You may have read in today's New York Times (or via Atrios) that people who are paid out of your tax dollars to keep you safe from harm are listening to presentations made by certifiable loons -- and claim to have no idea beforehand what those loons are going to say:
Two weeks ago, a group of senior intelligence officials in the Defense Department sat for an hour listening to a briefing by a writer who claims — I am not making this up — that messages encoded in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament provide clues to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. One of the officials told me that they had agreed to meet the writer, Michael Drosnin, author of a Nostradamus-style best seller, without understanding that he was promoting Biblical prophecy. Still, rather than shoo him away, they listened politely as he consumed several man-hours of valuable intelligence-crunching time.
This is strikingly similar to what we heard last year when the ex-Larouchenik Laurent Murawiec made that scarily imperialistic presentation to the Defense Policy Board, the one that said, "Iraq is the tactical pivot / Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot / Egypt the prize." According to Slate's second article on the Murawiec presentation,
[Richard] Perle, who had invited Murawiec to speak to the Defense Policy Board, told Time magazine he didn't know what Murawiec was going to say before the talk.
So which is it? Is the Bush defense establishment deliberately turning to nutjobs for enlightenment? Or is it running foreign policy, in part, by conducting a series of open-mike nights?
Saturday, March 08, 2003
Here's Tony Judt, writing in the current New York Review of Books:
In World War I, which the French fought from start to finish, France lost three times as many fighting men as America has lost in all its wars combined. In World War II, the French armies holding off the Germans in May–June 1940 suffered 124,000 dead and 200,000 wounded in six weeks, more than America did in Korea and Vietnam combined. Until Hitler brought the US into the war against him in December 1941, Washington maintained correct diplomatic relations with the Nazi regime. Meanwhile the Einsatzgruppen had been at work for six months slaughtering Jews on the Eastern Front, and the Resistance was active in occupied France.
Judt then makes a rather chilling point:
Fortunately we shall never know how middle America would have responded if instructed by an occupying power to persecute racial minorities in its midst.
Read Judt's article for its defense of an internationalism bratty neocons want to destroy, as well as for a devastating statistical debunking of the neocons' notion that America and the "new Europe" have now cornered the market on enlightenment (surely you didn't believe that the French are more anti-Semitic than the Poles -- did you?).
In World War I, which the French fought from start to finish, France lost three times as many fighting men as America has lost in all its wars combined. In World War II, the French armies holding off the Germans in May–June 1940 suffered 124,000 dead and 200,000 wounded in six weeks, more than America did in Korea and Vietnam combined. Until Hitler brought the US into the war against him in December 1941, Washington maintained correct diplomatic relations with the Nazi regime. Meanwhile the Einsatzgruppen had been at work for six months slaughtering Jews on the Eastern Front, and the Resistance was active in occupied France.
Judt then makes a rather chilling point:
Fortunately we shall never know how middle America would have responded if instructed by an occupying power to persecute racial minorities in its midst.
Read Judt's article for its defense of an internationalism bratty neocons want to destroy, as well as for a devastating statistical debunking of the neocons' notion that America and the "new Europe" have now cornered the market on enlightenment (surely you didn't believe that the French are more anti-Semitic than the Poles -- did you?).
This is from a review by Nixon biographer Richard Reeves of a new book by Henry Kissinger:
But Mr. Kissinger does not really believe in democracy. Neither did Nixon. Their fatal flaw was the contempt they had for American institutions—and Americans. The real enemies in their many books are, routinely, not the totalitarians they publicly and militarily opposed, but the Congress, the press and that misguided electorate....
I worked on the Nixon Presidency for the better part of 10 years, and found some of what I just said difficult to understand, at least at first. If one thing brought that together for me—and it was what I thought of while reading this book—it was something told me by Winston Lord, who was Mr. Kissinger’s principal assistant at the National Security Council and was often part of conversations between the President and his National Security Advisor. "They deliberately mirrored adversaries who were secretive," said Lord. "In China, only two or three people were involved in decision-making."
Not an exact parallel to the present day, but...
But Mr. Kissinger does not really believe in democracy. Neither did Nixon. Their fatal flaw was the contempt they had for American institutions—and Americans. The real enemies in their many books are, routinely, not the totalitarians they publicly and militarily opposed, but the Congress, the press and that misguided electorate....
I worked on the Nixon Presidency for the better part of 10 years, and found some of what I just said difficult to understand, at least at first. If one thing brought that together for me—and it was what I thought of while reading this book—it was something told me by Winston Lord, who was Mr. Kissinger’s principal assistant at the National Security Council and was often part of conversations between the President and his National Security Advisor. "They deliberately mirrored adversaries who were secretive," said Lord. "In China, only two or three people were involved in decision-making."
Not an exact parallel to the present day, but...
Friday, March 07, 2003
The most clear-eyed account of the Bush press conference is, naturally, written by a TV critic -- someone who doesn't give a damn about access, about that exclusive sit-down with 43 on Air Force One or Cheney in The Bunker. Read it, it's fun.
I'll quote just one passage:
There were brief interludes during the news conference -- especially the long languid pauses -- when some viewers might have flashed back to the presidency of Richard Nixon. That is, the Nixon Years at their most tumultuous and Twilight Zoney, when the old Trickster would come on TV and you'd sit there not just fascinated but a trifle terrified of what he might say, who he'd accuse of persecuting him, and whether he might come completely unglued or just melt into a hideous puddle right before your horrified eyes.
He's right. I'm old enough to remember Nixon, and Bush absolutely shares Nixon's sneakiness, his paranoia, his free-floating resentment, his utter inability to relax as long as he knows that even one person, anywhere in the world, could possibly impede one of his goals in any way.
They say we became more cynical as a nation after Watergate, but there was never a time in Nixon's presidency when his weirdness wasn't frankly discussed. Now, by contrast, if we talk about Bush's psyche at all we ascribe to him a praiseworthy Marlboro Man clarity of thought, utterly devoid of shadows and grays. This is utter nonsense.
I'll quote just one passage:
There were brief interludes during the news conference -- especially the long languid pauses -- when some viewers might have flashed back to the presidency of Richard Nixon. That is, the Nixon Years at their most tumultuous and Twilight Zoney, when the old Trickster would come on TV and you'd sit there not just fascinated but a trifle terrified of what he might say, who he'd accuse of persecuting him, and whether he might come completely unglued or just melt into a hideous puddle right before your horrified eyes.
He's right. I'm old enough to remember Nixon, and Bush absolutely shares Nixon's sneakiness, his paranoia, his free-floating resentment, his utter inability to relax as long as he knows that even one person, anywhere in the world, could possibly impede one of his goals in any way.
They say we became more cynical as a nation after Watergate, but there was never a time in Nixon's presidency when his weirdness wasn't frankly discussed. Now, by contrast, if we talk about Bush's psyche at all we ascribe to him a praiseworthy Marlboro Man clarity of thought, utterly devoid of shadows and grays. This is utter nonsense.
This gives me the creeps:
Teenage sniper suspect Lee Boyd Malvo faced a disciplinary hearing in jail for allegedly scrawling the word "Muhammad" on the floor of his cell and writing on his shoes....
After Malvo was taken to a hearing Monday at the Fairfax courthouse, deputies searched his cell and saw the word scrawled on the floor with a blue felt-tip pen that had been issued to Malvo, Barry told The Washington Post. Muhammad is the last name of the second sniper suspect....
When I started this blog, I wrote a few times about my belief that Malvo, after effectively becoming an orphan in his mid-teens, was the victim of grievous psychological harm at John Muhammad's hands. Muhammad, I thought, took over Malvo's identity. Reports at the time said Malvo ate what Muhammad told him to eat, walked several paces behind Muhammad, and sat in cold cars shivering while waiting for Muhammad to finish odd jobs; Malvo also called himself John because that was Muhammad's first name. It seemed to me that Malvo's ego had somehow been destroyed and remade in Muhammad's image.
Later, as I began to read more and more reports that said Malvo was the triggerman in the snipings, and also that Malvo bragged about the killings, I found it harder to feel sympathy for him. And the report today also mentions a casual death threat by Malvo.
But graffiti-ing another man's name is weird.
I still think Malvo underwent some sort of soul-murder at Muhammad's hands. I think on some level he was killed by the events of his life -- obviously not in the vicious way he's said to have killed others, but not in a nice way, either. We don't have to be bleeding hearts -- we don't have to hold him blameless. But we ought to want to know what happened to him, so we can prevent it from happening to others -- and for the sake of the people those others might harm.
Teenage sniper suspect Lee Boyd Malvo faced a disciplinary hearing in jail for allegedly scrawling the word "Muhammad" on the floor of his cell and writing on his shoes....
After Malvo was taken to a hearing Monday at the Fairfax courthouse, deputies searched his cell and saw the word scrawled on the floor with a blue felt-tip pen that had been issued to Malvo, Barry told The Washington Post. Muhammad is the last name of the second sniper suspect....
