| Sunday, July 18, 2004 |
21:03 - An unexpected treasure trove
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPublishedPlaylist?id=30175
|
(top) |
Someone's iMix: The WORST Music on iTunes!
Some of this stuff is pure fool's gold. (Yes, it's got William Hung in it...)
|
|
14:28 - They know what's important
|
(top) |
Just now on KCBS, at the top o' the hour:
Coming up: An Iraqi-government-sanctioned U.S. airstrike against suspected insurgents in the Iraqi city of Fallujah has killed some fourteen people. Local hospitals, however, report that some civilians are among the dead. Also, in sports...
Don't you just love it? Not a word about whether the attack was successful or not. Only that there were civilians killed.
Sure glad our media has its priorities in order.
|
|
12:43 - That's more like what I had in mind
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-06-13-1.html
|
(top) |
Via Cold Fury—Orson Scott Card is at least one storysmith who's put his talents to good use lately.
How stupid are Americans?
I think the answer is:
As dumb as we wanna be.
Well, let's come back to that thought.
Kerry's voting record in the Senate says that he'd rather our military consisted of a sixty-man chorus dressed in camo and singing "Give Me Some Men Who Are Stout-Hearted Men."
And maybe, maybe, one bugler.
If it had been up to Kerry, we wouldn't have had enough of a military to take over downtown Dallas, let alone Iraq.
But, just like Clinton, Kerry has realized that you can say anything you want during the campaign. As long as you're the Democratic candidate, the liberal media will actually take your promises seriously; and when the Republicans start attacking your record, they'll accuse them of "negative campaigning."
Not only that, but Kerry's sudden "stronger defense" plans are not provoking howls of outrage from the anti-war wing of his own party.
Why is that? Don't you wonder?
I mean, they're still ripping into President Bush as if he were the anti-Christ -- no, as if he were Mel Gibson -- because they hate this war that has closed down two terrorist-sponsoring governments and liberated millions from tyranny.
But when Kerry promises to do exactly what President Bush has been doing, only "better," they don't attack him at all. Why is that?
For the same reason that the economic leftists of the Democratic Party didn't attack Clinton back in 1992.
They don't believe him.
It's as simple as that.
They know that Kerry, like Clinton, is merely saying whatever it takes to get elected. You paint yourself as the sober moderate so people will vote for you. Then, when you're in office, you behave exactly like the leftist you really are.
This would explain the peals of giddy laughter that Kerry gets whenever he drools out that joke about how Bush wants to "lay off your camel, tax your shovel, kick your ass and tell you there is no promised land", so hoary that it's been used on every President since Truman; his audience, apparently, is simply so starved to hear any words come out of any mouth but Bush's that they'll cheer however loudly they have to, for whatever moronic babble it is, toward the greater goal of having Bush defeated in November. Issues? Issues don't matter. Deeds don't matter. Character doesn't matter. The only thing, evidently, that matters is the name—as long as the name of the guy sitting in the Oval Office is not spelled B-U-S-H, the actual person whose name it is could be Rasputin and they'd still slurp at his toes.
But the vast middle group, the people who get their news from Leno and Letterman and Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show, all they know is "Bush Is Dumb" and "Kerry's Going to Win the War." So guess which one they'll vote for.
Precisely what I've been saying. We've become a people that derives our political views from the Ivy-League snobbishness of Doonesbury, the anarchic nihilism of George Carlin, and whoever can do the best impression of the President on Saturday Night Live. Sincerity is lost; we assume that whatever any politician actually says is a lie, so we depend on humorists and satirists—dealers in irony and invective—to have done our thinking for us, to have analyzed the politicians' lie-filled speeches and separated the meaning from the rhetoric, then gone to the trouble to distill it into a series of Flash-animated caricatures to be shown on VH1. If they've got a funny-as-hell joke all queued up, ready to stake their ratings on it, we think, surely that means they've thought the matter through! We worship the irreverent because it deconstructs complex reality for us into something to laugh at derisively and shriek "It's true! It's so true!" in ecstatic response.
Regardless of what Kerry promises during his campaign, a vote for him is a vote to end any serious effort to fight terrorism using our military abroad. And since he is also committed to dismantling the laws that make serious homeland security possible, just how do you think he's going to do against our sworn enemies?
There is a difference between the two candidates. A huge one.
In the past couple of weeks, people have been giving Reagan way too much credit for being an international tough guy. The collapse of the Soviet Union? I recall that Gorbachev and Yeltsin had something to do with bringing the idea of freedom to Russia. Reagan might have said, "Tear down this wall," but he also traded arms for hostages and pulled the Marines out of Beirut as a reward to the terrorists.
In other words, we revere Reagan for his toughness, but he had his non-tough moments, and he got lots of credit for things he only contributed to.
George W. Bush is the real thing. Despite unbelievable political hostility, at home and abroad, he has determinedly pursued the war that we had to fight, and still have to pursue until we win.
Reagan caved in on Beirut and on paying off hostage-takers. George W. Bush hasn't caved in on anything significant concerning this war.
But W isn't smooth on TV. He has Letterman ridiculing him viciously every night on NBC. He has a lot of liars calling him a liar. The media message is constantly being pounded home: Even though W has successfully governed our country through the first two campaigns of a war that was forced on us; even though he has presided over a recovery from the recession that began during Clinton's presidency, despite the huge economic setback caused by 9/11; even though he has a track record that would be the envy of any wartime or peacetime president ...
In other words, even though he has the job of President and has done it as well as anyone in recent years (and, I believe, better than Reagan by quite some) ...
He still might lose the election, because Americans are so dumb we actually believe it when political dimwits like Letterman call Bush stupid ...
Which brings us back to the original question Card poses. Are we Americans actually that stupid? I think not. I don't think we're any more stupid as a people than anyone else on the planet. I don't even think most Leftists are stupid—I'd venture that genuine stupidity is a characteristic that gets distributed fairly evenly across the spectrum, and is in fact really quite rare. If stupidity were the hallmark of any particular political view, we wouldn't have people like Ralph Nader or Pat Robertson—both geniuses in their own right—commanding empires of personality at opposite ends of the landscape.
No, it isn't stupidity. It's just the dynamics of our modern form of political discourse. Everything has to be reduced to a joke, a one-liner, a sound bite. And in polite private conversation, everyone wants to have their own little anecdote or slogan that defines how they feel politically, so if the guy across the dinner table makes some jibe about our leaders, we'll know how to swat it right back with the dexterity of a badminton champion.
Peer pressure is what it is. Peer pressure is a very powerful force; the smartest among us can fall prey to it, and have ever since we've had peers. If you take a random sample of people, with differing political views, they'll all generally sort of avoid hanging their banners out too far, because nobody wants to be unpleasant in mixed company. But stir the pot a little, leave it out in the sun—and sooner or later, people will gravitate toward others of like mind. Our form of political discourse is to suck in what the comics on Comedy Central say and then regurgitate it at opportune times; and since comedians all sing the same tune nowadays (how funny can someone be while waving a flag? You've got to tackle The Man, right? And comedians band together too, once they see which way the wind is blowing), the audiences soon find themselves bobbing in a sea of uniform derision and hatred for Bush.
Then, while walking your dog through a pleasant residential neighborhood, you find a truck parked at the sidewalk with the words BUSH LIED — VOTE HIM OUT written in duct tape on the back window, and you stop in your tracks and stare for a moment... and then you just shake your head and keep moving, because what good would it do? How likely is the truck's driver going to be to listen to you quote the Butler Report, or challenge him to explain exactly how Bush did lie? You're harshing his mellow, to use an apt expression from a site I seem to have seen recently. You're not being funny. In this day and age, even facts have to be weighed against what the comedians say, and they're at a distinct disadvantage too. We don't give sincerity a second thought. If it can't be spun into a relentlessly infectious joke on prime-time cable, where the only voice that bucks the trend is the ever-more-my-hero Trey Parker, we don't take it seriously.
No, we're not being stupid. We're just assuming that the pop-culture consensus burbling around us got that way for a reason—that if every comedian in the world says "Bush is Stupid" or "Bush Lied", then how can it not be so? After all, fifty million Americans can't be wrong . . .
Anyway, read Card's whole piece. It's best absorbed in unedited sequence. Authors tend to be like that.
|
|
11:44 - In Japan, they call him "Annual Gift Man" and he lives on the Moon
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/japan010123_jesus.html
|
(top) |
Brian sends this:
In the remote mountains of northern Japan sits a strange little town with an even stranger story.
It’s a story of Jesus Christ, and it goes a little something like this: Jesus didn’t die up on his cross at Golgotha. That was his brother. Christ himself fled across Siberia and, after a brief detour through Alaska, landed in Japan — where he got married and raised a family.
The town, Shingo, calls itself Kirisuto no Sato: Hometown of Christ.
Check out this alternate legend. At least he didn't have tentacles...
|
| Saturday, July 17, 2004 |
17:48 - Six Degrees from Lileks
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0704/071504.html
|
(top) |
Heh. This is the kind of thing that makes the blogosphere such a small, fun world:
I googled the cartoonist, [Sam] Viviano, wondering if the kid had just stepped back into the smothering mists of history. There certainly wasn’t much promise in the illustrations, after all. Wouldn’t it be cool to find out that he was living in Arizona running a popular restaurant? I could call him up and ask if he remembered appearing in this book I’d saved for more than a quarter of a century. “You – you have a copy?” he’d say. “I don’t believe it. I lost my only copy in a flood, and never thought I’d see it again. Bless you!” Or so those stories go if the fates decide it’s a happy-ending day.
Well, imagine my surprise.
From Lileks to Sam Viviano to MAD to The Lion King to me. Gee whiz, indeed!
|
|
16:05 - The New York Enquirer
http://vodkapundit.com/archives/006139.php
|
(top) |
Here's something that happened while I was up at my folks' place this week on vacation.
Now, I don't normally make a habit of watching the evening mainstream media news. I'd gotten out of that practice at college, since we didn't have TV there; and afterwards, I had the Web (and, later, blogs) to satisfy my appetite for news. These days I don't even listen to KCBS on the radio anymore. But, you know, hey—if I have the opportunity to refresh my memory as to why I no longer find this to be an important source from which to get my news, I'll often take it.
So the evening news comes on—I'm not sure which one; I think it was CBS News, the big national six-o-clockstravaganza. And what's their absolute top story, the thing with which they lead off the hour of news, the piece of reporting with gravest national import?
Why, this:
In the annals of Washington conspiracy theories, the latest one, about Vice President Dick Cheney's future on the Republican ticket, is as ingenious as it is far-fetched. But that has not stopped it from racing through Republican and Democratic circles like the latest low-carb diet.
The newest theory - advanced privately by prominent Democrats, including members of Congress - holds that Mr. Cheney recently dismissed his personal doctor so that he could see a new one, who will conveniently tell him in August that his heart problems make him unfit to run with Mr. Bush.
Mind you, this rumor was not the story, per se: the story was that the New York Times had printed this. "Quiet rumors that Dick Cheney might be dropped from the ticket became a lot louder this morning," said the anchorwoman, "When the New York Times this morning published this story." They showed a photo of the article in situ on the newspaper. This was the story! That this rumor, advanced by nobody more in-the-know than "prominent Democrats", had been printed by the NYT. And, you know, if CBS's goal was to expose the NYT as a source of garbled lies, it would have made a pretty strong case. But somehow I doubt that's what their intention was.
