exactly what it is these cretins don't get, and it crystallized in my mind when I read the passage in which you wrote your solution.
What they don't get is that for the majority of the world, existence on Earth is a pretty crappy experience from cradle to grave, and for a good number of those people, existence on Earth is a horriffic, shitty, really, really, REALLY unconscionable version of Hell on Earth.
This is not exactly a stunning revelation, obviously. The vast majority of humanity lived somewhere in between these two states until 1850 at the earliest (and that's being generous, time-frame-wise), and we know this. Why this is important in regard to the cretins is that they have their history all mixed up: I have heard, first-hand, several people, most of whom are friends of mine and who are not extremists, posit the view that there were so many other, greater, NON-WHITE civilizations from the past that accomplished so many great and beautiful things, and that our civilization is but a crude, cruel, inhuman, conformist joke on humanity, where the rich prosper, the poor are crushed, and the rest of us are drones.
What they don't get is that while Michelangelo was a great sculptor and painter, THAT WASN'T THE MAJORITY OF ITALY AT THE TIME. That while the Egyptians built some of the most breathtaking structures, which are rightly named wonders of the world, THEY WERE BUILT BY SLAVES. That while the Greeks may have been more ahead of their time intellectually than any other civilization before or since, THAT WAS ONLY A FEW VERY FORTUNATE GUYS. The vast majority of people who lived during those ages, and during the great ages of China, Babylon, Persia, Phoenicia, the Almohads, etc., were either slaves, or one or two steps above, and that life for them was pretty damn piss-poor.
They see only the greatness, and, combined with their ideas of multi-culturalism, project the past onto the present, and see America as this crude infant stumbling blindly across the world and wrecking all that is good, and replacing it with Wal-Marts and McDonalds. Among these people are those who went to Iraq (remember, this was once Mesopotamia!!) to become human shields, and were stunned to learn that the majority of Iraqis really, really wanted freedom more than anything else.
What they don't get is that the Industrial Revolution was vastly more important than the Rennaisance. What they don't get is that Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" is the most important work in the history of humankind (outside of the Bible, for me), and not Joyce's "Ulysses". What they don't get is that the Cotton Gin was a far more important discovery than oil paints.
What they really don't get is that personal and economic freedom are the same thing, and the it was recognition of such that truly freed the decrepit, and that, if that didn't happen, they, and we, would be the decrepit of today. They see themselves as being the spiritual descendants of the Michelangelos, the Plutarchs, the Aristotles. Wrong. We're the descendants of their slaves.
And, finally, it's much simpler than all this, really. It's freedom OF, or freedom TO, not freedom from.
And if they really want to free people from hunger, poverty, and oppression, they should stop reading Maya Angelou, and start reading Adam Smith. The world outside the West largely sucks. The pagodas should not be destroyed, but building a few Wal-Marts along side them would be far more helpful than corrupt Oil-for-Food programs.
That's the trouble with Communism: it claims to be the ideology of the huddled masses, the wretched refuse yearning to breathe free. But history shows us that when those huddled masses stop huddling and start revving up their hands and brains, the tools of capitalism are far more readily at their service than the tools of communism, and rewards them far better. It allows the best of them to rise to power and stardom, but any of them to freely and realistically aspire to it. The alternative is a world where the best possible future for a peasant is to remain a peasant.
Which is well and good, if we can convince ourselves that the life of the peasant is a good, honorable thing, or that being taken care of by a maternal State is the "right" way to live. But Americans have never quite taken to asceticism, nor to allowing anyone to dictate how we live our lives. Which is why we do the things we do.
|
|
10:00 - He lied to us through song!
|
(top) |
So, lemme get this straight here.
Michael Moore told us (in a South Park-lookalike cartoon) that Americans are plagued with gun violence because we're all armed out of visceral terror of black people; and that the NRA was formed at about the same time as the KKK (and by the same people), right after the Civil War, as a means to arm Southern whites against the Negro Menace.