When I started this blog, I wrote a few times about my belief that Malvo, after effectively becoming an orphan in his mid-teens, was the victim of grievous psychological harm at John Muhammad's hands. Muhammad, I thought, took over Malvo's identity. Reports at the time said Malvo ate what Muhammad told him to eat, walked several paces behind Muhammad, and sat in cold cars shivering while waiting for Muhammad to finish odd jobs; Malvo also called himself John because that was Muhammad's first name. It seemed to me that Malvo's ego had somehow been destroyed and remade in Muhammad's image.
Later, as I began to read more and more reports that said Malvo was the triggerman in the snipings, and also that Malvo bragged about the killings, I found it harder to feel sympathy for him. And the report today also mentions a casual death threat by Malvo.
But graffiti-ing another man's name is weird.
I still think Malvo underwent some sort of soul-murder at Muhammad's hands. I think on some level he was killed by the events of his life -- obviously not in the vicious way he's said to have killed others, but not in a nice way, either. We don't have to be bleeding hearts -- we don't have to hold him blameless. But we ought to want to know what happened to him, so we can prevent it from happening to others -- and for the sake of the people those others might harm.
Does Ms. magazine still have that "No Comment" section? Does Ms. magazine still exist? Well, as Ms. says/used to say, no comment.
A lot of people think France, Germany, and Russia are trying to prevent an Iraq war because they have oil deals with Iraq (France and Russia) or they're actually violating trade sanctions on Iraq (France and Germany). But surely these countries can see that war is all but inevitable. If they were afraid of postwar consequences (from a U.S. president who's obviously highly vindictive), wouldn't they want to cooperate with him as much as possible? Wouldn't lining up with him make it more likely that they'd get a piece of the postwar oil action, and that any shady deals would be swept under the rug?
As I think about Bush's press conference last night, it occurs to me that what we were watching was a weird hybrid: a cold, contemptuous dad crossbred with a sullen teenager.
Bush's message to the world certainly was that of a tyrant dad: "Why? Because I said so, that's why." But that was mixed with the attitude of a fifteen-year-old boy slumped in the backseat of Mom's SUV, consumed with exasperation because he isn't allowed to drive and isn't allowed to get a tattoo until he’s eighteen and isn't allowed to do anything. Old Europe, and Turkey, and protestors, and reporters, and Americans and Brits who support war only if there's a second resolution -- they all get to be at the wheel, singing those gross embarrassing hippie songs from the sixties and being totally lame. And Bush is not talking back, he's not raising his voice -- he's deliberately not raising his voice. He's explained a million times why he's right. But we're not listening.
You know, as soon as he can, he's going to do exactly what he wants, and nobody's going to stop him.
But for now, he can't. It's so unfair.
Bush's message to the world certainly was that of a tyrant dad: "Why? Because I said so, that's why." But that was mixed with the attitude of a fifteen-year-old boy slumped in the backseat of Mom's SUV, consumed with exasperation because he isn't allowed to drive and isn't allowed to get a tattoo until he’s eighteen and isn't allowed to do anything. Old Europe, and Turkey, and protestors, and reporters, and Americans and Brits who support war only if there's a second resolution -- they all get to be at the wheel, singing those gross embarrassing hippie songs from the sixties and being totally lame. And Bush is not talking back, he's not raising his voice -- he's deliberately not raising his voice. He's explained a million times why he's right. But we're not listening.
You know, as soon as he can, he's going to do exactly what he wants, and nobody's going to stop him.
But for now, he can't. It's so unfair.
Thousands of American soldiers are pouring into Saudi Arabia in preparation for an invasion of Iraq, independent sources say.
--Daily Telegraph (U.K.)
Oh, great -- isn't the fact that we based troops in Saudi Arabia for Gulf War I precisely what pissed al-Qaeda off in the first place?
--Daily Telegraph (U.K.)
Oh, great -- isn't the fact that we based troops in Saudi Arabia for Gulf War I precisely what pissed al-Qaeda off in the first place?
REPUBLICAN PUNDIT: APPEASEMENT IS OK
In North Korea, that is. That's what Charles Krauthammer says here.
That lack of sound you hear is fellow conservatives not rushing to their PCs to denounce Krauthammer as "objectively pro-Kim Jong Il."
In North Korea, that is. That's what Charles Krauthammer says here.
That lack of sound you hear is fellow conservatives not rushing to their PCs to denounce Krauthammer as "objectively pro-Kim Jong Il."
The New York Times has an article today about how the war is being discussed in schools:
In Maine, for instance, Gov. John Baldacci, a Democrat, admonished teachers to maintain neutrality recently after the National Guard complained that teachers, in their classrooms, were calling the military "unethical."
Yes, we knew that -- it was reported in the Times and elsewhere.
In an Omaha district, students said in interviews that a teacher had been playing Rush Limbaugh tapes in class.
Oh, really? We didn't know that.
Your liberal media in action.
Now, I think it makes sense to have war talk in classrooms. And at the risk of sounding hokey, I'll add that I also think balance and mutual respect are necessary in these discussions.
Here's what some right-wingers think about the right to disagree with the president: A teacher in Colorado who wore a "Not My President, Not My War" button on her coat during a school field trip has had her name, e-mail address, and phone number published at Free Republic (scroll down to post #2), after a Colorado radio host revealed her name. Nice, huh?
I want to give the Freepers their due: In the discussion, some of them acknowledge feeling the same way about Clinton for eight years, and some of them think no political opinions should be expressed in classrooms on either side (or that pro-Bush students should respond by wearing buttons and T-shirts of their own). In other words, rather than licking their lips at the thought of harassing this teacher, they're looking for a fair single standard on this issue. But that doesn't excuse the posting of the number and e-mail address.
In Maine, for instance, Gov. John Baldacci, a Democrat, admonished teachers to maintain neutrality recently after the National Guard complained that teachers, in their classrooms, were calling the military "unethical."
Yes, we knew that -- it was reported in the Times and elsewhere.
In an Omaha district, students said in interviews that a teacher had been playing Rush Limbaugh tapes in class.
Oh, really? We didn't know that.
Your liberal media in action.
Now, I think it makes sense to have war talk in classrooms. And at the risk of sounding hokey, I'll add that I also think balance and mutual respect are necessary in these discussions.
Here's what some right-wingers think about the right to disagree with the president: A teacher in Colorado who wore a "Not My President, Not My War" button on her coat during a school field trip has had her name, e-mail address, and phone number published at Free Republic (scroll down to post #2), after a Colorado radio host revealed her name. Nice, huh?
I want to give the Freepers their due: In the discussion, some of them acknowledge feeling the same way about Clinton for eight years, and some of them think no political opinions should be expressed in classrooms on either side (or that pro-Bush students should respond by wearing buttons and T-shirts of their own). In other words, rather than licking their lips at the thought of harassing this teacher, they're looking for a fair single standard on this issue. But that doesn't excuse the posting of the number and e-mail address.
Thursday, March 06, 2003
I gave up on the Bush press conference about halfway through. "As far as I can tell, it's all about war, war, war," Kos says. "And God tells him war is okay. And he's using a yoga voice -- perhaps to counter the 'foaming-at-the-mouth war-crazed' persona he's cultivated. But he sounds sedated." That basically sums it up.
Instead, I decided to fisk Fred Barnes. I don't usually do this sort of thing, but Fred just made it so damn easy. He published a list of ten "peacenik" objections to Bush's war. He thinks he's got them well and truly debunked. I don't think so....
(1) Rush to war. ...President Bush has taken all the steps asked of him before going to war: getting the approval of Congress, getting another U.N. resolution (with perhaps yet another on the way), and building a coalition of supporters. He's hardly rushing.
“All the steps asked of him”? Did he actually obtain that second UN resolution finding Saddam in material breach while I wasn’t looking?
(2) It's a war for oil. The United States could buy all the oil it wants from Iraq by lifting the sanctions and helping to reconstruct the Iraqi oilfields. It's the French and Russians who have oil deals with Saddam and thus are fixated on that issue. They don't want a war that would upset those deals.
Right -- obtaining oil from a country run by your own puppet regime is just as difficult as buying it from a megalomaniac dictator whose country you’ve bombed for a dozen years.
(3) War with Iraq will bring more terrorism. This is a hardy perennial. It was claimed before the Gulf war and the Afghanistan campaign--and when bombs fell on al Qaeda and the Taliban during Ramadan....
The first Gulf War was followed by the first World Trade Center bombing, the attacks on the Khobar Towers and Cole, the African embassy bombings, the second World Trade Center bombing....
Rather than more terrorism, removing Saddam will bring more respect for the United States. Terrorists will be increasingly fearful.
Right -- just like after the Afghan war. That disco in Bali? It bombed itself.
(4) The Arab street will erupt. Another perennial. This is often predicted but rarely happens. A swift, decisive victory over Saddam will quiet the Arab street....
Sure -- just the way every swift, decisive Israeli retaliation for suicide bombings brings peace and harmony to the Palestinian street.
(5) Bush is doing it for his dad. ... consider the source of this charge: Martin Sheen.
No, Fred, you consider the source: George W. Bush.
(6) Attacking Iraq would be unprovoked aggression. No, it wouldn't. Andrew Sullivan has pointed out a significant fact: There was no peace treaty, only the truce, so the state of war resumes when the conditions are violated....