The news desk then turned to CBS' primary Washington correspondent, that fat guy who looks like Wayne Knight, who said that he'd spoken directly to "no fewer than five top Bush administration officials, from Karl Rove on down," all of whom had assured him in no uncertain terms that the rumor was unfounded—that Cheney was on the ticket, that the party considers him an asset, that there's no reason to expect any changes. So the newsdesk appears to have made the best effort possible, and found that there's no basis in truth for publishing this rumor as-is. Sounds like good reporting so far, right? That silly Times!
...But what does CBS do next?
Why, yes—you guessed it! They called up John Kerry and got a sound bite:
"The Bush administration may like to paint me as some kind of flip-flopper. But if Bush drops Cheney from the ticket, he will prove himself to be the flip-flopper of all time."
Wheee! Isn't this great? This is how news is made today! If you're a "prominent Democrat", apparently, you can now just make up wild stories with no basis in reality and send them in to the New York Times, who will gleefully print them above the fold! Hey—since this has worked so well this time, let's accuse Bush of murdering Jon-Benet Ramsey, and Condi Rice of being a space alien engaged to Elvis! By the end of the day, you'll have John Kerry on the phone with Dan Rather and fifty million viewers, telling us all in concerned tones how much he disapproves of the murder of child beauty queens and the Republicans' tacit policy of employing illegal aliens in top official positions, not to mention his belief that he, like most Americans, frowns on interspecies marriage between extraterrestrials and dead musicians. Just watch the polls soar! Damn Republicans won't know what hit 'em. Huzzah!
Seriously, after this story finished playing itself out on Wednesday night, I just sat there staring at the TV. This is the news I spent so many years watching? It was't always this much of a farce, was it?
I mean, come on... at least wait until news actually happens before you give political candidates a platform on which to make hay out of it, huh?
|
|
14:24 - Oh yes, I'm supposed to not be here
|
(top) |
I guess I'm not gone till Sunday like I thought I'd be. The family visit was only for the course of the week; we just dropped off my brother and his wife at the airport a couple of hours ago, and things are now slowly getting back to normal around here. Oh boy! 900 e-mails to go through!
I may have more to say about the week after I've dug a few furrows through my inbox.
|
|
14:15 - Guinan, report to Airlock B
http://www.capitalistlion.com/article.cgi?1094
|
(top) |
Sometimes comedy just writes itself.
CapLion has the scoop: Whoopi Goldberg has been dropped from her SlimFast endorsement because lots of SlimFast customers wrote and called in to complain about her embarrassingly crude anti-Bush comedy routine a little while ago (that John Kerry giddily attended, naturally).
Predictably enough, Whoopi concluded that this textbook case of free market expression amounts to the suppression of free speech:
"The fact that I am no longer the spokesman for SlimFast makes me sad, but not as sad as someone trying to punish me for exercising my right as an American to speak my mind."
Just for reference, Whoopi, here's the right you have as an American to speak your mind:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I'm sure that with your empathic powers, you can not only tell when the Enterprise is a ship of peace and not a ship of war, but also that the First Amendment guarantees that a private corporation that hires you for endorsement work is not allowed to terminate your contract when you make public statements that offend that corporation's customers and cause them to switch to competitors' products.
All well and good so far, right? All neatly following the script? "The President sucks! Now give me my money!" "No! You're scaring away our customers!" "Eeeee! You're crushing my dissent!" We've all heard it before. Nothing new here, right?
Here's where it really starts inducing the giggles:
Diversity promoter Asa Khalif, who has made headlines for accusing celebrities of insensitivity, cried foul in the Goldberg firing. "I smell racism from beginning to end," said Khalif, head of Racial Unity USA in Pennsylvania. "SlimFast must realize that black women have every right to voice their views."
I get it. Now it's because she's black. Now, all of a sudden, Whoopi Goldberg, the most successful and famous African-American comedienne of all time, is the victim of racism. She's been fired by SlimFast for being black and opinionated. See, 'cause if she had been white and SlimFast had fired her for her comments, Mr. "Diversity Promoter" would have been just peachy-keen with developments, right?
And if Whoopi had been fired by, say, Ben & Jerry's for voicing pro-Bush views, I'm sure Mr. Khalif would be pounding the podium and yelling that she was fired because she's black, right?
My God. Does this stuff defy parody, or what?
|
| Wednesday, July 14, 2004 |
14:59 - Gone
|
(top) |
I'm going to be away from net access for the next several days, probably until Sunday night. Blogging may be slightly curtailed.
See you all later!
|
| Tuesday, July 13, 2004 |
23:50 - See, see, what it is, is this is what it is, see
|
(top) |
Somewhere along the line, something happened that changed how people everywhere view the President.
I don't know what exactly it was, or whether it's this President in particular that this applies to; but what happened is that the burden of proof shifted from those who wanted to posit that Bush was evil to those who wanted to posit that he wasn't. In earlier times, we generally assumed the President had flaws, but that someone who wanted to discredit him would have to point them out and prove them. Otherwise we gave the President the benefit of the doubt, out of respect for the office and an understanding of the need for unity—discussing the issues of the day rather than the vagaries of the President himself. But sometime, somehow, it became the accepted understanding that Bush was a bad person; and suddenly, it was no longer necessary to cite reasons for believing so. Particularly in the personal circles in which I travel, it's become such that finding someone who isn't anti-Bush is about like stumbling across a Platygaeist. He's the subject of honest bewilderment ("...You're joking, right?"), then scorn and ire.
in these circles, the accepted wisdom is that Bush is a fanatical religious zealot, even though he's no more overtly religious in his speeches and conduct than, say, Clinton, or indeed any other President in our history. Although it's an article of faith that "politicians lie", in Bush's case even a "lie" that turns out to be true is cause for crucifixion. Though throughout the 90s it was obvious throughout pop culture, movies, and comedy routines that Saddam was an evil monster whom we should remove as quickly and expediently as possible, in the post-9/11 world for Bush to follow up on everybody's heartfelt exhortations—from Gore to Kerry to Edwards—by invading Iraq makes him into Hitler.
What moved the goalposts this far? What has caused this drastic a change in how we judge our leaders? How do we even cope with this kind of cognitive dissonance?
Because that's what it is. I honestly just don't get it—I can't see how one can arrive at the mindset that the President is presumed evil and must be proved benign. I mean, I can laugh at Clinton jokes as hard as anybody; but I fully and unhesitatingly recognize the good things about him. He was an astonishingly good "uniter"; he created an atmosphere in which we could enjoy the prosperity of the 90s without being worried that we were taking ourselves too seriously. He did rather disgrace the office, but realistically, he was only following in a grand tradition of Presidential lasciviousness that went back generations. I can respect Clinton even as I disagree today with a lot of what he stood for. And should Kerry win, I'd give him the same respect due his office even as I stood in opposition to many of his policies. I've never equated Clinton with Stalin, and unless he grows horns and a tail, I don't ever intend to call Kerry Satan.
So what is it about Bush that has driven so many people, frankly, around the bend?
I don't know, but I can guess—without too much glibness—that it was just 9/11.
How? In the sense, I suppose, that we've reached a point in our national discourse where we've become so obsessed with the cult of the "other"—the en-vogue oppressed minority, the fetishized untainted aboriginal tribe, the patriarchal European social and political paragon, the non-Christian religious zeal—that when something as horrific as 9/11 occurs, we're allergically reluctant to blame it on anybody or anything but ourselves, especially when it appears to originate from the basic tenets of a romantically un-Western culture. We have a desperate need, instead of blaming someone else and risking being called "racist", to find an internal scapegoat for something that shakes our psyches thus to the core. And what better candidate for that role than a President who's already seen as somewhat illegitimate, and who already has a reputation as being a bit of a verbal bumbler, and (for special bonus credit) comes from the party that is seen as being opposed to the party that gave us the carefree prosperity of the 90s? Voilá: the perfect recipe for a domestically generated "problem" designed to take our minds off the bigger, externally imposed problem that we all know is out there, lurking.
We want our problems to be close to home, so we can feel like we have a chance of solving them. We'll even alter reality if that's what it takes.
...Then again, though, it might have just been the fallout and bitter backlash from Monica Lewinsky.
|
|
22:59 - So that's how it is
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040712.asp#1
|
(top) |
Via InstaPundit:
Recognition of the obvious. The media “wants Kerry to win” and so “they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic” and “there’s going to be this glow about” them, Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek, admitted on Inside Washington over the weekend. He should know. His magazine this week sports a smiling Kerry and Edwards on its cover with the yearning headline, “The Sunshine Boys?” Inside, an article carrying Thomas’ byline contrasted how “Dick Cheney projects the bleakness of a Wyoming winter, while John Edwards always appears to be strolling in the Carolina sunshine.” The cover story touted how Kerry and Edwards “became a buddy-buddy act, hugging and whispering like Starsky and Hutch after consuming the evidence.”
Newsweek’s competitor, Time, also gushed about the Democratic ticket, dubbing them, in the headline over their story, “The Gleam Team.”
Oh, but there is no media bias! What a silly idea!
|
|
14:22 - As if it weren't obvious
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/27202.htm
|
(top) |
This John Podhoretz column is actually quite a good read. He raises some good points that follow from this:
JOHN Kerry has finally spoken the words that make the November election an unambiguous choice. On "60 Minutes" on Sunday night, according to the official transcript released by CBS News, Kerry said: "I am against the — the war."
He tried to qualify them, to fudge them a bit, but no matter. The words are now out there and can't be taken back.
Oh, but he'll try. He'll say the opposite, and then switch back again, for every audience he talks to between now and November. After all, now he'll have to. Stupid economy keeps getting better, and now he has to find something new to berate Bush for. He can't even say he lied anymore.
What I want to know is this: How, after Sunday night, could a President Kerry ask a single man or woman in the U.S. armed forces to risk his or her life in Iraq when he is "against the — the war"? Don't simple honesty and decency demand that Kerry immediately announce his plans for a complete withdrawal from Iraq?
Kerry has made no such announcement. In fact, he continues to proclaim his support for a huge American presence in Iraq on the grounds that "the world has a stake in . . . a stable Iraq."
He never speaks about the Iraq war in terms of protecting America from terrorism, or advancing democracy in the Muslim Middle East, or liberating a suffering people from more than 30 years of tyranny and chaos.
He offers no cause higher or nobler than "stability."
That cannot stand. Kerry cannot lead this country to a successful resolution of the hostilities in Iraq if the only positive value he sees in victory is "stability." The country won't stand for it.
Kerry may share JFK's initials, but right now, the president he most resembles is Richard Milhous Nixon — the very man he condemned in 1971 for not wanting to be "the first president to lose a war."
Nixon did become the first president to lose a war.
If John Kerry becomes president, he'll be the second.