And it was in a documentary, so it must be true! ...Right?
So it turns out that not only was the NRA founded by former Union officers as a means to keep the populace well trained in marksmanship, in readiness for another national threat like the Civil War; but gun-control laws were initially created to disarm the darkies.
I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps.... [T]he Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population.... [I]t is a safe guess to assume that more than 80% of the white men living in the rural sections of Florida have violated this statute.... [T]here has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested.[1]
So Moore's not just lying, he's being fundamentally racist. He should be ashamed and appalled to be aligning himself with such a reprehensible philosophy, and he should contritely apologize for misleading the American public and his fans throughout the world.
...Hah! Right.
By the way—did anyone else notice, on the Simpsons episode that aired last night (the one where Lisa becomes student body president and gets art and music and athletics cut from the school budget, in a parody of "Evita"), how studiously the animators softened their caricature of Moore for his self-voiced cameo? They slimmed him down by a hundred pounds or more, and gave him a clean shave. Yeah, the line he got was a gentle self-effacing poke at the dubiousness of his statistics, but damn they were flattering on the visuals.
|
| Sunday, April 18, 2004 |
20:11 - Snopes is on the case
http://www.snopes.com/photos/commercials/sportka.asp
|
(top) |
Those "SportKa" ads have been circulating over the past couple of weeks.
You know the ones.
If you don't, this link-- the Snopes page covering the ongoing controversy surrounding them-- has them archived. Scroll to the bottom of the page and view the two movie clips before reading the story, if you want my advice. (And I know you're just aching for it.)
It's one of those things that makes me think, damn, that's offensive. Good for them!
|
|
17:49 - Change! Change! Change at all costs!
http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/18/ueton.xml&sSheet
|
(top) |
Another link via LGF: Eton College in Britain "is appointing an imam to promote Islam to the children of Britain’s upper crust".
Eton College is to become the first top public school in the country to appoint an imam to help pupils gain an understanding of Islamic culture and thought.
The school, which has taught 18 British prime ministers, is also to offer Arabic as a language for the first time from this September to increase better understanding of the Muslim world.
The appointment of Oxford graduate Monawar Hussain has already been supported by many who say it is a positive initiative on behalf of Eton and a sign that many traditional British institutions are changing.
This is what I find so baffling and maddening: there are those to whom "change" is the most positive possible thing, the word "progressive" is the best ever to codify a thought, and "traditional institutions" are nothing more than an evil to be eradicated.
Never mind what we're "changing" into. As long as we're changing. As long as we're making progress.
|
|
16:13 - Charming
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040418/wl_nm/serbiamontenegro_k
|
(top) |
Via LGF: apparently the next phase in the War on Terror has been unveiled, and it's the UN:
United Nations (news - web sites) police in Kosovo are holding four Jordanian members of the force following a gunbattle with U.S. police in which two American women prison officers and a Jordanian male were killed.
"Four Jordanians were detained yesterday after the incident and they are in custody," U.N. Police Commissioner Stefan Feller told a news conference in the provincial capital, Pristina.
"We don't know the motive," he said in response to questions about a report that violent emotions over Iraq (news - web sites) was behind the clash. "I cannot say the reasons for the incident," Feller added, calling it a "reckless attack."
Let's review: yesterday, Israel takes out Abdel Aziz Rantisi, co-founder of Hamas and perpetrator of countless acts of commissioning terror attacks. Today, Jordanian UN peacekeepers open fire on American members of their own force.
Shee-yah, that can't be right!
Whatever the cause, a lethal firefight is unprecedented between two of the 30 or so national contingents of the Kosovo U.N. law enforcement mission, which numbers some 3,500 officers.
“I have to say, this was a sad day for U.N. peacekeeping,” Feller said. But he said no changes to the mission were planned.