There was no peace treaty after the Korean War, either. So if North Korea nukes Seoul in the next few months, shall we assume you’ll say it wasn’t unprovoked aggression, Fred?
(7) Containment is working. The problem is the right threat is not being contained: the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Sure, with U.S. troops and U.N. inspectors in the area, Saddam won't attack Jordan or Syria or other neighbors. But he could slip chemical or biological agents to terrorists without anyone knowing. And that's the threat.
Anyone with chem, bio, or nuclear weapons, or the capacity to make them, could slip them to terrorists. But what evidence do we have that this is Saddam’s M.O.? Why would a guy who is sitting on a fixed plot of land -- unlike bin Laden -- do that and risk a massive, possibly nuclear, retaliation? And by the way, when did all the GOP dictionaries start to redefine “could” and “might” and “almost certainly will”?
(8) America doesn't have enough allies. What? Forty or so isn't enough? Is the case for war weakened in the slightest by the absence of the French or the Angolans? ...
That’s not the question. The question is: In the post-Cold War world, is the case for a war to uphold the international order weakened by the absence of the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Japanese -- for starters?
(9) Win without war. That's a nice goal. Unfortunately, it's Saddam's goal. With no war, he wins and emerges as the new strongman in the Middle East, forcing people to come to terms with him.
Ringed by troops, dogged by inspectors, reined in by sanctions, able to control only the half of his own country that’s outside the no-fly zones -- this would make him a “strongman”?
(10) Bush is seeking a new American empire. ... I'll let Secretary of State Colin Powell answer this one. When hectored by a former archbishop of Canterbury on this subject recently, he said: "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last 100 years . . . and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in." Well said.
All that was before we had a president named George W. Bush.
Instead, I decided to fisk Fred Barnes. I don't usually do this sort of thing, but Fred just made it so damn easy. He published a list of ten "peacenik" objections to Bush's war. He thinks he's got them well and truly debunked. I don't think so....
(1) Rush to war. ...President Bush has taken all the steps asked of him before going to war: getting the approval of Congress, getting another U.N. resolution (with perhaps yet another on the way), and building a coalition of supporters. He's hardly rushing.
“All the steps asked of him”? Did he actually obtain that second UN resolution finding Saddam in material breach while I wasn’t looking?
(2) It's a war for oil. The United States could buy all the oil it wants from Iraq by lifting the sanctions and helping to reconstruct the Iraqi oilfields. It's the French and Russians who have oil deals with Saddam and thus are fixated on that issue. They don't want a war that would upset those deals.
Right -- obtaining oil from a country run by your own puppet regime is just as difficult as buying it from a megalomaniac dictator whose country you’ve bombed for a dozen years.
(3) War with Iraq will bring more terrorism. This is a hardy perennial. It was claimed before the Gulf war and the Afghanistan campaign--and when bombs fell on al Qaeda and the Taliban during Ramadan....
The first Gulf War was followed by the first World Trade Center bombing, the attacks on the Khobar Towers and Cole, the African embassy bombings, the second World Trade Center bombing....
Rather than more terrorism, removing Saddam will bring more respect for the United States. Terrorists will be increasingly fearful.
Right -- just like after the Afghan war. That disco in Bali? It bombed itself.
(4) The Arab street will erupt. Another perennial. This is often predicted but rarely happens. A swift, decisive victory over Saddam will quiet the Arab street....
Sure -- just the way every swift, decisive Israeli retaliation for suicide bombings brings peace and harmony to the Palestinian street.
(5) Bush is doing it for his dad. ... consider the source of this charge: Martin Sheen.
No, Fred, you consider the source: George W. Bush.
(6) Attacking Iraq would be unprovoked aggression. No, it wouldn't. Andrew Sullivan has pointed out a significant fact: There was no peace treaty, only the truce, so the state of war resumes when the conditions are violated....
There was no peace treaty after the Korean War, either. So if North Korea nukes Seoul in the next few months, shall we assume you’ll say it wasn’t unprovoked aggression, Fred?
(7) Containment is working. The problem is the right threat is not being contained: the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Sure, with U.S. troops and U.N. inspectors in the area, Saddam won't attack Jordan or Syria or other neighbors. But he could slip chemical or biological agents to terrorists without anyone knowing. And that's the threat.
Anyone with chem, bio, or nuclear weapons, or the capacity to make them, could slip them to terrorists. But what evidence do we have that this is Saddam’s M.O.? Why would a guy who is sitting on a fixed plot of land -- unlike bin Laden -- do that and risk a massive, possibly nuclear, retaliation? And by the way, when did all the GOP dictionaries start to redefine “could” and “might” and “almost certainly will”?
(8) America doesn't have enough allies. What? Forty or so isn't enough? Is the case for war weakened in the slightest by the absence of the French or the Angolans? ...
That’s not the question. The question is: In the post-Cold War world, is the case for a war to uphold the international order weakened by the absence of the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, and the Japanese -- for starters?
(9) Win without war. That's a nice goal. Unfortunately, it's Saddam's goal. With no war, he wins and emerges as the new strongman in the Middle East, forcing people to come to terms with him.
Ringed by troops, dogged by inspectors, reined in by sanctions, able to control only the half of his own country that’s outside the no-fly zones -- this would make him a “strongman”?
(10) Bush is seeking a new American empire. ... I'll let Secretary of State Colin Powell answer this one. When hectored by a former archbishop of Canterbury on this subject recently, he said: "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last 100 years . . . and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in." Well said.
All that was before we had a president named George W. Bush.
Was the Churchill of our times outargued by a bunch of kids half his age?
Prime Minister Tony Blair took the debate on Iraq Thursday to some of his youngest critics — a studio audience for MTV...
Niklas Ergandt, 25, of Sweden set the tone early. "I'm able to produce anthrax in my bathroom," he said. "Why don't you bomb Sweden?"
The audience accused Blair of showing "absolute disdain" for public opinion and the people of Iraq. He was also charged with potentially making terrorism worse by planning to attack Iraq and failing to provide sufficient evidence to support military action....
The encounter — due to air in Britain on Friday before it is broadcast in Europe, Australia, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and eventually the United States on Monday — won praise from some members of the audience, but most were not impressed.
"I'm fairly pessimistic. I've heard it all before," said Juan Allos, 23, an Iraqi exile now living in London....
Prime Minister Tony Blair took the debate on Iraq Thursday to some of his youngest critics — a studio audience for MTV...
Niklas Ergandt, 25, of Sweden set the tone early. "I'm able to produce anthrax in my bathroom," he said. "Why don't you bomb Sweden?"
The audience accused Blair of showing "absolute disdain" for public opinion and the people of Iraq. He was also charged with potentially making terrorism worse by planning to attack Iraq and failing to provide sufficient evidence to support military action....
The encounter — due to air in Britain on Friday before it is broadcast in Europe, Australia, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and eventually the United States on Monday — won praise from some members of the audience, but most were not impressed.
"I'm fairly pessimistic. I've heard it all before," said Juan Allos, 23, an Iraqi exile now living in London....
Around ten thousand Russian citizens have applied for entry visas into Iraq to defend this country against the planned aggression by the warmongering USA and UK, according to the Iraqi Embassy in Moscow....
The requests come from young males, some with combat experience, who describe themselves as “volunteers” who are willing to defend Iraq against the illegal armed aggression of the USA and the United Kingdom, two countries which continue to follow a belligerent stance on crisis management, wholly outside the generally accepted concepts of a New World Order based upon multilateralist approaches to problem solving, based upon the United Nations Organisation, a position championed by president Putin’s Russian Federation....
--Pravda
I'm less concerned with the content of the story than with the rhetoric. Is Pravda still essentially in sync with the Russian government? And haven't we been assuming for a decade or so that these guys are now our friends? This sounds exactly like the Soviet rhetoric of my Cold War youth. Is this kind of talk just an ingrained habit at Pravda -- or is George Bush truly alienating a somewhat more powerful global ally than France?
(Thanks to Susan M. for the link.)
The requests come from young males, some with combat experience, who describe themselves as “volunteers” who are willing to defend Iraq against the illegal armed aggression of the USA and the United Kingdom, two countries which continue to follow a belligerent stance on crisis management, wholly outside the generally accepted concepts of a New World Order based upon multilateralist approaches to problem solving, based upon the United Nations Organisation, a position championed by president Putin’s Russian Federation....
--Pravda
I'm less concerned with the content of the story than with the rhetoric. Is Pravda still essentially in sync with the Russian government? And haven't we been assuming for a decade or so that these guys are now our friends? This sounds exactly like the Soviet rhetoric of my Cold War youth. Is this kind of talk just an ingrained habit at Pravda -- or is George Bush truly alienating a somewhat more powerful global ally than France?
(Thanks to Susan M. for the link.)
It looks as if this was planned a long time ago, but surely true patriots would try to do something about it: The itinerary for a May cruise sponsored by National Review, scourge of the Euro-appeaseniks, requires participants to spend a couple of nights at a hotel in ... Munich. What -- there aren't any good hotels in the "new Europe"? Then again, maybe the participants are planning to trash the place. I hear Jonah Goldberg spray-paints a mean weasel.