Uh huh. You know, the news about the Philippines, and the stark contrast between Bush's and Kerry's approaches to the war and terrorism, are perfect illustrations of the whole central point of everything we've all been writing about for the past three years: Attitude is what this war is about. Not conquest, not foreign aid, not oil interests, not alliances, none of those postmodern silly reasons we're all used to for going to war. This is all a matter of attitude. You know how even a decade ago we'd all internalized the notion of an embattled President sitting in a smoke-filled room, growling, "We don't negotiate with terrorists"? That was the attitude that was understood to be the only sensible course of action, in everything from Star Trek to Saturday-morning superhero cartoons. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Attitude is paramount. Because if you do negotiate with terrorists, if you let your attitude slip, they win. That's all they want, and you're giving it to them.
Now, even as England counsels its citizens to "adopt a submissive posture" when mugged, and give the attacker whatever he wants and don't attempt self-defense at all—we seem to be embarked on a global re-education program to convince the Western world that the solution to any threat is to simply give in to it, buy it off, and then seek justice—if any is to be had—from some paternal body of latent authority. Mugger steals your purse at knife-point? Give it to him and call the cops. Terrorists blow up your buildings? Do whatever they say, then ask the UN to draft a resolution condemning the act.
Spain and the Philippines have shown that they think the best way to respond to terrorists taking their citizens hostage and blowing up their trains is to take the terrorists at their word and fulfill their demands—because hey, then they'll go away and be nice, right?
Those of us who seem to remember something about the inalienable right to self-defense—and about how using terror to achieve one's demands is a tactic that should never, ever be rewarded with success—are finding ourselves more and more alone in the world.
But we remember what a difference attitude makes. We remember our self-defense courses that taught us to strike a threatening posture, to brandish a gun, to make it clear to the mugger that we are not going to be an easy target—which will make him skedaddle, since he's out there looking for easy targets, not to get beat up. And we remember that the absolute last thing you want to do, when attacked by terrorists, is to give even the slightest impression that you're taking their demands seriously. You treat them like vermin. You react with unreasonable force. You make sure they understand that getting you angry is not something they want to do.
There were those of us who wanted to respond to 9/11 by nuking Mecca; and of course, our civilized and tolerant natures won out in the first nanosecond of discussion, and that option was never really taken seriously. Of course it wasn't. But that impulse was there; among serious, intelligent people who understand the nature of war, the desire to mount a response way, way out of proportion with the scale of the attack itself was always there, floating in the back of our minds. It's what made us go to Afghanistan as quickly as practicable after 9/11. It's what made us go to Iraq to sweep out whatever looked like a potential threat. And, well, that's why al Qaeda has been focusing on other countries than the U.S. since then. They know we're not an easy target; and they also know that there are other countries who are.
Sucks to be them; but they know the rules of the game they're playing. Or ought to.
Kerry's approach to the war will be to rein in all our attitude. We'll fold up the tents, call off the dogs, go back to minding our own business like we were doing on 9/10. Those who vote for Kerry because he opposes the war (at heart, even if he tries to take back his words) are specifically voting for this change in our attitude: they want to see us negotiate, form alliances, be friendly and welcoming and forgiving. To adopt a submissive posture. To cower in the alley when the mugger tackles us with a knife, to hand over our purse and then—if we're still alive—to call the cops. Who, no doubt, will put out an APB, much may it threaten the attacker whose face you never saw and who slunk away silently into the shadows with your goods and your dignity.
I don't think the American people as a whole have forgotten what it means to be the belligerent, bristling, broad-shouldered, square-jawed, pugnacious people we once liked to imagine ourselves to be. We still like Popeye better than Captain Planet, after all. It's still in our blood somewhere—even if just in reliquary earthy expressions like "in our blood"—to understand the importance of attitude. Now that the Presidential race, as if there had been any doubt before, has reduced itself to a choice between being badasses or being wusses, I do think more of us will choose the former; because we realize that there's always time to dabble in the arts, but not when the museum is burning down. And you don't wear silk dresses on the city streets at night.
|
| Monday, July 12, 2004 |
22:48 - I so needed that
http://jibjab.com/thisland.html
|
(top) |
This is making the rounds... and let me tell you, it has released a lot of stress all at once.
My sides hurt... but it's all good. Aahhh.
CapLion: "It's amazing how hard it is to type when you're laughing your ass off."
|
|
17:35 - Philippines beg for mercy
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11692_Philippines_FM-_We_Know_Islam_is
|
(top) |
We've often heard people in political statements describe Islam as a "religion of peace". But this is possibly the first time I've heard the word mercy used in such a statement.
DUBAI (Reuters) - The Philippines will withdraw its forces from Iraq “as soon as possible,” Philippine deputy foreign minister Rafael Seguis said on Monday in a statement he read out on al Jazeera television.
“In response to your request, the Philippines ... will withdraw its humanitarian forces as soon as possible,” Seguis said according to al Jazeera’s Arabic translation of his remarks.
His statement was addressed to a group calling itself the Islamic Army in Iraq, which is holding a Filipino driver hostage and has threatened to kill him unless Manila agrees to withdraw its troops by July 20.
“I hope the statement that I read will touch the heart of this group,” Seguis told the satellite television from Baghdad.
He declined to give an exact date for the 50 humanitarian troops’ withdrawal, which Manila had insisted would take place by August 20 as earlier scheduled.
Seguis appealed to the group to release their hostage, truck driver Angelo de la Cruz, and added: “We know that Islam is the religion of peace and mercy.”
It's clear why he chose that word: on behalf of his country, he's begging for mercy.
Commenter merav:
The Phillipines and Spain are doing even more than rewarding the terrorists: they're VALIDATING them. They're saying, in effect: "You are right, and our governments are wrong. Your actions are reasonable, and ours are not. You are a religion of mercy and peace; we are savages and warmongers. You have a perfect right to behead our civilians, we filthy infidels have no right to protest, but we appeal to your mercy. You caught us red-handed. We're guilty. We deserve the beheadings. We'll do anything you say. But please bless us with your overflowing mercy. Allah hu-akbar."
Yup. That'll show 'em.
|
|
12:04 - But he supports the troops
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_2004711.asp
|
(top) |
The USMC has issued a 1000-word review of Fahrenheit 9/11.
|
|
11:41 - Do you want to know the awful truth.... or do you want to watch me hit a few dingers?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040710/HOUPT10/TPEn
|
(top) |
Via Tim Blair—here we have a full-color illustration of how seriously the Moore Left takes the reality in which we live, painted by Simon Houpt of the Globe and Mail.
All that talk about my lazy American colleagues shirking their responsibility to put the tough questions to Bush made me feel guilty by association. I wanted to prove I couldn't be pushed around like them. So I put a question to Moore, referencing David Denby's New Yorker review of Fahrenheit 9/11, asking something that had bothered me when I saw it.
I appreciated the j'accuse nature of the film, but I wanted to know why it didn't address the dangers of armed Islamic fundamentalism, obsessive anti-Westernism, suicide terrorists, and what Moore thinks would be the proper approach for the U.S. government to legitimately conduct itself in a fight against terrorism. After all, if you're going to criticize measures like the Patriot Act, wouldn't you want to offer an alternative?
Moore took a moment to compose his answer. "Night after night, we are hammered on our television networks and our cable news channels about the Islamic fundamentalists. We've seen it all, we've heard it all," he began, speaking unusually slowly and deliberately. "My job is to say: Maybe there's something else going on, maybe there's another piece of information you should have before making up your mind. Maybe you should see an opposing viewpoint once in a while in this country. The corporate media in this country, they've got control of it 24/7, 365 days of the year. My film is our humble plea: Can we have just two hours for our side?
"The second part of your question is: How do you fight a war against religious fundamentalists? Well, that's what we're doing in this country, and I hope we're successful on November 2."
And the room full of hundreds of sycophantic journalists roared with laughter. Case closed! Shut him down!
What must it be like, to look at a mainstream media in which 7% of journalists describe themselves as "conservative", and conclude that the press is not liberal enough?
And am I reading his reply incorrectly, or is he describing the Islamic fundamentalists as our side?
|
| Sunday, July 11, 2004 |
23:31 - Extry! Extry! Read aaall about it!
http://instapundit.com/archives/016511.php
|
(top) |
Evidently, if your tastes run to such things, you can now go and spend several hours perusing sites that explore to every last gleefully dancing detail the sudden meltdown of the whole BUSH LIED!!! thing. The upshot being, well, no, those infamous "sixteen words"—the ones about Saddam buying uranium from Niger—have turned out to be correct after all.
Which also simultaneously lets the air out of a whole bunch of other Bush canards, like the "Joe Wilson's CIA wife was outed by the Bush administration to punish him for speaking out against them" and the "BBC guy was murdered to cover up evidence that he sexed-up the Iraq dossier" ones.
Oh well; at least still PEOPLE DIED!!!11, right?
God, I'm still so tired of this stuff... even when it turns out well.
|
| Friday, July 9, 2004 |
18:19 - Oh yes, do go on, please
http://www.jail4bush.org/death4bush/
|
(top) |
Sure! What the hell!
I, David Blomstrom, a candidate for state office (Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction), hereby declare my belief that President George W. Bush deserves and should receive the death penalty, after the appropriate legal or quasi-legal formalities. I urge other patriotic Americans and foreign nationals alike to openly call for Bush’s execution. Furthermore, I sent my first press release announcing my position to Al-Jazeera in symbolic gesture designed to call attention to the corruption that runs rampant in America’s media.
Let me first emphasize that this is not a death threat. Nor is it designed to encourage physical attacks. On the contrary, such an assault would probably accomplish nothing, for a number of reasons.
. . .
The stunning impact of Moore’s movie is a reminder that millions of Americans still care about truth, justice and democracy. Yet millions of Americans still rally behind George W. Bush, whether driven by stupidity, corruption or selfish fear.
In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the French newspaper Le Monde recalled a Revolutionary War partnership when it declared, "We are all Americans." Ironically, the French, Germans, Chinese, Brazilians and residents of other nations are truer Americans than many U.S. citizens.
Rather than celebrate July 4, 2002 as a commercialized commemoration of our national birthday (sponsored by Washington Mutual at Seattle’s Gasworks Park), let’s designate it the beginning of a new revolution, a global class struggle that topples the arrogant and corrupt elite that are returning America to the days of King George, with the entire world his colony. We desperately need a new revolution, and all good revolutions focus heavily on two items that are sadly neglected in America today — accountability and education.
No, this isn't a Something Awful parody. This is what some unemployed guy running for office in the Seattle educational system ground out syllable by painful syllable from behind that slablike brow.
What can one do but tiredly laugh? Just laugh, and laugh, and don't stop laughing for God's sake because the implications of this being how a lot of our citizens think are too depressing to contemplate?
UPDATE: Know what this guy's premise reminds me of?
"Did you know they've reinstated the death penalty for lawyers?" "Really? For what offense?" "What do you mean, offense?"
|
|
17:39 - Oh, so we've dispensed with the pretense, have we?
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20040709
|
(top) |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've usually been under the impression that when Garry Trudeau puts numbers and figures (like from polls and financial statistics and such) in his Doonesbury strips, they're traditionally at least accurate—and he uses them as the basis for his strips' humor content.
What the hell's that?
Does Garry think his readers are all able to tell how facetious he's being here—or does he just figure they'll all believe him? I mean, it stands to reason that all Iraqis hate the occupation, right?! Of course they do! Everybody knows that!