Maybe, but it's also only the latest in a long line of moral and military disasters for the UN, ranging from Srebrenica to Rwanda to the Iraq Oil-For-Blood program to Kosovo, where we risked our soldiers' lives to defend Muslims from genocide. And the UN may pay lip service to condemning this act, but what do you suppose the real position is of those voting members of the UN Security Council, those illustrious representatives of free democracies like Syria, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, and China?
America doesn't want to believe that the UN is, in fact, our enemy now. Their voting against our interests in such a predictable bloc over the past many years hasn't swayed us much; we've worn the plastic grin and just hoped reality would someday come to match our fantasy of benevolent, peaceful world government. But maybe being in a shooting war with other UN members, who are wearing UN uniforms at the time, will change the tone of things a bit.
|
|
14:12 - About that money of "yours"
http://www.interocitor.com/archives/000286.html
|
(top) |
Get a load of what The Interocitor has found (via Dean Esmay): the original 1040 form, the very first income tax form from 1913.
Imagine what this must have been like: all your life, the money you've made is the money you keep. No crap about "take-home pay" or "incremental payments" or W-2 forms. Your wage is your wage, and the government doesn't have to know a thing about it.
Then, one day in early '14, you get a form in the mail that says: THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO HAVE THIS RETURN IN THE HANDS OF THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE ON OR BEFOR MARCH 1 IS $20 TO $3,000.
And right after that, it says we're the government, and we're here to help. So give us 1% of whatever money you earned. Or else.
(Or, if you made more $20,000, 2%, or higher, up to 6% for people making half a million bucks a year or more.)
We take this sort of thing for granted nowadays; we've had income taxes all our lives, and even though it now gets calculated at rates ten times what they were in 1913, it all gets withheld by the employer, and all we're doing at tax time is fine-tuning the last couple thousand bucks up or down.
What must it have been like, in 1913, for people to suddenly have to work out what one-one-hundredth of what they earned that year was, and dig it out of bank accounts or mattresses, under the baleful eyes of glowering, fedora-adorned agents in dark suits, and send it in to Washington?
I know it would have made me feel weird, no matter how many Interstate highways they promised me it would buy.
|
| Friday, April 16, 2004 |
15:31 - Wish your problems away
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2004/04/zoop_and_theyre.html
|
(top) |
Wow. I don't think I'll ever be able to enjoy a game of "Zip, Zap, Zoop" at a party or improv show again. Because "Zoop" will now unavoidably be embedded in my mind as the magic word that John Kerry uses to make Republicans go away.
I don't think we need a script or a rehearsal, people - we all know our parts. Let's have the "he was kidding crowd" to our left, please, the "earnest but humorless" group to the right, and our topic is Sen. Kerry's recent quip to a group of 4 and 5 year olds:
Mr. Kerry obliged, but still seemed to have politics on the brain as he narrated the story of the magic wand — "Zoop!" — making things disappear.
"I could go zoop! and Republicans would disappear," he said.
Now, the crowd on the left has it easy - just keep yelling "he was kidding". "Don't we have more important issues to discuss" is also good. Counter-examples of bad Bush behavior are encouraged; lacking that, we are glumly aware of a certain tendency to drift towards personal invective as a substitute for actual argument, and we hope that can be minimized.
The group on the right - be sure to mention press bias. The Note admitted that Sen. Clinton got a pass on her Gandhi joke a while back, so see if anyone makes a similar admission here. Also, we expect you to hit on the probable response if Bush had said this - don't forget Ashcroft, the Patriot Act, stifling of dissent, the importance of our leaders promoting pluralism, etc. Let's see some emotion!
. . .
For a big finish, someone please make a connection to Kerry's "lying, crooked Republicans" comment, and address the question of whether Kerry really wants to be President of all the country, or just half of it.