Fred Kaplan in Slate reminds us that this isn't even going to be a preemptive war:
...the war that Bush II is pushing is a different sort of war, a war in which we launch an invasion, not in response to aggression and not even "pre-emptively" (to strike the first blow before the other country does) but "preventively" (to keep the other country from doing something that might let it pose an imminent threat someday).
Then he makes what should be a thuddingly obvious point:
There may be a case for preventive war, but if the aim of the war is protecting the international order, then that case should be acceptable to the agency that represents the international order. Specifically, if the war is supposed to enforce a U.N. resolution, then the case for war should be acceptable to the United Nations.
A couple of paragraphs later, he makes another one:
If the administration lacks the acumen or persuasive power to deal with such familiar institutions as the U.N. Security Council or the established governments of France, Germany, Turkey, Russia, China—even Canada—then how is it going to handle Iraq's feuding opposition groups, Kurdish separatists, and myriad ethno-religious factions, to say nothing of the turbulence throughout the region?
...the war that Bush II is pushing is a different sort of war, a war in which we launch an invasion, not in response to aggression and not even "pre-emptively" (to strike the first blow before the other country does) but "preventively" (to keep the other country from doing something that might let it pose an imminent threat someday).
Then he makes what should be a thuddingly obvious point:
There may be a case for preventive war, but if the aim of the war is protecting the international order, then that case should be acceptable to the agency that represents the international order. Specifically, if the war is supposed to enforce a U.N. resolution, then the case for war should be acceptable to the United Nations.
A couple of paragraphs later, he makes another one:
If the administration lacks the acumen or persuasive power to deal with such familiar institutions as the U.N. Security Council or the established governments of France, Germany, Turkey, Russia, China—even Canada—then how is it going to handle Iraq's feuding opposition groups, Kurdish separatists, and myriad ethno-religious factions, to say nothing of the turbulence throughout the region?
I love this:
Protest the Hollywood Left Elites Without Leaving Home
"Sacrificing for the war effort? You bet I'm sacrificing for the war effort! I got carpal tunnel syndrome sending all those e-mails to CAA protesting the anti-war statements of Viggo Mortensen!"
Protest the Hollywood Left Elites Without Leaving Home
"Sacrificing for the war effort? You bet I'm sacrificing for the war effort! I got carpal tunnel syndrome sending all those e-mails to CAA protesting the anti-war statements of Viggo Mortensen!"
China closed ranks with France, Germany and Russia on Thursday, vowing to block a new UN resolution authorising war on Iraq as the pressure intensified on the United States. --news story
Now China's part of the Axis of Weasels!
Yet another soft, feminine country that became squeamish about the use of force in the latter half of the twentieth century?
Now China's part of the Axis of Weasels!
Yet another soft, feminine country that became squeamish about the use of force in the latter half of the twentieth century?
Wednesday, March 05, 2003
It seems likely that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is has been undergoing torture. Does 9/11 justify torture? Does anything? The Economist addressed that question back in January and said this:
Even if you allow, as many will not, that torture might be justified under the most extreme circumstances, it would be difficult to confine its use to those very rare cases. Any system that allowed torture in tightly controlled situations would risk eroding into wider use. To legalise is to encourage. Israel tried to limit use of physical coercion to extreme cases, but its security forces have ended up using such methods far more widely than was initially foreseen.
If America were to sanction torture, to begin with in extremely rare cases, there might be some immediate gains in security. Much as one would like to believe that torture never succeeds in extracting vital information, history says otherwise. But, for the democratic West, any such gains would be outweighed by greater harm. The prohibition against torture expresses one of the West's most powerful taboos—and some taboos (like that against the use of nuclear weapons) are worth preserving even at heavy cost. Though many authoritarian regimes use torture, not one of even these openly admits it. A decision by the United States to employ some forms of torture, no matter how limited the circumstances, would shatter the taboo. The morale of the West in what may be a long war against terrorism would be gravely set back: to stay strong, the liberal democracies need to be certain that they are better than their enemies.
George Bush has said that the fight against al-Qaeda is a battle for hearts and minds, not just a matter of military power. Though critics focus on his sabre-rattling, Mr Bush has been consistent in his claims to be defending human rights and democracy, and he has persisted in reaching out to Muslims, though he rarely gets credit for this. To keep the moral high ground, he needs to bolster public disavowals of torture by specifying the methods American interrogators can employ, by enforcing the limits, and by desisting from handing prisoners over to less scrupulous allies.
I agree.
It's clear that Bush has handed KSM over to nasty interrogators. It's also clear that the U.S. doesn't care who knows that.
The Vietnam-era saying was "When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." This seems to be the Bush administration's attitude toward everyone on the planet.
(Thanks to Dock for pointing out the Economist editorial.)
Even if you allow, as many will not, that torture might be justified under the most extreme circumstances, it would be difficult to confine its use to those very rare cases. Any system that allowed torture in tightly controlled situations would risk eroding into wider use. To legalise is to encourage. Israel tried to limit use of physical coercion to extreme cases, but its security forces have ended up using such methods far more widely than was initially foreseen.
If America were to sanction torture, to begin with in extremely rare cases, there might be some immediate gains in security. Much as one would like to believe that torture never succeeds in extracting vital information, history says otherwise. But, for the democratic West, any such gains would be outweighed by greater harm. The prohibition against torture expresses one of the West's most powerful taboos—and some taboos (like that against the use of nuclear weapons) are worth preserving even at heavy cost. Though many authoritarian regimes use torture, not one of even these openly admits it. A decision by the United States to employ some forms of torture, no matter how limited the circumstances, would shatter the taboo. The morale of the West in what may be a long war against terrorism would be gravely set back: to stay strong, the liberal democracies need to be certain that they are better than their enemies.
George Bush has said that the fight against al-Qaeda is a battle for hearts and minds, not just a matter of military power. Though critics focus on his sabre-rattling, Mr Bush has been consistent in his claims to be defending human rights and democracy, and he has persisted in reaching out to Muslims, though he rarely gets credit for this. To keep the moral high ground, he needs to bolster public disavowals of torture by specifying the methods American interrogators can employ, by enforcing the limits, and by desisting from handing prisoners over to less scrupulous allies.
I agree.
It's clear that Bush has handed KSM over to nasty interrogators. It's also clear that the U.S. doesn't care who knows that.
The Vietnam-era saying was "When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." This seems to be the Bush administration's attitude toward everyone on the planet.
(Thanks to Dock for pointing out the Economist editorial.)
...the Turks do not propose to help guarantee [the Turkey-Iraq] border or to protect those who live within it. Rather, they propose to cross the frontier for no better reason than to aggrandize themselves and to prolong the subjection of their own Kurdish population. This doesn't just disgrace the regime-change strategy. It actually destabilizes it. And it's humiliating to see the president begging and bribing the Turks to do the wrong thing and to see them in return reject his offer.
--Christopher Hitchens in Slate
Well, guess what, Hitchypoo? The process of begging and bribing the Turks to do the wrong thing is clearly still going on.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Hitch: You can't just support the war you wish Bush would fight. There's only one war -- his -- and either you have to support that war or you have to oppose it. There just isn't another choice.
--Christopher Hitchens in Slate
Well, guess what, Hitchypoo? The process of begging and bribing the Turks to do the wrong thing is clearly still going on.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Hitch: You can't just support the war you wish Bush would fight. There's only one war -- his -- and either you have to support that war or you have to oppose it. There just isn't another choice.
Sometimes pointing out the hypocrisy and shamelessness is just too easy:
Frist: Veterans May Have to Sacrifice
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist pledged Tuesday to support veterans concerned about President Bush's health care proposals, but also said veterans and others will have to make sacrifices should the nation go to war with Iraq....
...he later told reporters that the costs of the Iraq war would mean "we all have to sacrifice in various ways as we likely engage in military conflict, which we could not have anticipated a year ago, which is not fully budgeted and which ultimately will have to compete with what many of us want.
"It applies to me in terms of domestic priorities and it applies to groups like the veterans today as they lobby," Frist said.
...Bush proposed a 7.7 percent increase, to $27.5 billion, for veterans' medical care in the fiscal year starting Oct. 1. But the budget request also proposed fee increases and limits on access, which are unpopular with veterans and have been rejected by the House Veterans Affairs Committee.
Bush's budget also proposed charging veterans who earn about $24,000 a year or more an annual enrollment fee of $250. And it proposed increasing copayments for higher-income patients, from $15 to $20 for outpatient primary care and $7 to $15 for prescription drugs....
--Newsday
House Panel Enlists Military Bill In Cause of Business Tax Breaks
Days before the House Ways and Means Committee took up an innocuous military bill last month, Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) made an offer to other Republican committee members at their weekly luncheon: prepare a wish list of tax breaks under $100 million each, and they could add them to the measure.
"It was Mr. Thomas's idea," said panel member Jim McCrery (R-La.), adding that Democrats declined the same offer. "Everybody in the meeting agreed there were a lot of little tax items we had not [been able to enact] the last couple of years. This was something that was going to move."
...If the House accepts the committee's version, and it survives an eventual conference committee with senators, then racetrack owners and horse breeders would have an easier time enticing foreigners to bet on their races; an alternative type of diesel fuel would get a tax break, and U.S.-made bows and arrows would sell for less....