Just like everybody knew that nobody in Iraq wanted the war to happen. Yuh-huh. It's fake-out "news" like this, screwball comedy masquerading as thoughtful op-ed material, that led to the "human shields" being caught completely by surprise by the idea that nearly all Iraqis wanted the war—that the Iraqis assumed that the "human shields" could only be on Saddam's payroll, since nothing else could explain their motives.
Trudeau spends decades building up a reputation as a guy who builds his narrative around real facts and figures. But when the facts and figures don't support his narrative, he slips seamlessly into fantasy numbers—and the readers can't tell the difference. They're not intended to.
If we wonder what could lead to people like Moore blithering about the insurgents representing majority Iraqi sentiment, well, here it is right in front of us. Nice going, Garry.
See Victor Davis Hanson for elucidation of where Trudeau's chosen narrative is leading him:
The war that Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards once caricatured as a fiasco and amoral is now, for all its tragedies, emerging in some sort of historical perspective as a long-overdue liberation. At some point, one must choose: Saddam in chains or Saddam in power. And the former does not happen with rhetoric, but only through risk, occasional heartbreak, and the courage of the U.S. military. If Iyad Allawi and his brave government succeed — and they just may — the United States will have done more for world freedom and civilization than the fall of the Berlin Wall — and against far greater odds. Deanism is dead. Moorism is a fatal contagion that will ruin anyone it infects.
Kerry is only now starting to grasp that a year from now Iraq more likely will not be Vietnam, but maybe the most radical development of our time — and that all the Left's harping is becoming more and more irrelevant. Witness his talk of security and his newfound embrace of the post-9/11 effort as a war rather than a DA's indictment. It is not a good idea to plan on winning in November by expecting us to lose now in Iraq.
So John Kerry is starting to get it that the conventional ignorance of Michael Moore, the New York Times, and George Soros is already anachronistic. You can see that well enough when a grandee like Tom Brokaw, Christiane Amanpour, or a Nightline flunky starts in with the usual cheap, cynical hits against Iraq reformers — only to be stunned mid-sentence, like deer in the headlights, with the sense that they are berating noble and sincere men and women — far better folk than themselves — who at risk to their lives are crafting something entirely new in the Middle East.
I hope Garry's proud of himself.
|
| Thursday, July 8, 2004 |
17:34 - On second thought... yeah, go ahead, scream your fool head off, Mikey
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/07/Muqtadaal-Moore.shtml
|
(top) |
Looks like Steven Den Beste has identified an upside to Michael Moore.
It strikes me that for all the short-term hoopla and enthusiasm about Moore from the left, and trepidation about him from the non-left, that in fact he may turn out to be just the man the non-left needs, appearing exactly when and where the non-left needs him most. A non-left mole couldn't have done a better job framing the LL position to their disadvantage.
Moore has planted his flag smacko in the middle of the Holy City of anti-Americanism. To defend that position, the LL's will now vocally proclaim something many have long believed but avoided admitting: they hate America and everything it stands for. That is not a message that will sell well to the broad electorate. They will proclaim that they love this nation, but... and then make clear that they despise most of the people who live in it, and despise the very features of this nation that the majority of us see as its greatest virtues. And they will poison the leftist political position even for non-loonie leftists. (Since Moore's supporters constitute a significant base of support for the Democratic Party, they're going to represent an ongoing headache for the Kerry campaign by their antics. And that will force him to continue to equivocate about his position major issues, to avoid alienating them, and at the same time avoid alienating the broad electorate.)
Spot-on. The people who say they love America but hate Americans, or who wrap themselves in stars and stripes while claiming that Americans are too stupid to be trusted with democracy, are only hiding under a thin veneer that masks their true nature. Their vision of an ideal America has nothing to do with what America has ever stood for in the past—just what they think some theoretical, post-historical, post-religion, post-monetary, Star Trek version of America should be. "Let America be America," says Kerry, quoting Marxist poet Langston Hughes. Intentionally? One hopes not, but one can't help but suspect so.
So the truth will out, eventually. The timing thing still worries me, though; there's not enough time before the election for people to discover that the economy is doing pretty frickin' hot and that Kerry/Edwards don't present much of a palatable dish for the next four years, and since so much of our public discourse centers around whichever movie is announced using the three-foot-high marquee letters that come out of the Big Box at the multiplex, the Your-Duty-Is-Clear-Mr.-and-Mrs.-American-Voter meme won't dissipate before November. It's well and good to see that Moore is in no better a position to fight in the long term than al-Sadr was. But committing to engaging him and his followers over the long term means acquiescing to a Kerry win this fall, and I don't know if I'm willing to pay that price. Moore is one man, and sooner or later he'll collapse under his own weight and start his own solar system somewhere far away where he can't hurt anybody. But if we let him dictate the first national referendum on our conduct following 9/11, and give the world the perception that America repudiates our every action since that day, then any victory that occurs in the political landscape until 2008 will be small, flavorless potatoes.
But then again, we seem to have been able to operate under a deadline in Iraq, so maybe we can do the same here. Georgie boy, could you please start frickin' campaigning, for Pete's sake?
|
|
16:35 - So Kerry's running on the Bush Stole The Election ticket
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0706a.html
|
(top) |
Via Will Collier at VodkaPundit, John Kerry:
"Don’t tell us disenfranchising a million African Americans and stealing their votes is the best we can do."
Um, what?
Let me rephrase that: WHAT?!?
Exactly why hasn't this little tidbit been noted by the national press? With a banner headline? That's not just rhetoric, it's the electoral equivalent of a blood-libel. For one thing, it's a flat-out lie, as reluctantly found by the partisan Democrat-dominated US Civil Rights Commission, which despite months of investigation, noted only 26 people with "disenfranchisement" complaints, most of which were found to be specious (link is to a .pdf file of the minority dissent, see page 32).
Not "a million disenfranchised," but 26 people with complaints, not all of which were valid.
Kerry isn't just lying, he's indulging in blatant, ugly race-baiting (it's noteworty he says nothing about the military personnel whose 2000 absentee ballots were voided at the demands of Gore lawyers--now they were disenfranchised, but since they didn't vote correctly, it's below French John's notice). Why isn't he being called on it by the press?
Scratch that--you already know the answer. The press is on his side.
Seriously, what is up with all the casual racism on the Left these days? Like Ted Rall implicitly calling Condi Rice a "house nigga" (his words)? Do these guys just get away with it because everybody assumes that you can't be racist if you're on the Left, no matter how ugly your language or your deeds or your policies—and you can't not be racist if you're on the Right, no matter how hard you have to scrape and dig to unearth even the slightest hint of racism?
Where did this "racist Republicans" rap come from, anyway? I grew up assuming it as an article of faith. But check out the "Hate Mail" page of Silent No More, a conservative-youth site, where one of the webmasters responds to some brain-donor misusing his copy of Outlook Express:
My name is Gerard, a proud member of the "Right-wing attack machine" and yes, I'm Black. So, I have a unique perspective of the charges you raise in your e-mail.
Founded by abolitionists, the Republican Party has had a 150 year history of fighting for Civil Rights. In contrast, the Democratic Party's active opposition to Civil Rights gave rise to the Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue of slavery, Democrats gave their lives to expand it while the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.
While Democrats were busy passing laws to hurt blacks, Republicans devoted their time to passing laws to help blacks. Republicans were primarily responsible for the following Civil Rights legislation:
1. The Emancipation Proclamation 2. The 13th Amendment 3. The 14th Amendment 4. The 15th Amendment 5. The Reconstruction Act of 1867 6. The Civil Rights of 1866 7. The Enforcement Act of 1870 8. The Forced Act of 1871 9. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 10. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 11. The Freeman Bureau 12. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 13. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 14. The United States Civil Rights Commission
They also gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the following legislation
15. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 17. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 18. The 1968 Civil Rights Acts 19. The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972 20. Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs 21. Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973 22. Voting Rights Act of Amendment of 1982 23. Civil Rights Act of 1983 24. Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988
The Democrats opposed all of the above and to this day refuse to acknowledge their shameful past. Your charges of racism against [our Editor] are unwarranted, unsupported, and downright foolish. History speaks for itself. Labels have changed, but Republican Party ideals have not. As noted writer Thomas Sowell once said, "If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago, and a racist today."
The party of Lincoln, remember? And despite what Michael Moore might say, the NRA is not a front group for the KKK. It was founded by Union officers. The KKK's mortal enemies.
Dean says that the big divide in American politics today is between "People who understand pragmatism and the lack of instant change, and those who don't."
I think, from the perspective of race, the divide is between "people who believe that the various races are so different that they can't be reconciled without external force imposing handicaps and promotions to try to 'even things out', and those who think there are no differences that are so great that they won't simply disappear if everybody is treated with true equality".
But equality is racist these days. I get it.
|
|
13:05 - And it's all our fault
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm
|
(top) |
MoveOn.org has been agitating lately for the US to act more strongly against the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. "The Bush administration has asked for UN sanctions of the country," said a recent e-mail release (paraphrased), "but it's not enough." Implying, apparently, that MoveOn.org supports the US going to war as long as it's not what we actually plan to do. As long as they can criticize us for not doing enough in some godforsaken part of the world, they're ridin' high.
I wonder what they might have to say now that France has declared that it won't be getting involved, and would rather let a million people be slaughtered by the Sudanese government (because, see, as long as other countries aren't involved, there is peace):
“In Darfur, it would be better to help the Sudanese get over the crisis so their country is pacified rather than sanctions which would push them back to their misdeeds of old,” junior Foreign Minister Renaud Muselier told French radio.
France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, it also has significant oil interests in Sudan.
Mr Muselier also dismissed claims of “ethnic cleansing” or genocide in Darfur.
“I firmly believe it is a civil war and as they are little villages of 30, 40, 50, there is nothing easier than for a few armed horsemen to burn things down, to kill the men and drive out the women,” he said.
Which makes it all okay.
So glad to know where the French, our moral superiors, stand on all this.
But it's not as though this isn't a shining moment for the BBC as well. Right now, the story has the following snippet:
France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, it also has significant oil interests in Sudan.
That's not what it said a couple of hours ago, though. It used to say that the U.S. had "significant oil interests" in both Iraq and Sudan. They "stealth-edited" this paragraph after a huge and damaging lie was posted on their site for long enough for the wire services to all pick it up. An innocent mistake? Oh, I'm sure of it. Anybody can make a simple slip-up like, oh, say, assuming that the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil, and now it wants to invade Sudan for oil—and France, ever the voice of reason and the morally pure guardian against venality, opposes this vile imperialistic maneuver.
Hey, rest of the world? How about you all just go watch TV for a while, or play cricket or whatever the hell you do in your spare time; and we'll go make the world a better place. Believe me, it'll all go better without your "help". We'll tell you when it's okay to look again.
No thanks are necessary.
|
| Wednesday, July 7, 2004 |
01:03 - It's all good, it's all right; everybody read James tonight
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0704/070804.html
|
(top) |
This means you.
It only takes a little bit of work—a quote juxtaposed next to another quote, a researched statistic, a slight rewording of a statement—to reduce Michael Moore's credibility and intellectual honesty to fat cinders.
James put in a lot of work on this one.
|
|
16:19 - There's a mighty judgment coming, but I may be wrong
http://coldfury.com/index.php?p=4615
|
(top) |
Mike at Cold Fury calls it as he sees it; and it ain't pretty.