My guess is that he wants to be President of the easily amused.
|
| Thursday, April 15, 2004 |
00:11 - I'm not sayin' anything-- he is
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0404/041604.html
|
(top) |
James weighs in:
But what perked up my ears was one of the anthropologist’s assertions that there is no difference between a two-parent / two-sex family and a two-parent / same-sex family. None. He said: Any preference for a traditional mom/dad family was based in a “superstition.” His word: “Superstition.” Because, you see, there was no evidence that two moms were different in any important way than a mom and a dad. Belief in werewolves, belief in the evil eye, belief in the walking undead or the superiority of a mom-dad household: superstition.
In his zeal for a brave new world, this fellow managed to insult and demean everyone. And I mean everyone. Moms? Any guy can do your job. Dads? Your son or daughter doesn’t need to grow up with a male role model in his or her daily life. It’s the sort of pernicious nonsense that thinks gender is an arbitrary social construct. It’s not enough, apparently, to say that gay couples can be great parents. You have to insist that heterosexual couples have no inherent advantages. It’s not enough to say that kids raised by gay couples can grow up well-adjusted. You have to deny the advantages of growing up in a family where the child is exposed to both male and female role models on a molecular level. It’s not enough to support the rights of a lesbian couple to bring life into this world; you have to stifle your own suspicions that having a dad in the house is better than not having one. Otherwise you’re one of those curious old things who lives in a world dominated by superstitions. Quaint, amusing superstitions.
This is what dismays me: no matter how much I may support gay rights, in the final analysis my belief that my daughter needs a dad brands me as a reactionary.
Yeah. And my sharing those beliefs reserves some interesting names for me.
I blame that one Star Trek episode with the genderless race and the deviants who liked being male and female. Notice how gray everyone was?
|
|
16:18 - How An Italian Dies
http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/006475.php
|
(top) |
In a word: well.
As the gunman's pistol was pointing at him the hostage "tried to take off his hood and shouted: 'now I'll show you how an Italian dies,'" [Frattini] said.
Reportedly Al-Jazeera refused to broadcast this murder because it was "too gruesome". Shyeah, like that's ever stopped them before.
We know why they didn't broadcast it.
|
|
11:15 - Nobody's Perfect
http://slate.msn.com/id/2098860/
|
(top) |
Wait a minute. This woman is an NPR commentator?
I speak of Ann Louise Bardach, who tore Oliver Stone a new one in this interview over his recent Castro-love-fest documentaries.
ALB: Now, when you were talking to the prisoners who tried to hijack a plane, one told you he was a fisherman, and you said, "Why then didn't you take a boat?" Why did you ask that?
OS: Well, it seemed to me that if they were familiar with boats, it seemed to be the best way.
ALB: Did you know that in Cuba there are virtually no boats? The boats that are used for fishermen are tightly controlled. One of the more surreal aspects of Cuba, being the largest island in the Caribbean, is that there are no visible boats.
OS: I see.
. . .
ALB: For the second film, you received permission to see the dissidents Osvaldo Paya, Vladimiro Roca, and Elizardo Sanchez. They spoke critically of the government. Obviously, that couldn't have happened unless permission for them to see you was granted, right? What do you make of Castro allowing that to happen?
OS: I don't think he was happy with it. I don't think he wants to be in the same film with Paya. In his mind they are faux dissidents.
ALB: He actually calls them faux dissidents? He called them the so-called dissidents?
OS: Yeah, so-called, right. I was in Soviet Russia for a script in 1983, and I interviewed 20 dissidents in 12 cities. I really got an idea of dissidents that was much rougher than here. These people in Cuba were nothing compared to what I saw in Russia.
ALB: Did you ever think to bring up why he doesn't hold a presidential election?
OS: I did. He said something to the effect, "We have elections."
ALB: Local representative elections. But what about a presidential election?
OS: We didn't talk about it, especially in view of the fact that our own 2000 elections were a little bit discredited.
Bardach comes across as a clear-eyed and quick-witted historian, and Stone comes across as a clueless partisan nimrod. And yet, for some reason, people don't caricature him as a poop-flinging simian.