--Washington Post
Frist: Veterans May Have to Sacrifice
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist pledged Tuesday to support veterans concerned about President Bush's health care proposals, but also said veterans and others will have to make sacrifices should the nation go to war with Iraq....
...he later told reporters that the costs of the Iraq war would mean "we all have to sacrifice in various ways as we likely engage in military conflict, which we could not have anticipated a year ago, which is not fully budgeted and which ultimately will have to compete with what many of us want.
"It applies to me in terms of domestic priorities and it applies to groups like the veterans today as they lobby," Frist said.
...Bush proposed a 7.7 percent increase, to $27.5 billion, for veterans' medical care in the fiscal year starting Oct. 1. But the budget request also proposed fee increases and limits on access, which are unpopular with veterans and have been rejected by the House Veterans Affairs Committee.
Bush's budget also proposed charging veterans who earn about $24,000 a year or more an annual enrollment fee of $250. And it proposed increasing copayments for higher-income patients, from $15 to $20 for outpatient primary care and $7 to $15 for prescription drugs....
--Newsday
House Panel Enlists Military Bill In Cause of Business Tax Breaks
Days before the House Ways and Means Committee took up an innocuous military bill last month, Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) made an offer to other Republican committee members at their weekly luncheon: prepare a wish list of tax breaks under $100 million each, and they could add them to the measure.
"It was Mr. Thomas's idea," said panel member Jim McCrery (R-La.), adding that Democrats declined the same offer. "Everybody in the meeting agreed there were a lot of little tax items we had not [been able to enact] the last couple of years. This was something that was going to move."
...If the House accepts the committee's version, and it survives an eventual conference committee with senators, then racetrack owners and horse breeders would have an easier time enticing foreigners to bet on their races; an alternative type of diesel fuel would get a tax break, and U.S.-made bows and arrows would sell for less....
--Washington Post
Let's slam, punch, kick, pummel. gouge, and otherwise cause the maximum hurt on Saddam.
LET'S ROLL!!!!!!
--comment in a Lucianne.com discussion
TERRORISTS BEWARE -- RUGBY PLAYER ONBOARD
--bumper sticker approvingly noted by InstaPundit
I'm sorry -- these people are children. Either they don't know what war is or they just don't care to think about it. Support the damn war if you want, but grow up -- acknowledge the true nature of what you're supporting:
"People are going to die. As hard as we try to limit civilian casualties, it will occur. We need to condition people that that is war. People get the idea this is going to be antiseptic. Well, it's not going to be." -- General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
LET'S ROLL!!!!!!
--comment in a Lucianne.com discussion
TERRORISTS BEWARE -- RUGBY PLAYER ONBOARD
--bumper sticker approvingly noted by InstaPundit
I'm sorry -- these people are children. Either they don't know what war is or they just don't care to think about it. Support the damn war if you want, but grow up -- acknowledge the true nature of what you're supporting:
"People are going to die. As hard as we try to limit civilian casualties, it will occur. We need to condition people that that is war. People get the idea this is going to be antiseptic. Well, it's not going to be." -- General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
In a serious challenge to the Bush administration, the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Russia said in a joint declaration today that they would not permit passage of a Security Council resolution authorizing the use of armed force against Iraq. -- New York Times
Russia officially joins the Axis of Weasels!
So does this mean that horny war boosters have to boycott t.A.T.u.?
Russia officially joins the Axis of Weasels!
So does this mean that horny war boosters have to boycott t.A.T.u.?
"Pro-war"? Bite your tongue! No one is pro-war. All those people you think are pro-war are actually pro-liberation.
It's one thing to learn that political pros -- Newt Gingrich, say, or his pollster, Frank Luntz -- are urging fellow Republicans to play Orwellian word games like this. But now the amateurs are doing it. And the creepy thing is, they're proud of it.
It's one thing to learn that political pros -- Newt Gingrich, say, or his pollster, Frank Luntz -- are urging fellow Republicans to play Orwellian word games like this. But now the amateurs are doing it. And the creepy thing is, they're proud of it.
"This is all about the recognition that North Korea may decide that the next few weeks are their best shot at starting to build a nuclear arsenal and getting away with it," a senior official said today. "That's what we've got to stop — if we can figure out how."
--New York Times
"If we can figure out how." Well, that certainly inspires confidence, doesn't it?
--New York Times
"If we can figure out how." Well, that certainly inspires confidence, doesn't it?
Boorish God-bothering American know-nothings with lapel flags? European denunciations of the new yokel hegemon? ’Twas ever thus. Read Simon Schama's history of European resentment of Americans in this week's New Yorker. Highly entertaining, and probably just what you need to confirm your nastiest stereotypes -- whether of sneering Euros or of overly self-satisfied Yanks.
If the citizens of the United States were indeed the devoted patriots they call themselves, they would surely not thus encrust themselves in the hard, dry, stubborn persuasion, that they are the first and best of the human race, that nothing is to be learnt, but what they are able to teach, and that nothing is worth having, which they do not possess.” -- Frances Trollope
If the citizens of the United States were indeed the devoted patriots they call themselves, they would surely not thus encrust themselves in the hard, dry, stubborn persuasion, that they are the first and best of the human race, that nothing is to be learnt, but what they are able to teach, and that nothing is worth having, which they do not possess.” -- Frances Trollope
Tuesday, March 04, 2003
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is being tortured.
According to Pakistani and U.S. officials, Mohammed is beginning to crack after three days of unspecified rough treatment by Pakistani interrogators.
"If you are dealing with a terrorist you hardly go to them with a rose and a bowl of soup and say you come with good intentions," Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat told ABCNEWS in Islamabad.
"He is holding out, but I don't think he'll be able to hold out much longer," Hayat said. "There is always an end to human endurance."
--ABC News
Then again, maybe you don't have a problem with that.
According to Pakistani and U.S. officials, Mohammed is beginning to crack after three days of unspecified rough treatment by Pakistani interrogators.
"If you are dealing with a terrorist you hardly go to them with a rose and a bowl of soup and say you come with good intentions," Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat told ABCNEWS in Islamabad.
"He is holding out, but I don't think he'll be able to hold out much longer," Hayat said. "There is always an end to human endurance."
--ABC News
Then again, maybe you don't have a problem with that.
Right-Thinking from the Left Coast may be the right-wing blog for people who think Crank Yankers is too erudite, but I appreciate the fact that Right-Thinking linked this story from the Korea Times:
NK Missile Warhead Found in Alaska
The warhead of a long-range missile test-fired by North Korea was found in the U.S. state of Alaska, a report to the National Assembly revealed yesterday.
``According to a U.S. document, the last piece of a missile warhead fired by North Korea was found in Alaska,’’ former Japanese foreign minister Taro Nakayama was quoted as saying in the report. ``Washington, as well as Tokyo, has so far underrated Pyongyang’s missile capabilities.’’...
Lee at Right-Thinking asks, "Firstly, how did the United States not detect this missile as it entered US airspace, and wipe North Korea off the face of the earth? And secondly, why is the first we are hearing of this in the Korea Times?" Interesting questions. What exactly is our plan to (a) deter North Korea and (b) avert a cataclysm? And does our press think this story is not credible or just not, on the administration's terms, "on message"?
NK Missile Warhead Found in Alaska
The warhead of a long-range missile test-fired by North Korea was found in the U.S. state of Alaska, a report to the National Assembly revealed yesterday.
``According to a U.S. document, the last piece of a missile warhead fired by North Korea was found in Alaska,’’ former Japanese foreign minister Taro Nakayama was quoted as saying in the report. ``Washington, as well as Tokyo, has so far underrated Pyongyang’s missile capabilities.’’...
Lee at Right-Thinking asks, "Firstly, how did the United States not detect this missile as it entered US airspace, and wipe North Korea off the face of the earth? And secondly, why is the first we are hearing of this in the Korea Times?" Interesting questions. What exactly is our plan to (a) deter North Korea and (b) avert a cataclysm? And does our press think this story is not credible or just not, on the administration's terms, "on message"?
Janeane Garofalo is a smart anti-war entertainer; needless to say, this makes Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online nuts. Here's Goldberg trying to debunk one of Garofalo's arguments:
So let us put aside the question of the messenger and take a look at Garofalo's message. On a recent edition of Fox News Sunday, Tony Snow asked her about Saddam Hussein: "Has he been a mass murderer? She responded, "Yes, there's been a lot of people who have been mass murderers. And I think Turkey also, who we've been negotiating with, has one of the worst human-rights records in the world. Also, the sanctions, you could say, have been responsible for mass murder."
He asked, "Do you think he is eager to obtain weapons of mass destruction?" She responded, "Yes, I think lots of people are eager to obtain weapons of mass destruction."
Sigh. This is the "Everybody does it" argument. According to this logic, we shouldn't stop any one serial killer if we aren't willing to stop all of them.
I'm a bit confused. What's Goldberg saying here? Is he saying we don't try to stop all serial killers? Is he saying we are (to use his word) not willing to do so, as a matter of policy? Is he saying we practice police realpolitik and try to stop only the serial killers whose incarceration serves our criminologico-strategic ends, while sensibly letting others go on killing?