The Dems laid down with the dogs years ago. All that’s left for them now, and for us, is to watch them scratch at the fleas and puzzle over how they got them. Bush will win in November, barring some incredible and unforeseeable catastrophe. When he does, watch for the now-desperate hard Left to get violent. It’s another battle they won’t and cannot win, but it’s the one that in the end they’ll have no choice but to fight. They’ve done it to themselves, and therefore my sympathy is limited at best.
The Left has been spoiling for a real fight for years now, and they’re most likely going to get it. It’s the awful truth, and I don’t see anything standing in the way of it but the Left’s own innate sneaky cowardice. When push comes to shove, perhaps the Left will be willing to put down their Bushitler signs and go home peacefully. But they’re not the majority, they never will be, and the only way they can win is through deceit, disinformation, intimidation, and, ultimately, violence. Scott’s fighting the good fight here, and we all ought to be out doing more of this sort of thing—speaking out before it’s too late to change the minds of the uninformed, and the dupes are standing shoulder to shoulder on the front lines with their manipulators. God help us if it should come to that at last.
Don't miss what he's responding to, either. On the surface it might look like things are getting a little better, like energy is starting to fizzle out on the sign-wavers' side; but that's just when things get most dangerous. It's when a group feels it's starting to lose its turf that it really begins to claw wildly. Just as with the Mac community in the mid-90s—when Apple was at its lowest ebb of inspiration, the only people left in the Mac camp were the real hard-core survivalists, the scorpions crouching in their holes, the "cold dead hands" types. They're the ones you've really got to watch out for.
A Left that feels it's lost the sympathy it once had when it congregated on the streets, bolstered by a sudden influx of energy from people enervated by Fahrenheit 9/11, is not going to be a pretty thing if Bush should win in November. The timing is too perfect. It's a harmonic convergence, a constructive beat.
I've been feeling lately as though I'm not going to be able to even stand up on Election Day until all the votes are counted, because I won't trust my legs to support me. But I don't even know which of the various outcomes I fear most. A Kerry win, which would let these people pour into the streets transported by joy and vindication, forever inscribing the lesson into history that America is no more steadfast in the face of terrorism and domestic nihilism than Spain or France... or a Bush win, which would send them into transports of rage. If the latter should happen, the evening of November 2nd, this country will be closer to a violent uprising than it has been since the 60s.
I can honestly say that despite people's pious claims that the terror-alert system is designed to keep people like me in a state of fear of another 9/11-like attack, I don't fear another attack at all. I was just up in North Beach in San Francisco, waiting outside the Stinking Rose for Mike Silverman to show up for dinner; I was gazing down Columbus Avenue to the Transamerica Building, the sunset glinting off its windows, framed by the broad lanes and the financial-district towers, and imagining just what I'd do if (unlikely as it is these days) I saw a plane plow into the side of it. I was left feeling strangely unmoved by the apparition. Thinking about seeing San Francisco turned into Lower Manhattan just makes me grit my teeth and narrow my eyes and want to start donating money and filling out forms... but thinking about frantically reloading CNN.com on Election night makes my heart race and my arms quiver even as I type this. I don't fear another 9/11-like terrorist attack. But I do fear what those who rally behind Michael Moore might do to this country if they're kindled.
What's worse: I don't think they're actually afraid of anything. An attack? They get to say "I told you so". Government crackdowns against them? They win the moral high ground. A Kerry win? They get what they want. A Bush win? They get to fight the war they've been itching for. Do they fear what damage it will do to the country in the process? That's all I'm afraid of, and somehow I don't think they would share that vulnerability.
If we make it to the 3rd intact, I'm starting to think I'll have to start believing in Divine Providence after all.
|
|
13:41 - The lawyers sleep tonight
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=5575753
|
(top) |
Here's another item of possibly nil, possibly great interest. Who am I to say? But it's a story that I've been in something of a position to watch develop from the beginning.
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - South African lawyers are suing U.S. entertainment giant Walt Disney Co for infringement of copyright on "The Lion Sleeps Tonight," the most popular song to emerge from Africa, the lawyers said on Friday.
If Disney loses, South African proceeds from its trademarks -- including Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck -- could be seized by the courts, lawyers representing relatives of the song's composer said.
The lilting song, initially called "Mbube," earned an estimated $15 million in royalties since it was written by Zulu migrant worker Solomon Linda in 1939, and featured in Walt Disney's "Lion King" movies.
However, Linda's impoverished family have only received about $15,000, the lawyers said.
That would be the song also known variously as "Wimoweh", "Weemaway", and other spellings.
I was contacted (in my position at the helm of the Internet's Lion King fan community) by a journalist from South Africa a couple of years ago, who claimed to be putting together a report on Solomon Linda, the history of the song, and its long sordid history of greatness and stardom while its writer and his family languished in poverty. I wasn't able to provide much information or insight, but it was clear that something was going on, as he asked me specifically whether I thought Disney could be held liable for the kind of damages the lawyers are asking for. I told him I had no idea. It looks like they've gone forward indeed.
Who knows where this will lead? Again, I have no idea. My gut tells me "big settlement time"; after all, though Disney Feature Animation is surely not flush with cash (being disbanded and all), Disney the corporation is still a hard target to miss with a pillowcase full of dung. I don't necessarily think Disney ought to be the one held culpable for this whole mess (they're hardly the first ones to profit from the use of the song, and its use in The Lion King was simply as an offhand nod to a pop-culture meme as old as the hills, and they did pay the Tokens' label for its use); they're just obviously the most easy-to-sue of all potential defendants, so they're kind of stuck. But all the same, it would be nice to see some recognition, at the very least, roll back to the song's original author and his legacy.
I'll bet the author of "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" would have done the same if he could.
|
|
13:27 - The smellier, the merrier
|
(top) |
I'm not sure if anyone out there would find this particularly interesting or relevant (hell, for all I know, everybody does), but this is an e-mail quote passed on by a friend:
The time has come to let the Governor Swartenagger know that California would like ferrets to be legalized. It’s easy. Just call 916 445-2841. Then press number 2 to respond to legislation issues, press 3 for Bill SB 89, the ferret bill, then press 1 to support it. And you are done.
I'm not sure who this "Swartenagger" character is, but he seems to have gone to all this trouble to put up an automated opinion-registering system, so it's the least we can all do to use it.
|
|
11:42 - Iraqi nukes
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20040706/pl_usnw/u_s__removes_iraqi_nu
|
(top) |
Unless I'm very much mistaken, this isn't exactly what anyone ought to call a "smoking gun":
WASHINGTON, July 6 /U.S. Newswire/ — Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced today that the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Defense (DOD) have completed a joint operation to secure and remove from Iraq radiological and nuclear materials that could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program.
“This operation was a major achievement for the Bush Administration’s goal to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists,” Secretary Abraham said. “It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons.”
Twenty experts from DOE’s national laboratory complex packaged 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and roughly 1000 highly radioactive sources from the former Iraq nuclear research facility. The DOD airlifted the material to the United States on June 23 and provided security, coordination, planning, ground transportation, and funding for the mission.
Commenters at LGF have noted that these amounts of fissionables have been known about and accounted for since 2000.
But even so, this stuff does exist, it could have been used to make bombs (both dirty and real-live nuclear) and it was in Iraq, under the control of Saddam. And now it's not.
I call that a win.
|
|
11:28 - What did he think of Quayle, I wonder?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124902,00.html
|
(top) |
You know, he can be sharp under fire.
When a reporter noted that Edwards was being described as "charming, engaging, a nimble campaigner, a populist and even sexy" and then asked "How does he stack up against Dick Cheney?" the president immediately responded, "Dick Cheney can be president. Next?"
Not as sharp as Cheney, though.
Via VodkaPundit.
|
|
09:45 - Zippy Nation
http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/007138.php
|
(top) |
Tim Blair has readers attacking him for daring to question Michael Moore's credibility.
people like you make me sick.
You now most obviouisly smack of DESPERATION. Trying any way possible to tear apart Michael Moore. Credit the public with some intelligence, please.
You are panicking because your greedy, corrupt, controlling, manipulating regime is over.
enjoy your time in those hot fires of hell !!!
Reap as you shall sow.
Ever notice how Moore's followers always seem to emphasize UNUSUAL words in the middle of their SENTENCES by shifting UNEXPECTEDLY into all caps? It's like reading a frickin' Marvel comic.
Gee. Whom could they possibly have learned that habit from?
|
| Tuesday, July 6, 2004 |
22:39 - Ashamed of Our Warriors
http://www.therazor.org/index.php?p=117
|
(top) |
Via Dean Esmay—check this out. Here's the regard this country now has for the Greatest Generation.
We're this close to ominously telling our misbehaving kids at bedtime to be good, or else you'll grow up to be a soldier and fight for the defense of your country!
|
| Monday, July 5, 2004 |
23:46 - "Don't want nothin' I can't get myself"
|
(top) |
CapLion finally convinced me to go see America's Heart and Soul, which IMDB honors with a 2.9/10 star rating. No wonder, because it's pretty damn good, which means people rocking the vote from Denmark wouldn't like it one bit. There are a lot of people I could name who might benefit from seeing it—even though it'll probably never play in their neighborhood, being that it comes from the land of Evil.
Can West News Services, owners of several Canadian newspapers including the National Post as well as the Global Television Network commissioned a series of polls to determine how young people feel about the issues that were facing the country’s voters. Dubbed "Youth Vote 2004", the polls, sponsored by the Dominion Institute and Navigator Ltd. were taken with a view to getting more young people involved in the political process.
In one telephone poll of teens between the ages of 14 and 18, over 40 per cent of the respondents described the United States as being "evil". That number rose to 64 per cent for French Canadian youth.
This being Canada, the amount of anti-Americanism that was found is not surprising. What is significant is the high number of teens who used the word "evil" to describe our southern neighbour. As Misty Harris pointed out in her column in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, evil is usually associated with serial killers and "kids who tear the legs off baby spiders." These teens appear to equate George W. Bush and Americans with Osama bin Laden and Hitler, although it is unknown if the teens polled would describe the latter two as being evil. Whether someone who orders planes to be flown into heavily populated buildings would fit that description would make a good subject for a future poll.
. . .
Anti-Americanism played a prominent role in the election strategy of the Liberals. Paul Martin portrayed himself as the saviour of Canadian medicare while saying that if Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada came to power they would introduce "American-style" health care. Martin was happy to take credit for cutting taxes and eliminating the deficit during the 1990s when he was Minister of Finance, but he referred to tax cuts included in the Conservative Party platform as being "American-style tax cuts". Canadians who favour lower taxes or the private delivery of health care services or smaller governments or anything similar to what is found in the United States were called "un-Canadian" by Paul Martin.
Hi guys! We love you too!
I find it interesting that John Mellencamp, who wrote the aforementioned film's theme song, is playing benefits for the Kerry campaign; the song, as much as the movie, is all about self-determination—how the very essence of freedom, that quaint and silly notion we seem to place so much weird importance on in this country, is about the ability to succeed and fail on one's own. Everyone has the same opportunity to do whatever they want, no matter whether they come from a wealthy suburb or straight off the urban alleys, whether they've got the bodies of Olympians or are blind or wheelchair-bound. Nobody asks for handouts—nobody who truly values liberty does, anyway. Even the steelworkers of West Virginia, shows the film, would rather buy out their local steelworks and provide for their own pensions and health care coverage than hike their taxes (and everyone else's) to be guaranteed comfort from the State. Even a little girl's brain tumor, and the disaster that would be implicit in the loss of their self-provided coverage, aren't enough to shake these people's faith in the principle of self-determination.