Don't miss the moral judgment Stone renders upon Castro on the basis of his shoulders.
|
| Wednesday, April 14, 2004 |
01:41 - The face of the enemy
|
(top) |
Poor, poor victims. So persecuted. So hounded. So terribly in danger of having their voices squelched by the merciless boot of The Man.
Who am I talking about? "Dissenters", of course.
The ones who threaten violence against anyone who dares to come near them with an opposing opinion.
Behold, via Tim Blair, the words of an Indymedia protestor in Melbourne (where "Liberal" means "right wing"):
My immediate reaction was to charge at these bastards and try to smash thier placards and hurt them as much as possible. I was accompanied by several other enraged demonstrators. Unfortunately the more militant socialist groups had already marched away so most of the immediate crowd complained that we where ruining a peaceful march. I stand by the actions we took. When Liberals have the confidence to attend a anti-war demo it clearly isn't a good sign.
If people are serious about activism they should realise that change doesn't come from wishing problems away it comes from militant direct action. By standing there debating with a bunch of right wingers at a rally, not only are people wasting time and demoralising everyone, they are giving them confidence to come back and disrupt more rallies. In the ideal situation Young Liberals should be left bruised, bashed and bleeding if they dare show thier face at a rally like that. That way they will be more hesitant about coming next time, and if they do the police will be more likely to quickly move them on.
And let's not forget Exhibit B, Racist Democrats On Parade. And Exhibit C, while we're at it.
Just rounding up some of the more outrageous things I've seen in the past few days. Someday it'll prove useful to have these links handy.
|
|
01:28 - UNethical
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10663_New_Poll
|
(top) |
Charles at LGF is running a poll for a new name for the UN's astonishingly corrupt Oil-For-Food program.
My vote goes for "UNron". Though "UNSCUM" and "Oil-For-Blood" are also good.
|
|
01:12 - The movie idea that dare not speak its name
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0404/041504.html
|
(top) |
I'd like to take this moment to thank Mark Steyn for not showing up on Hugh Hewitt's show today.
Because if it had, then Lileks might have hashed all this out on the air, and he might not have written it down. And I might not have gotten to read it.
This will sound crass, but bear with me.
9/11 would make a hell of a movie.
It’s the most dramatic day of modern times. The story lines are clear; it writes itself. You don’t have to make up heroic characters; every minute has a dozen. No Hollywood falsities need intrude – no star-crossed lovers, no cheerful archetypes, no swelling music (take a cue from “A Night to Remember,” which didn’t introduce an orchestral score until halfway through, to great effect.) Just tell the story as it happened that day, and people would cram the theaters by the millions. Just like they went to see “The Passion.” And with the same emotions, I’d bet: from the opening moments the audience would have the same sick clot in their stomachs, the same old throb of dread we all felt during “Schindler’s List” and “Saving Private Ryan.” This wasn’t pleasant, but it was important to see it, and know.
It doesn’t demean the day to make a movie of it, anymore than it would be an insult to write a novel about the events. Movies are how we tell stories; they’re the means by which the culture coalesces around certain ideas, or learns which ideas they should coalesce around.
And that’s the problem. I wonder whether Hollywood execs shy from a 9/11 movie because they think it might send the wrong message.
It would anger people anew, and we’re supposed to be past that. It would remind us what was done to us instead of rubbing out noses in what we do to others – I mean, unless you have a character in the second tower watching the plane approaching and saying “My God, this is payback for supporting Israel!” it’s going to come across as simplistic nonsense that denies the reality in the West Bank, okay? It would have to tread lightly when it came to the President, because even though we all knew that he wet his pants and ran to hide, we’d have to pretend and do scenes in Air Force One where he’s taking charge instead of crying help mommy to Dick Cheney, right? I mean the idiots in flyover people believe that stuff, and you’d have to give it to them or they write letters with envelopes that have these little pre-printed return address stickers with flags up in the corner. S | | |