So let us put aside the question of the messenger and take a look at Garofalo's message. On a recent edition of Fox News Sunday, Tony Snow asked her about Saddam Hussein: "Has he been a mass murderer? She responded, "Yes, there's been a lot of people who have been mass murderers. And I think Turkey also, who we've been negotiating with, has one of the worst human-rights records in the world. Also, the sanctions, you could say, have been responsible for mass murder."
He asked, "Do you think he is eager to obtain weapons of mass destruction?" She responded, "Yes, I think lots of people are eager to obtain weapons of mass destruction."
Sigh. This is the "Everybody does it" argument. According to this logic, we shouldn't stop any one serial killer if we aren't willing to stop all of them.
I'm a bit confused. What's Goldberg saying here? Is he saying we don't try to stop all serial killers? Is he saying we are (to use his word) not willing to do so, as a matter of policy? Is he saying we practice police realpolitik and try to stop only the serial killers whose incarceration serves our criminologico-strategic ends, while sensibly letting others go on killing?
If you can't bear to read Peggy Noonan's current column, let me just sum it up:
Apparently she doesn't vote Democratic now, in 2003, because of what Democrats -- or some Democrats, or some people she assumed were Democrats -- believed or said in the disco era. Apparently she thinks Democrats hate Republicans but Republicans feel for Democrats nothing but the highest respect, a belief she has presumably sustained by placing her fingers in her ears every time a Republican in the past decade has uttered a sentence with the name "Clinton" in it. Apparently she believes only the Democratic Party has a preferred position on abortion -- a belief I will second when she (or anyone else) provides me with a complete list of powerful elected Republican in D.C. over the past two decades who have been pro-choice.
Apparently she doesn't vote Democratic now, in 2003, because of what Democrats -- or some Democrats, or some people she assumed were Democrats -- believed or said in the disco era. Apparently she thinks Democrats hate Republicans but Republicans feel for Democrats nothing but the highest respect, a belief she has presumably sustained by placing her fingers in her ears every time a Republican in the past decade has uttered a sentence with the name "Clinton" in it. Apparently she believes only the Democratic Party has a preferred position on abortion -- a belief I will second when she (or anyone else) provides me with a complete list of powerful elected Republican in D.C. over the past two decades who have been pro-choice.
LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND (REALLY SIMPLE) STATISTICS
You have had only one two-term Democratic president in the 35 years since Vietnam. This is because in the end you looked extreme, bought and paid for, and weak.
--Peggy Noonan, addressing Democrats in her latest column
Quick quiz: How many Republican presidents have served two terms in the last 35 years?
Answer: One. Just Ronald Reagan.
You have had only one two-term Democratic president in the 35 years since Vietnam. This is because in the end you looked extreme, bought and paid for, and weak.
--Peggy Noonan, addressing Democrats in her latest column
Quick quiz: How many Republican presidents have served two terms in the last 35 years?
Answer: One. Just Ronald Reagan.
Michael Savage's Savage Nation was #1 on the New York Times hardcover nonfiction bestseller list. It just got knocked off the top of the chart by ....
...Michael Moore's Stupid White Men.
Heh heh heh.
...Michael Moore's Stupid White Men.
Heh heh heh.
UPDATE: I learn from Ted Barlow that the Drug Enforcement Administration's museum has a new exhibit: Target America: Traffickers, Terrorists & You. Um, guys, let's review that BBC story (based on a U.S. State Department report) once again:
Afghanistan retook its place as the world's leading producer of heroin last year, after US-led forces overthrew the Taliban which had banned cultivation of opium poppies.
I'd like to state for the record that I find the DEA museum's simulated World Trade Center debris display utterly tasteless.
Afghanistan retook its place as the world's leading producer of heroin last year, after US-led forces overthrew the Taliban which had banned cultivation of opium poppies.
I'd like to state for the record that I find the DEA museum's simulated World Trade Center debris display utterly tasteless.
It's all about freedom ... it's all about doing right by the Iraqi people ...
American forces will play the key role in the capture of Baghdad, with British troops being confined to the south of Iraq. “It won’t be the Union flag flying over Baghdad,” one British defence source said.
...if there has to be an assault on Baghdad to overcome resistance by Iraq’s Republican Guard, the mission will be carried out exclusively by American forces, the sources said.
A senior British Army source said: “This decision is part political, part military, but the Americans have made it clear Baghdad is their prize.”...
--Times of London
American forces will play the key role in the capture of Baghdad, with British troops being confined to the south of Iraq. “It won’t be the Union flag flying over Baghdad,” one British defence source said.
...if there has to be an assault on Baghdad to overcome resistance by Iraq’s Republican Guard, the mission will be carried out exclusively by American forces, the sources said.
A senior British Army source said: “This decision is part political, part military, but the Americans have made it clear Baghdad is their prize.”...
--Times of London
Expensive war in the offing? Obviously there's only one possible response: even more corporate tax cuts!
Corporate Gain, Treasury's Loss in Bush Plan
The Bush administration's tax proposal on dividends has become more friendly to investors and to some companies that pay no taxes. The effect of the latest changes, if enacted by Congress, would probably be to reduce the government's tax revenue by even more than under the original plan.
The changes, included in the legislative language last week when the bill was introduced by Senator Don Nickles, Republican of Oklahoma, mean that a number of companies whose dividends would have been taxable under the president's original proposal would now be tax exempt....
One change will benefit companies that in the past have been forced to pay the corporate alternative minimum tax. Such payments can in some cases allow companies to avoid paying corporate income taxes, but under the latest version of the Bush plan, those companies may be able to pay tax-exempt dividends even as they avoid paying taxes.
So we're replacing what the conservatives call "double taxation" with ... what? Double lack of taxation?
...The other principal change would make it easier for companies to obtain refunds of taxes paid in previous years, and would make it easier for cyclical companies — companies that may make money in some years and lose money in others — to make all their dividends tax-exempt. That would not have been possible under the original Bush proposal....
Drunk on tax cutting....
Corporate Gain, Treasury's Loss in Bush Plan
The Bush administration's tax proposal on dividends has become more friendly to investors and to some companies that pay no taxes. The effect of the latest changes, if enacted by Congress, would probably be to reduce the government's tax revenue by even more than under the original plan.
The changes, included in the legislative language last week when the bill was introduced by Senator Don Nickles, Republican of Oklahoma, mean that a number of companies whose dividends would have been taxable under the president's original proposal would now be tax exempt....
One change will benefit companies that in the past have been forced to pay the corporate alternative minimum tax. Such payments can in some cases allow companies to avoid paying corporate income taxes, but under the latest version of the Bush plan, those companies may be able to pay tax-exempt dividends even as they avoid paying taxes.
So we're replacing what the conservatives call "double taxation" with ... what? Double lack of taxation?
...The other principal change would make it easier for companies to obtain refunds of taxes paid in previous years, and would make it easier for cyclical companies — companies that may make money in some years and lose money in others — to make all their dividends tax-exempt. That would not have been possible under the original Bush proposal....
Drunk on tax cutting....
From the BBC:
Afghanistan retakes heroin crown
Afghanistan retook its place as the world's leading producer of heroin last year, after US-led forces overthrew the Taliban which had banned cultivation of opium poppies.
The finding was made in a key drug report, distributed in Kabul on Sunday by the US State Department, which supports almost identical findings by the United Nations last week.
Low-grade heroin is refined in Afghanistan from opium, which is manufactured from the extract of poppies.
"The size of the opium harvest in 2002 makes Afghanistan the world's leading opium producer," the report said....
Well, that puts a whole new spin on this Washington Post headline from last week:
Now, It's Business That Booms: With Bombs Mostly Silenced, Commerce and Confidence Are Growing in Kabul
Afghanistan retakes heroin crown
Afghanistan retook its place as the world's leading producer of heroin last year, after US-led forces overthrew the Taliban which had banned cultivation of opium poppies.
The finding was made in a key drug report, distributed in Kabul on Sunday by the US State Department, which supports almost identical findings by the United Nations last week.
Low-grade heroin is refined in Afghanistan from opium, which is manufactured from the extract of poppies.
"The size of the opium harvest in 2002 makes Afghanistan the world's leading opium producer," the report said....
Well, that puts a whole new spin on this Washington Post headline from last week:
Now, It's Business That Booms: With Bombs Mostly Silenced, Commerce and Confidence Are Growing in Kabul
Monday, March 03, 2003
It's said that people in the oil business shrug off losing huge amounts of money -- they simply expect that sometimes there'll be big gains and sometimes there'll be big losses. Supposedly rich kids don't worry much about what can go wrong in their lives because they figure someone will help them out if things get too bad. Alcoholics lose the ability to assess the harm they're doing to themselves and others. And fervent believers in God regularly assume that God will protect them from danger.
George W. Bush has been all of these things. No wonder he has no ability to judge risk.
We've heard that Bush's tax plan is bold. His Iraq war plan is bold, too. His North Korea policy? Well, that seems to be nonexistent. But what they all have in common is the notion that nothing can really go wrong.