It's no big mystery why it might seem "evil" for a country to try to dismantle an infrastructure set up to help everybody through redistributing wealth, by instead opting to let everybody fend for himself. That just seems heartless and soulless. But, well, that's why the movie is called what it's called. When everyone holds his destiny in his hands, heart and soul spring into being. This isn't an easy concept to grasp, but once you've seen it in action it's impossible to deny.
Evil? I'll deal. Meanwhile, you can be sure that this documentary won't be getting imported into China, or distributed by Hezbollah, anytime soon.
UPDATE: Yes, yes, I get it—this film is pap, it's feel-good fluff, it's propaganda every bit as much as F911 is, just in the other direction. It's the kind of thing Disney used to make back in the 50s, so loathsome the concept is to us now—for God's sake, it even ends with shots of fireworks against the Statue of Liberty. But there's a difference, you know. Moore's film aims to galvanize you, to make you mad, to convince you of something; whereas this one, while it clearly has a point it's trying to make, doesn't pretend to be anything it's not. It's a travelogue; it's a way to get out and meet a bunch of people who are worth meeting. Besides, you're not likely to get knocked down and spat on by the mobs coming out of this movie.
I resisted going, knowing that AH&S wasn't going to tell me anything I didn't know already. CapLion assured me, though, that even granting that, it was still worth watching. And you know, he's right. It's funny; it's beautifully shot; it's touching. I for one am glad Disney still has it in itself to produce documentaries like this, that the modern age's allergy to sincerity doesn't totally faze them. And at the very, very least I know it was eighty-four minutes of my life I can look back on and say I enjoyed.
|
|
19:20 - "I think I should get something for this..."
|
(top) |
By the way... there's a scene in Spider-Man 2 in which an unkempt, bearded garbage man comes into J. Jonah Jameson's office and hands over the Spider-Man suit that he had found in a trash bin. Jameson immediately concludes that he has driven Spidey away through "the power of the press", and commences to gloating and celebrating. The garbage man demands payment for playing his part, saying that he could get twice Jameson's offer on eBay.
My question: Did that garbage man not look just a teeny bit like a certain filmmaker of recent note?
|
|
18:46 - No leftist ideology survives contact with the enemy
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/05/1089000082744.html
|
(top) |
This is a breath of fresh air. Via Tim Blair, Rebecca Romijn-Stamos (the latest in the ever-growing Hollywood Union of Actresses with Bizarre and Pseudo-Exotic Names) has had the strength of will to pit her anti-war views and reactionary anti-"redneck" prejudice against hot, sandy reality:
Another adventure that Romijn-Stamos is unlikely to have made as a model was a recent trip she and De Niro made to visit US troops in Iraq.
Staunchly anti-war, Romijn-Stamos said the visit had been a real eye-opener and it seemed to have given her a slightly different perspective on life.
"It was unbelievable and I'll never forget it," she said. "I grew up in Berkeley, California, which is the most liberal, left-leaning place you could ever find and I had zero contact with our military.
"So I had a pre-conceived notion they would all be rednecks who were only there because their daddies had been in the army. But I was wrong and I met the most amazing people over there.
"It was 130 degrees [Fahrenheit] and they were walking around in full fatigues and we'd get there to find out they'd been waiting in that heat for three or four hours. And they had so much perspective on it, they were really deep and smart and had a lot of opinions."
As I recall, Sean Penn was decidedly more down-to-earth after his visit to Baghdad, too. So were all those "human shields", let we forget.
Or lest the people in the six lines pouring out the doors from the ticket counter at the movie theater today take the slightest notice. (No, they weren't all there for Spider-Man 2.)
|
|
18:04 - Da Beeb
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/04/nbbc04.xml&sSheet=/n
|
(top) |
Over the past few weeks, I've been taken to task by shocked Britons who are absolutely scandalized to discover that I don't have any great regard for what, one told me, is "widely regarded as the world's most trustworthy news organization".
They then turn around and tell me that "It's quite natural for the authorities to make you think that the media is biased, when they become uncomfortable with the information that is coming out", and that "under Bush, the US is becoming a nasty place"—not to mention that "who says you are at war? The use of that word is very deliberate and totally inaccurate".
Oh, would that I lived in England, where the state-owned media is totally unbiased and presents only the most impeccable facts.
|
|
17:40 - I've never been so happy to see a Ron Burgundy poster
http://www.angelfire.com/vamp/warposter/
|
(top) |
But I just saw Spider-Man 2, and besides Lance Armstrong rides with an iPod, so even this can't raise my blood pressure too high.
...Okay, a little bit. Razzam frazzam poo.
|
| Sunday, July 4, 2004 |
03:35 - Food, Folks, & Fireworks
|
(top) |
Well, we've just finished up an evening of some twelve or so people over for the first real outdoor barbecue that used the new deck and hot tub—the real christening of it, as it were. Lots of burgers and corn and chili was downed by all, as pops and bangs and whizzes for hours on end signalled fireworks going up from every backyard and open field surrounding us, and many friends who hadn't seen much of each other lately all got to catch up with one another.
Even political snarkiness was put aside—TV channels covering the fireworks displays in local cities had shown nonstop reels of parades and band concerts from all over the Bay Area; yes, there were tanks rolling down Main Street USA—but they were being driven by giggling blonde newswomen who showed off how easily their treads could crush cars. I'd all but forgotten about current events by nightfall.
We even used my bedroom suite's entertainment-center setup for the first time, watching the first seven episodes of Firefly on DVD—quite possibly the best-written sci-fi series I've yet seen (it manages to be an immensely detailed grunge-future serial, a violent period spaghetti western, and a raucous character comedy all at the same time, where every cliché plot point invariably takes a wild turn just to throw you off... and check out those IMDB comments, where some cheese Danish dismisses it contemptuously as "basically as American as it's possible to get." Sweet!). It lasted long into the wee hours, and even Capri seemed to sense that tonight was something on the special side, because he didn't hide out in a dark corner or anything, or even let me take him for a walk—he crawled up onto the couch and wedged himself between whatever humans would make room for him, there to lay down a thick layer of collie hair across the cushions and contentedly drool down our legs.
This is my kinda holiday.
Seriously, get a load of that commenter. The only redeeming feature of the series, to him, is the "great-looking female characters", whom he then proceeds to rank on the basis of lavish descriptions of their appearance. The male characters rate only sentences in passing (presumably because they don't have enough boobs), and the whole "Space Western" premise merits only snarling barbs from his scandalized European sensibility.
I'm liking this show more and more!
|
|
14:01 - Free Speech over Free Beer
http://ravishinglight.blogspot.com/2004/07/i-see-americans-all-americans-free.html
|
(top) |
Paul Denton's comments, this Independence Day and Canada Day, are of the type I wouldn't presume to make—but I'm glad someone would.
UPDATE: Also don't miss his observations on the (dare I say it) quagmire into which any state-funded medical care system will eventually stumble.
Recently, in a discussion over the perennial question of whether or not "most people are idiots", a friend argued for the affirmative thus: People [in Canada] want health care, welfare and so on to be there for them when they need them. They want roads to be in good repair and good public transit and a strong military. They also want lower taxes.
You know, there is a solution...
|
|
12:28 - Obviously some strange new usage of the word "bipartisan" that I wasn't previously aware of
http://baldilocks.typepad.com/baldilocks/2004/07/now_this_needs_.html
|
(top) |
On this, what will no doubt soon be known as Dependence Day, Baldilocks has uncovered a list of the ten members of the House of Representatives who want to turn over the sovereignty of our election process to impartial observers from the UN.
Joseph Crowley (D-NY-07) Raul Grijalva (D-AZ-07) Danny Davis (D-IL-07) Corrine Brown (D-FL-03) Carolyn Maloney (D-NY-14) Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-08) Michael Honda (D-CA-15) Elijah Cummings (D-MD-07) Julia Carson (D-IN-07) Edolphus Towns (D-NY-10)
From the original story:
The bipartisan commission, they stressed, determined "that the 'disenfranchisement of Florida's voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of black voters' and in poor counties." Both groups vote predominantly Democratic in US elections.
Since this is a bipartisan committee, citizens from both parties should be equally incensed by this travesty, and should act to—
Wait. What?
Oh. Never mind then.
|
| Saturday, July 3, 2004 |
21:03 - For refreshment of the spirit
|
(top) |
Since it's so badly needed right about now. From Mike Silverman:
1. The American people are sane and intelligent. We are not stupid or ignorant. Extremists on the left, and the right, as well as opinion leaders overseas seem to think Americans are fat, somnolent, and base. Anyone who actually lives in America, really lives in America, knows that isn't true. We have something to celebrate today.
Happy 4th of July!
Read the whole thing; but this is the part I wanted to echo.
|
|
20:00 - Plain hobbit-sense
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/entertainment/9075125.htm
|
(top) |
The more time goes by, the more faith I have in Middle America/the Midwest/the average Joe/flyover country. Lord knows I once dismissed it as the land of superstitious, hateful Bible-thumpers who thought France was somewhere in the vicinity of Topeka. But you know... city living might not be quite the intellectual fast-track that I once assumed it to be.
Via CapLion:
DECORAH, Iowa - The president of a company that owns movie theaters in Iowa and Nebraska is refusing to show director Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."
R.L. Fridley, owner of Des Moines-based Fridley Theatres, says the controversial documentary incites terrorism.
Fridley said in an e-mail message to company managers that the company does not "play political propaganda films from either the right or the left."
"Our country is in a war against an enemy who would destroy our way of life, our culture and kill our people," Fridley wrote. "These barbarians have shown through (the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001) and the recent beheadings that they will stop at nothing. I believe this film emboldens them and divides our country even more."
Yes. Yes it does.
What gets me about Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't the blatant lies, exaggerations, misrepresentations, and flippant and irresponsible conjecture—sure, they're bad, but even Michael Moore's fans know they're there.
What gets me, instead, is the whole premise of the movie—the implicit purpose behind it. What's Moore trying to do here? Not to entertain; not to titillate; but to defeat Bush. This is a higher calling for him than addressing the concern of Islamic terrorism. Bush is a bigger threat to America than bin Laden.
After all, said friend from last night led off his "argument" with the statement that "We could absorb an attack like the World Trade Center every month without really being crippled as a country". Which, I guess, meant that we should. Forget terrorism—don't try to prepare for it or keep a watchful eye out or even talk about it. Do not speak of the snares.
Which is Moore's position too: there's nothing in this world of greater importance than making Bush look bad.
You could have made a movie just like Fahrenheit 9/11 about Churchill, or about Roosevelt. Absolutely you could. Even people who didn't like FDR got behind him for the greater good, out of respect for the office of the Presidency and out of understanding of the country's needs. Neither of these leaders were saints; both had unpopular policies, both were the subjects of plenty of pieces of potentially embarrassing film clips that could, especially if taken out of context, or their audio played on top of particularly horrifying imagery, be used to drive said characters from office even in the middle of a war. You could have released a bombshell documentary in 1944 about FDR's allegedly knowing about the Pearl Harbor attacks before they happened, for instance. But nobody did. It would have been unthinkable.