Deliberately creating massive deficits won't really hurt us. Ignoring North Korea won't open the door to calamitous acts of aggression. Attacking Saddam won't lead to desperate chem/bio attacks. Pissing off the Arab/Muslim world won't lead to more terrorism in years to come. Alienating allies from France to Turkey, from Russia to Mexico, won't have disastrous long-term consequences.
Easy come, easy go. Dad, get me out of this. Screw it -- let's have another drink. The Lord will provide.
George W. Bush has been all of these things. No wonder he has no ability to judge risk.
We've heard that Bush's tax plan is bold. His Iraq war plan is bold, too. His North Korea policy? Well, that seems to be nonexistent. But what they all have in common is the notion that nothing can really go wrong.
Deliberately creating massive deficits won't really hurt us. Ignoring North Korea won't open the door to calamitous acts of aggression. Attacking Saddam won't lead to desperate chem/bio attacks. Pissing off the Arab/Muslim world won't lead to more terrorism in years to come. Alienating allies from France to Turkey, from Russia to Mexico, won't have disastrous long-term consequences.
Easy come, easy go. Dad, get me out of this. Screw it -- let's have another drink. The Lord will provide.
"HILLARY HAWKS UP WAR TALK," the headline in the New York Post headline says. But read the lead:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "fully supports" President Bush's Iraq policy, her office said last night - on the eve of her visit today to an upstate arsenal that makes military hardware like mortars and howitzers for U.S. troops.
"Sen. Clinton fully supports the steps the president has taken to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines.
Read it again carefully -- "Sen. Clinton fully supports the steps the president has taken...." That's an endorsement of military pressure and UN diplomacy. It's not an endorsement of war. It's also not an objection to war fever. It's a non-stance disguised as a stance. This is the kind of statement Clinton-haters call "Clintonesque"; alas, when it comes to this kind of thing they have a point.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "fully supports" President Bush's Iraq policy, her office said last night - on the eve of her visit today to an upstate arsenal that makes military hardware like mortars and howitzers for U.S. troops.
"Sen. Clinton fully supports the steps the president has taken to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines.
Read it again carefully -- "Sen. Clinton fully supports the steps the president has taken...." That's an endorsement of military pressure and UN diplomacy. It's not an endorsement of war. It's also not an objection to war fever. It's a non-stance disguised as a stance. This is the kind of statement Clinton-haters call "Clintonesque"; alas, when it comes to this kind of thing they have a point.
I said last night that The Sun was predicting a war this week. What The Sun is actually saying is that war my start as early as next week. My error. A disturbing prospect either way, of course.
Seen "BushBlair.mpg" yet? It's a little music video about the special relationship that dare not speak its name. Go here and click on the link, or just click on this link or this one (which seems to be faster). Or just wait -- someone's bound to e-mail it to you, if that hasn't happened already.
(Am I months behind the curve on this?)
(UPDATE: Yes, I am.)
(Am I months behind the curve on this?)
(UPDATE: Yes, I am.)
What did Jesus think of people who boast of their piety the way George W. Bush does? Here's what the Man said:
Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. (Luke 18:10-14, KJV)
Now, here's Bush, as seen in Howard Fineman's Newsweek cover story "Bush and God":
As he prepared to run, in 1999, Bush assembled leading pastors at the governor’s mansion for a “laying-on of hands,” and told them he’d been “called” to seek higher office. In the GOP primaries, he outmaneuvered the field by practicing what one rival, Gary Bauer, called “identity politics.” Others tried to woo evangelicals by pledging strict allegiance on issues such as abortion and gay rights. “Bush talked about his faith,” said Bauer, “and people just believed him—and believed in him.”
You can't blame Bush, in a way -- even though Jesus urges humility and self-abnegation in Bible passage after Bible passage, an awful lot of American Bibles seem to be missing those passages. As a result, America is lousy with Pharisees, people who endlessly boast of their own godliness. Fineman's article makes clear that Bush and his döppelganger, Karl Rove, figured out how to appeal to these people many years ago. Of course, Fineman's article is part of that permanent campaign.
Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. (Luke 18:10-14, KJV)
Now, here's Bush, as seen in Howard Fineman's Newsweek cover story "Bush and God":
As he prepared to run, in 1999, Bush assembled leading pastors at the governor’s mansion for a “laying-on of hands,” and told them he’d been “called” to seek higher office. In the GOP primaries, he outmaneuvered the field by practicing what one rival, Gary Bauer, called “identity politics.” Others tried to woo evangelicals by pledging strict allegiance on issues such as abortion and gay rights. “Bush talked about his faith,” said Bauer, “and people just believed him—and believed in him.”
You can't blame Bush, in a way -- even though Jesus urges humility and self-abnegation in Bible passage after Bible passage, an awful lot of American Bibles seem to be missing those passages. As a result, America is lousy with Pharisees, people who endlessly boast of their own godliness. Fineman's article makes clear that Bush and his döppelganger, Karl Rove, figured out how to appeal to these people many years ago. Of course, Fineman's article is part of that permanent campaign.
An e-mailer from Brazil tells me that an e-mail is making the rounds urging people to buy European rather than American products. Yes, American right-wingers, it's true: people who don't agree with you can also express their political opinions at the checkout counter. Sorry to be the one to break this to you.
The Brazilian correspondent says he's doing his bit to stand up for the right to disagree with the U.S. -- he spent quite a bit of money recently at Carrefour. Carrefour is a French supermarket chain with stores in many countries, including Brazil. Amazing, isn't it? French people actually work for a living. Some of them even run large, thriving businesses with global reach. They don't just sit around all day smoking Gauloises and sneering at Americans who aren't named Jerry Lewis. No one in the American media has ever reported such a thing.
The Brazilian correspondent says he's doing his bit to stand up for the right to disagree with the U.S. -- he spent quite a bit of money recently at Carrefour. Carrefour is a French supermarket chain with stores in many countries, including Brazil. Amazing, isn't it? French people actually work for a living. Some of them even run large, thriving businesses with global reach. They don't just sit around all day smoking Gauloises and sneering at Americans who aren't named Jerry Lewis. No one in the American media has ever reported such a thing.
WHAT WE OBTAIN TOO CHEAP WE ESTEEM TOO LIGHTLY
--from a sign seen at a pro-war rally in Washington, D.C., March 1, 2003
"The price of gasoline has gone up very little compared to other consumer goods," said Bill Hickman, a spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based trade group [the American Petroleum Institute]....
When historic prices are adjusted for inflation, however, it turns out the average price for a gallon of gasoline in the United States was well above $1.80 per gallon for most of the 20th century.
For example, a gallon of gasoline cost just 25 cents in 1918. In 2002 dollars, that would be the equivalent of $3 a gallon, according to federal statistics cited by the American Petroleum Institute.
Until 1970, when the actual price for a gallon was 36 cents, the inflation-adjusted price never fell below $1.70.
As the gas crisis and rapid inflation both hit in the 1970s and early 1980s, prices at the pump took off. By 1981, a gallon of gasoline cost $1.35 -- or $2.69 in adjusted dollars before easing back below $2 in the mid-1980s.
The last decade has seen some of the lowest gasoline prices in U.S. history, when adjusted for inflation. They bottomed out in 1998, when the average price per gallon was $1.12, or $1.23 in adjusted dollars....
--news article
--from a sign seen at a pro-war rally in Washington, D.C., March 1, 2003
"The price of gasoline has gone up very little compared to other consumer goods," said Bill Hickman, a spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based trade group [the American Petroleum Institute]....
When historic prices are adjusted for inflation, however, it turns out the average price for a gallon of gasoline in the United States was well above $1.80 per gallon for most of the 20th century.
For example, a gallon of gasoline cost just 25 cents in 1918. In 2002 dollars, that would be the equivalent of $3 a gallon, according to federal statistics cited by the American Petroleum Institute.
Until 1970, when the actual price for a gallon was 36 cents, the inflation-adjusted price never fell below $1.70.
As the gas crisis and rapid inflation both hit in the 1970s and early 1980s, prices at the pump took off. By 1981, a gallon of gasoline cost $1.35 -- or $2.69 in adjusted dollars before easing back below $2 in the mid-1980s.
The last decade has seen some of the lowest gasoline prices in U.S. history, when adjusted for inflation. They bottomed out in 1998, when the average price per gallon was $1.12, or $1.23 in adjusted dollars....
--news article
Sunday, March 02, 2003
It appears the U.S. government is spying on the phone calls and e-mails of the U.N. delegations of Security Council nations, looking for ways to get them to vote America's way on the Iraq resolution. And it appears the government is stupid or arrogant enough to let knowledge of the spy plan leak to the press (Britain's Observer). Here's the text of the memo. Is it real? If so, and if this is not merely appalling but typical U.N practice, you have to wonder whether Nixon is calling in plays to this White House from hell.
Britain's Sun claims the war could start this week. Yikes! Wonder if The Sun will suspend publication of Page 3 girls for the duration.
(Link from InstaPundit.)
(Link from InstaPundit.)