So why do it now? Just because Moore can? Just because any dickhead with a Canon ZR20 and a copy of iMovie can now make a feature film?
This country needs unity more now than ever but a few exceptional times in its history. Moore must know this, deep down in his heart. He must realize how much our enemies crave seeing us divided and fighting among ourselves. He must be able to conclude something from the fact that Hezbollah wants to distribute the film, and that China will be gleefully importing it as the first Western documentary they've ever allowed in. He must realize that Saddam's obstinacy throughout the 1990s was because once the dust settled after Desert Storm, he was still in power and Bush wasn't—which, as far as he was concerned, made him the winner. Moore isn't a stupid man—he has to understand what our wavering and our turning on our President looks like to the Islamists whom we're fighting. (Hint: It looks like they're winning.) But nonetheless, it's more important to him to throw gasoline on the fire, to drive a wedge quite purposefully through the nation's public consciousness. No, uniformity of opinion is no good thing—but intentionally dividing the country, and undermining the American people's ability to intelligently prioritize the issues we see before us (for example, being destroyed by terrorism before gay marriage or President who once had more than a passing interest in the oil industry), is contemptible in the extreme. It's petty and small-minded in a way that little else in history has ever been petty and small-minded. People could have done what Moore's doing, at any time in history; but until now, they had the decorum and decency not to. They had common sense.
The kind that Mr. Fridley of Decorah, Iowa still seems to exhibit.
Must be something in the water.
UPDATE: CapLion updates his post with a counterexample to Midwesterners being any more sensible than anyone else. His point is well taken, though—check it out.
What makes people refuse to see the scale of the conflict of our times, and to concentrate all their fury on one man who deserves so little ire by comparison? It's just tunnel vision, I guess... it's easier for people to lash out against the problem that's closest to home for them, that requires the smallest expansion of their attention span. It's way easier to believe that "the economy is in the toilet" or "Bush runs the USA based on his own personal religious beliefs" than to have to face up to the possibility that maybe Bush is in fact doing some things right, things for which he deserves to remain in office.
UPDATE: Via LGF, Michael Niewodowski (a chef at the Windows on the World restaurant in the WTC) has similar sentiments:
Moore’s film is the first major motion picture about Sept. 11, 2001. This bears repeating. When future generations look back on the Sept. 11 massacre, their first impression, through the medium of film, will be a work in which the president and the government are blamed for the attacks, and the soldiers who are protecting this country are defamed. Instead of a film version of Lisa Beamer’s book, “Let’s Roll,” or Richard Picciotto’s “Last Man Down,” we are presented with this fallacy. How could this happen?
It would be a colossal insult to insinuate that Franklin D. Roosevelt or the U.S. government were in any way responsible for the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Can you imagine the indignation of the men and women who lived during that period?
“Fahrenheit 9/11” is indicative of a nation that has become too apathetic, ignorant or deceived to face the enemy at the gate. America, where is your fury?
I'm drowning in it.
|
| Friday, July 2, 2004 |
23:01 - So how 'bout that local sports team?
|
(top) |
So you're having a Friday night dinner party; and over steaks, one friend pointedly makes the remark that one can't help but admire the ballsiness of "Bush and friends" for always keeping America in a state of fear and uncertainty with the terror alert levels. You and other friends set about explaining, for the ensuing half-hour, what the shadow war against terror is like, how many terror attacks are being thwarted worldwide daily, how al Qaeda terrorists view their victims (as "animals"), how much weaponry has been found in Iraq and who possibly has it now, and how pointless it would be to try to pretend that there isn't any terror war at all; and through it all, he nods at each point, making agreeing noises, acting like he comprehends your position, even sounds like he's willing to accept your point of view and come back from just-saw-F911-and-I'm-all-full-of-righteous-fury land.
Then he smiles, looks you in the eye, and says, "Yeah, I guess you're right... al Qaeda is pretty bad. Almost as bad as the fundamentalist Christians and Israeli lobby that control Bush."
There's just not much you can do at that point, is there? Other than turn on The Simpsons (and hope it isn't one of those annoying preachy ones from this year)?
|
|
15:37 - Please tell me this is a joke
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040702/pl_afp/us_vote_congress_040702
|
(top) |
This is the end. Really it is.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Several members of the House of Representatives have requested the United Nations (news - web sites) to send observers to monitor the November 2 US presidential election to avoid a contentious vote like in 2000, when the outcome was decided by Florida.
Recalling the long, drawn out process in the southern state, nine lawmakers, including four blacks and one Hispanic, sent a letter Thursday to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) asking that the international body "ensure free and fair elections in America," according to a statement issued by Florida representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, who spearheaded the effort.
"As lawmakers, we must assure the people of America that our nation will not experience the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election," she said in the letter.
"This is the first step in making sure that history does not repeat itself," she added after requesting that the UN "deploy election observers across the United States" to monitor the November, 2004 election.
UN observers. To watch our elections.
This is the faith the Democrats have in our system. This is the regard they have for their opponents. They don't trust Republicans any more than they do Iran or Saddam.
And they're willing to use the same kinds of tactics against their own countrymen as they once did against brutal, genocidal dictators.
I can't wait to see blue-helmeted Jordanians and Cubans standing armed outside polling places in Miami, to make sure Bush doesn't steal the election again.
Holy ^&%$^$%%@@. This makes me too furious to even type.
|
| Thursday, July 1, 2004 |
15:37 - Zut! Ze war'eads!
|
(top) |
I think VodkaPundit has the best reaction today to France and Germany pleading on behalf of Saddam not getting the death penalty.
How would you react to that little tidbit if you were an Iraqi? What would you say to a couple of governments who'd (a) armed and supported Saddam for decades, and (b) made every effort to prevent him from losing his grip on your country, your family, and your hide--and then presumed to tell you how you ought to deal with him?
Unless you were one of Saddam's former henchmen, I imagine you'd go find the nearest Frenchman or German, and start quoting Dick Cheney. Repeatedly.
Especially in light of all the new WMDs being found in Iraq.
I'd think this would be an excellent opportunity for France to keep quiet.
|
| Wednesday, June 30, 2004 |
17:06 - Right back at'cha
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Ottawa/Earl_McRae/2004/06/30/519655.html
|
(top) |
I'll just say this: I've got Canadian friends too.
There. All buddy-buddy-like.
(Via Paul Denton.)
|
|
15:22 - Nice stops at midnight
|
(top) |
Remember when we were all schoolkids?
I do. It wasn't all that very long ago. I remember more about those days than, perhaps, I expected to at age twenty-eight. Certainly more than I imagined I would after all the stuff that's happened in my life that I never would have predicted when my world consisted of the rust-stained drinking fountains and the painted-out lower panes of windows at my shabby middle school in Redwood Valley.
Remember what was important about school? Maybe I'm just projecting—maybe this is just my oddball experience, but I did have classmates, and I did pay attention to how they thought and acted. What was important in school, aside from our own internecine loyalties and pop-cultural interests, was the teachers. Which teacher did you get?
Is the teacher nice?
I remember niceness in teachers being paramount on the radar of third-graders. Would you get one of the teachers with the glowing reputations—a two-syllable, easily memorized name? A sunny smile? Someone who talked to the kids in a musical singsong, who gave us breaks and treats unexpectedly? Someone who was lenient on misbehavior, who encouraged the kids to operate in the class on their own terms? Someone who made sure everyone in the class was learning at the same pace, and would slow things down in order to let everyone catch up? ...Or would you get a teacher who wasn't nice? Someone who ran the classroom according to strict rules, who would send you to the principal's office as soon as look at you (or wave a yardstick at you while shouting)? Someone who snarled gruffly and was hard to please, who demanded punctuality and obedience and never offered up a pleasant surprise? Someone who graded harshly, but insisted that students excel on their own merits and held up the top-achieving students as trophies to the school?
We always wanted niceness in our authority figures. It was safer; it meant less work; it meant less hassle; it meant things were more pleasant.
Small wonder that we should look for the same qualities in the people we elect to lead us, then, once we grow up, eh?
If that's what we can call what we do. After all, what can one say about a society that values the same characteristics in its leadership as it did in its elementary-school teachers? Lenience on crime. Folksy language and bearing. A sunny smile. A sense of humor. A two-syllable, easily memorized name. Unexpected treats and breaks. Holding back the achievers so the slower kids can catch up. Talking down to us like we're children under the care of a nanny.
Some schoolkids eventually do seem to grow up, and recognize the value of a hands-off, withdrawn leadership who outlines a vision and a goal, but demands that we all get there under our own steam; who is unforgiving of shortcomings, but greatly honors those who manage to make it to greatness. More of us, we come to realize, have the power to make it in this world than we did to be the smart kids in school; and we react with revulsion when, instead of being forced to read and decipher Shakespeare as we were while growing up, today's public-school pupils are fed poems by Tupac Shakur:
One poem is "Dedicated 2 Me." Another is "Dedicated 2 My Heart." There's one "4 Nelson Mandela" and another "2 Marilyn Monroe," which laments: "They could never understand what u set out 2 do instead they chose 2 ridicule u." Another Shakur opus is titled "When Ure Hero Falls." Still another muses: "What Is It That I (insert pictograph of an eyeball) Search 4."
A dictionary, perhaps?
In riveting prose that presumably rivals Frost or Longfellow, Shakur brags that he is "more than u can handle" and "hotter than the wax from a candle." Edgar Allan Poe had Annabel Lee. Shakur had Renee ("u were the one 2 reach into my heart"), April ("I want 2 c u"), Elizabeth ("the seas of our friendship R calm"), Michelle ("u and I have perfect hearts"), Carmen ("I wanted u more than I wanted me"), Marquita ("u were pure woman 2 me"), Irene ("I knew from the First glance that u would be hard 2 4get"), and Jada.
Proclaiming his love "4 Jada," Shakur pays gallant literary tribute to the object of his desire: "u bring me 2 climax without sex."
Lord Byron, he wasn't.
It's a nice teacher who'll play Pokémon with his or her students. But that's not a characteristic that, when we from our adult perspectives see it in our government, our public school officials, or our President, we treat with a great deal of respect.
This isn't the place for nice. This is the world of grown-ups, and demanding that our leaders be as nice as the teachers who used to declare jumprope days and hand out candy is a sure recipe for ensuring that we remain a nation of children forever.
(Horrifying link via Cold Fury.)
|
|
14:17 - Damn mask won't come off
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326544/
|
(top) |
Tom Brokaw appears to be so convinced that Iraqi PM Iyad Allawi is a witless, bought-and-paid-for puppet that he's taking it upon himself to try to show everybody the strings. Even when there aren't any. (Via LGF.)
Brokaw: As long as the United States military remains a conspicuous presence in your country working hand in glove with the new Iraqi government, won’t you always be seen really as an instrument of the U.S. military and therefore of America?
Allawi: Iraq, as everybody knows, is the front state now — as the main theater to oppose and fight terrorism. And, with the help of international community and with the help of the region and with the help of the Iraqi people, we are going to win. We are going to prevail.
Brokaw: I know that you and others like you are grateful for the liberation of Iraq. But can’t you understand why many Americans feel that so many young men and women have died here for purposes other than protecting the United States?
Allawi: We know that this is an extension to what has happened in New York. And — the war have been taken out to Iraq by the same terrorists. Saddam was a potential friend and partner and natural ally of terrorism.
Brokaw: Prime minister, I’m surprised that you would make the connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. The 9/11 commission in America says there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and those terrorists of al-Qaida.
Allawi: No. I believe very strongly that Saddam had relations with al-Qaida. And these relations started in Sudan. We know Saddam had relationships with a lot of terrorists and international terrorism. Now, whether he is directly connected to the September — atrocities or not, I can’t — vouch for this. But definitely I know he has connections with extremism and terrorists.
"But... but... can't you understand? We invaded you under false pretenses so we could steal your oil and torture your people! Saddam? Screw Saddam! Come on, you primitive third-world simpleton, can't you see what's happening?"
Methinks Mr. Brokaw is losing what little grip he had left.
Good.
|
|
11:00 - Why They Hate Us
http://www.hudsonreview.com/BawerSp04.html
|
(top) |
Joshua sends along this very worthwhile (and long) article by Bruce Bawer that delves into the very heart of European anti-Americanism.
That this was, in fact, a crucial question was brought home to me when a travel piece I wrote for the New York Times about a weekend in rural Telemark received front-page coverage in Aftenposten, Norway’s newspaper of record. Not that my article’s contents were remotely newsworthy; its sole news value lay in the fact that Norway had been mentioned in the New York Times. It was astonishing. And even more astonishing was what happened next: the owner of the farm hotel at which I’d stayed, irked that I’d made a point of his want of hospitality, got his revenge by telling reporters that I’d demanded McDonald’s hamburgers for dinner instead of that most Norwegian of delicacies, reindeer steak. Though this was a transparent fabrication (his establishment was located atop a remote mountain, far from the nearest golden arches), the press lapped it up. The story received prominent coverage all over Norway and dragged on for days. My inhospitable host became a folk hero; my irksome weekend trip was transformed into a morality play about the threat posed by vulgar, fast-food-eating American urbanites to cherished native folk traditions. I was flabbergasted. But my erstwhile host obviously wasn’t: he knew his country; he knew its media; and he’d known, accordingly, that all he needed to do to spin events to his advantage was to breathe that talismanic word, McDonald’s.
For me, this startling episode raised a few questions. Why had the Norwegian press given such prominent attention in the first place to a mere travel article? Why had it then been so eager to repeat a cartoonish lie? Were these actions reflective of a society more serious, more thoughtful, than the one I’d left? Or did they reveal a culture, or at least a media class, that was so awed by America as to be flattered by even its slightest attentions but that was also reflexively, irrationally belligerent toward it?
I don't know who would benefit more from reading this: Americans oblivious to just how much adolescent ire is directed towards this country from people we think of as "allies", or Europeans who might be chastened to see themselves in the mirror?
I have a friend who, though born in Michigan, travels the world and lives in Scandinavia as often as he can, where I know he spends much of his time guffawing in Swedish with his tall, ponytailed friends over how awful America is. I think he might be an excellent candidate for having this forwarded his way.
|
| Tuesday, June 29, 2004 |
22:57 - Sir yes sir
http://www.pleasevote.com/
|
(top) |
You bet I'll vote.
|
| Monday, June 28, 2004 |
20:56 - Olé
|
(top) |
I may be wrong about this, but it seems as though Taco Bell is taking a different tactic during these heady days of diet-revolutions and fat-people lawsuits than all the other fast food restaurants have done. Whereas McDonald's and Arby's are developing healthy salads with bottled water and Subway and Carl's Jr. have their Atkins-friendly menus, it seems that what Taco Bell is doing is to go in a completely different direction.
Namely: is this the first time a fast-food chain in a rich nation with no serious "hunger" problem has introduced a menu full of items specifically designed to fill you up, for cheap? Like burritos with potatoes in them, tacos with two tortillas and extra beans, apple pies in big thick crusts, and cheese-covered potatoes in a bowl?
Seems like this is the opposite of what you'd do if you were beholden to none but the bottom line. Normally you'd make items that are as expensive as you can get away with, that are as un-filling as possible, so you feel the need to buy lots of them. If this is Taco Bell's contribution to the collective health of the nation—to convince people to eat to make themselves full rather than to eat what's yummy—then it seems to me to be rather an innovative answer to the sudden turning upon the fast-food industry that this country has undertaken.
And on the outright-backlash front, there's always KFC's "The Only Carb That Matters is Under My Hood" NASCAR promo, and of course this book...
|
|
18:48 - Curmudgeon in training
|
(top) |
You know, I'm really starting to worry that I'm gradually becoming incapable of enjoying certain things that I always used to find very pleasant. Listening to most comedians, just to take one example that happens to be topmost in my mind just now.
I mean, am I the only one who used to find George Carlin just a bit funnier once upon a time than I do now? I just finished listening to his "You're All Diseased" routine from 1999, and while I can certainly appreciate the agility of his wit and the skill of his shiny sparkly delivery, I find myself unable to ignore just how determinedly shallow it is. Ten minutes at the beginning of the routine all about how airport security is just a big sham designed to keep white people scared and submissive to authority, and how terrorism is, to him, an "entertainment opportunity". Protracted rants about how men are either weak-willed and pussified or macho and pretentious, how God must be a man because no woman could possibly have screwed the world up this badly, how much white people suck and shouldn't attempt to be cool (the whole routine, indeed, seems to be designed to tickle the self-loathing reflex of the nearly-all-white audience), and how America as a concept and a people is inextricably imbued with "bullshit" from the Declaration of Independence through to the present day—the rationale being, naturally, that the country was founded by "white males" who held slaves and didn't give the vote to women.
Understanding some historical context behind the issues he discusses with such rampant fervor, as much as I would love to laugh at what are indeed very funny jokes, I find that I just can't anymore. All I can think about is writing annoyed blog posts about them.
Heh.
I don't know what worries me more—the idea that so many comedians, even the true greats like Carlin, are so studiously shallow in their material (they can't, after all, really believe the stuff they're saying... can they? It's all just silly jokes intended to get a laugh through cognitive dissonance... right?)... or the exuberance of the audience, who shriek with laughter and applause at every suitably turned sarcastic witticism, no matter how silly the premise, just because it's delivered with the stresses and the punches just in the right place to make you feel like it's time to erupt with noises of massed approval. "'Have your bags been in your possession the whole time?' 'No! Every time I travel, just as the moon is rising, I take my suitcases out on the streetcorner and leave them there, unattended, for several hours. Just for good luck. Next question!'" Cue uproarious laughter from people who now, if you were to interview them, would be thoroughly convinced that the security questions at the ticket counter are wholly pointless exercises that prove what an incompetent and intentionally backward system we live in. You then get people who use these very comedy routines—lest you think I'm joking—as the basis for entire worldviews and philosophies, such as that there is no God because George Carlin said so and he was really funny. Somehow, knowing that this is the purpose that such routines serve for so many people kinda prevents me from consuming them with the lighthearted abandon I always used to.
Friends tell me that I've now found excuses to dismiss so many actors and comedians for the views they disseminate that there's nothing left that's safe to talk to me about. That worries me too, because it seems a valid concern. I can't enjoy a Johnny Depp movie as much these days, or something with Martin Sheen or George Clooney or Madonna (good thing I wasn't ever a fan of Barbra Streisand). Even Robin Williams is, sadly, on the list of people who I can't properly enjoy anymore—because I fear that if I were to listen to any routine he or his compatriots deliver, I'm going to find it studded throughout with little land-mines of stupidity—jokes that are intended to get an ingeniously engineered laugh out of the audience, but that if anybody knows the facts behind what he's mocking, will come across to that person as a direct affront against truth and intelligence and common sense.
Or is that just me?
UPDATE: Chris says:
I think it's something to do with fearing that some people will take Carlin's word as 'a funny truth' rather than 'funny ridiculous' .... Ie, things will be a lot funnier if you knew that NOONE actually believed it to be truth... but knowing, or suspecting, that some people out there will actually think that's is true takes a LOT of the humour out of it.
Good point. You know, there's something to be said for comedy that doesn't attempt to divide or exclude or define loyalties. That's why Lewis Black's recent show seemed so much less fun than his earlier material—everybody can enjoy the "candy corn" routine; but once he starts playing to a particular audience, even if you agree with what he's saying, you can feel the vibe having suddenly narrowed. It's now about furtively giggling behind other people's backs; and that's just not as fun and fancy free.
Which is why I enjoy the redneck comics of the Blue Collar Comedy Tour so much: Larry the Cable Guy, Bill Engvall, Jeff Foxworthy, Ron White. It's all so positive. It's all jokes about being unsophisticated, being fat, being ugly, being dumb, being poor, being drunk—but it's all tongue-in-cheek. It's not mean-spirited. It's not critical. It's just fun. When I see someone like Ron White come on-screen with his drunken-master-storyteller face, I heave a sigh of gratitude—because you know what? It feels like Cosby. And that's about the highest praise I can think of.
|
|
09:47 - Hey! Stick to the script!
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/28/international/28CND-IRAQ.html
|
(top) |
Well, this should screw up a few people's plans.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 28 — In a surprise, secret ceremony that was hastily convened to decrease the chances of more violence, United States officials today handed over sovereignty to Iraqi leaders, formally ending the American occupation two days earlier than scheduled.
In a tightly guarded room behind high walls, L. Paul Bremer III, the top United States administrator, presented a formal letter recognizing Iraq's sovereignty to Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.
Just 30 or so people were present for what Dr. Allawi described as the "historic" handover.
A few hours later, Mr. Bremer flew off on a military plane, leaving behind a country stunned by the sudden transfer of authority. Shortly afterward, Dr. Allawi was formally sworn in as Prime Minister.
"This is a historic day," said the Iraqi interim president, Ghazi Ajil al-Yawar . "We want a free, democratic Iraq that will be a source of peace and stability for the region and the whole world. We would like to express our thanks to our friends in the Coalition for the efforts and dedication they have spent."
Early by two days: enough to screw up attacks planned for the 30th, but not early enough to look like "cutting and running". And if the terrorists are anywhere near as taken by surprise by this as Allawi sounds, they're in for a rough bit of rethinking of strategy.
Especially if Allawi declares martial law, as he suggests he might. In which case he'll have need of our troops still helping out. Yet something tells me that if it's him in charge, and Iraqis handling the bulk of the peacekeeping, the terrorists will have a helluva time blaming us. Even if the crackdowns become way more brutal than we've been yet. Which they probably would.
I dunno... there's a lot of variables yet. People will no doubt criticize us for not making a complete military withdrawal immediately following today, or for planning all along to have "scripted" a situation whereby Allawi would invite our troops to stay past the deadline. And an Iraqi PM who declares martial law? Every time you see someone in the next forty-eight hours who says he sees Allawi becoming "another Saddam", take a drink.
But, well, you know, whatever. This is a huge step in the right direction, and anyone who criticizes it doesn't know how to do anything but criticize.
|
| 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 naïve 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.
¿What 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 naïve 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. Ra | | |