Cheering, chanting and waving flags, thousands jammed shoulder-to-shoulder into downtown Houston's Jones Plaza on Saturday to hear politicians, soldiers and entertainers praise God, America and President Bush's firm stand against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
The ostensibly nonpartisan "Rally for America," sponsored by talk radio station KPRC, quickly turned into a spirited affirmation of Bush's policies. Speakers included House Majority Leader Tom DeLay....
DeLay told the crowd that President Bush is "fighting principle battles and he's not backing down. He's a Texan."
--Houston Chronicle
Statements like that are really going to help us win that Security Council vote, aren't they?
The ostensibly nonpartisan "Rally for America," sponsored by talk radio station KPRC, quickly turned into a spirited affirmation of Bush's policies. Speakers included House Majority Leader Tom DeLay....
DeLay told the crowd that President Bush is "fighting principle battles and he's not backing down. He's a Texan."
--Houston Chronicle
Statements like that are really going to help us win that Security Council vote, aren't they?
In the 11 years since the end of the gulf war, Kurds in northern Iraq have built their enclave into a surprisingly prosperous democracy.... the Kurds can argue that they have built the only democracy that has ever existed on Iraqi soil, one that could be a model for the rest of the country.
--article in the New York Times Week in Review section.
The Bush administration argues that a "liberated" Iraq will be a shining example to the Arab/Muslim world, a democratic city on a hill. But Iraq's Kurdish region already has democratic institutions, and is doing quite well. And Turkey is a real democracy. These cities-on-hills aren't inspiring the region to rise up and spontaneously throw off its shackles. Why should we believe that a post-Saddam Iraq will be any more inspirational?
--article in the New York Times Week in Review section.
The Bush administration argues that a "liberated" Iraq will be a shining example to the Arab/Muslim world, a democratic city on a hill. But Iraq's Kurdish region already has democratic institutions, and is doing quite well. And Turkey is a real democracy. These cities-on-hills aren't inspiring the region to rise up and spontaneously throw off its shackles. Why should we believe that a post-Saddam Iraq will be any more inspirational?
On Friday night, CNN's Aaron Briwn interviewed John Ferrugia, a Colorado reporter who's been investigation the rash of sexual assault allegations at the Air Force Academy. Ferrugia said this:
The culture of the Air Force Academy, according to the women we've been talking to, and even women who have been there and are now officers -- we've even talked to many who have called us, e-mailed us. And they talk about the culture where sexual assault is accepted. It's within the culture. It just happens there.
We've been told that, from the second or third week that women are there, they have upper-class trainers, juniors and seniors. Some of those are women. Women tell them and warn them, in the time you're here, this is going to happen to you. It's going to happen to many of you. Don't report it, because, if you do, your career is over.
And yet The New York Times now reports this:
Early last year, a panel created in part to help address the problem of sexual assault within the military found itself under fire.
Five former chairwomen of the panel urged Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resist pressure to disband it from conservative administration advisers, who said they thought the panel was fostering what one called "radical feminism" and was no longer needed because women had been fully integrated into the military.
The former chairwomen of the embattled panel — which since 1951 had been weighing in on women's issues — emphasized the importance of its independent role in overseeing the military's handling of sex crimes....
The Pentagon responded by letting the panel's charter expire in February 2002, replacing its members and changing its agenda. Though still known as the Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, it no longer advises the military on sexual assault....
Just a little more compassionate conservatism from the Bush administration.
The culture of the Air Force Academy, according to the women we've been talking to, and even women who have been there and are now officers -- we've even talked to many who have called us, e-mailed us. And they talk about the culture where sexual assault is accepted. It's within the culture. It just happens there.
We've been told that, from the second or third week that women are there, they have upper-class trainers, juniors and seniors. Some of those are women. Women tell them and warn them, in the time you're here, this is going to happen to you. It's going to happen to many of you. Don't report it, because, if you do, your career is over.
And yet The New York Times now reports this:
Early last year, a panel created in part to help address the problem of sexual assault within the military found itself under fire.
Five former chairwomen of the panel urged Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resist pressure to disband it from conservative administration advisers, who said they thought the panel was fostering what one called "radical feminism" and was no longer needed because women had been fully integrated into the military.
The former chairwomen of the embattled panel — which since 1951 had been weighing in on women's issues — emphasized the importance of its independent role in overseeing the military's handling of sex crimes....
The Pentagon responded by letting the panel's charter expire in February 2002, replacing its members and changing its agenda. Though still known as the Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, it no longer advises the military on sexual assault....
Just a little more compassionate conservatism from the Bush administration.
Now, It's Business That Booms: With Bombs Mostly Silenced, Commerce and Confidence Are Growing in Kabul
--headline in The Washington Post, February 26, 2003
Abqel Khan, 2, smiles at his grandmother, but he cannot even crawl or walk because of severe malnutrition. In Kabul, the number of children suffering from malnutrition has increased to 11 percent in 2002 from 6 percent in 2001.
--photo caption in the Week in Review section of the March 2 New York Times (print edition, page 2; online edition here).
--headline in The Washington Post, February 26, 2003
Abqel Khan, 2, smiles at his grandmother, but he cannot even crawl or walk because of severe malnutrition. In Kabul, the number of children suffering from malnutrition has increased to 11 percent in 2002 from 6 percent in 2001.
--photo caption in the Week in Review section of the March 2 New York Times (print edition, page 2; online edition here).
On Friday I chided Daniel Skinner of The Weekly Standard, who garbled the expression "the die is cast" even as he criticized Fred Durst for apparently making up the word "agreeance" in an anti-war statement at the Grammy Awards. Well, now Matthew Yglesias has interrupted work on his senior thesis to top that: He went to the OED and discovered that "agreeance" is actually a word. Nice work, Matthew. I got a rejection letter from Harvard many years ago, and all of a sudden I feel I deserved it.
Friday, February 28, 2003
Here's New York Times Metro section reporter Clyde Haberman defending New York City's reluctance to commit wholeheartedly to the anti-French holy war:
...give us a little credit. This isn't Beaufort, N.C., where a restaurant called Cubbie's replaced French fries with "freedom fries." It seems not to have dawned on the people of Beaufort that the very name of their town is French.
...give us a little credit. This isn't Beaufort, N.C., where a restaurant called Cubbie's replaced French fries with "freedom fries." It seems not to have dawned on the people of Beaufort that the very name of their town is French.
One last thing about Andrew Sullivan's Al Sharpton article: Sullivan says of Sharpton, "He has amazing oratorical skills among blacks." Just what the hell is that supposed to mean? That Sharpton appeals to the half-savage sable hordes with their mysterious jungle music and their unbridled dancing? I'm putting words in Sullivan's mouth, but I don't how how else to interpret a statement like that.
Whatever you think of him, Sharpton's a good speaker, period. He preaches when he makes a speech, and why not? He's been preaching since he was a kid. The techniques of black church oratory are pretty damn useful for getting a point across. Sharpton's not as good as Jesse Jackson in front a large crowd, but -- at least to my white, Northeastern ears -- he's a lot better than Jackson in, say, a small TV studio (Jackson in an intimate setting really sounds country). Sharpton can do irony and sarcasm. His one-liners can be quite barbed. He's no dummy, and you feel it when he talks. I wonder if Sullivan's ever heard the man speak at any greater length than an eight-second soundbite.
Whatever you think of him, Sharpton's a good speaker, period. He preaches when he makes a speech, and why not? He's been preaching since he was a kid. The techniques of black church oratory are pretty damn useful for getting a point across. Sharpton's not as good as Jesse Jackson in front a large crowd, but -- at least to my white, Northeastern ears -- he's a lot better than Jackson in, say, a small TV studio (Jackson in an intimate setting really sounds country). Sharpton can do irony and sarcasm. His one-liners can be quite barbed. He's no dummy, and you feel it when he talks. I wonder if Sullivan's ever heard the man speak at any greater length than an eight-second soundbite.
Why did Andrew Sullivan send this article on Al Sharpton to London's Sunday Times? Was it because he knew no responsible U.S. periodical would publish it intact?
SullyWatch correctly points out that Sharpton was not found criminally guilty of defaming Steven Pagones (he was found liable in a civil suit); SullyWatch also chides Sullivan for misstating Sharpton's role in the outcome of the last New York mayoral race. There's more to say on this subject, however: Mark Green probably lost the race not because of what Sharpton did but because of what Green did vis-Ã -vis Sharpton. Jesse Jackson and the black conservative pundit Armstrong Williams agree on this, and they don't agree on much. Jackson:
[Green's] campaign took off the gloves, releasing negative ads against Ferrer. And white voters reported getting election eve calls urging them to vote for Green because Al Sharpton, the African American leader, "cannot be given the keys to City Hall." Flyers were distributed painting Ferrer as a pawn of Sharpton. Dennis Rivera, president of the health and hospital workers' union and a nationally respected political leader, accused Green of "using code words" to divide the city. The runoff vote split on racial lines: Green got 84% of the white vote; Ferrer 84% of the Latino vote and 71% of the black vote.
Williams:
On the other side was Mark Green, who attacked Ferrer for his association with Reverend Al Sharpton. In what seems a shameless attempt to court the white vote, some upper-class neighborhoods received cartoons depicting Ferrer smooching Sharpton's bloated rear end. The day of the runoff, Green henchmen cruised through predominantly white neighborhoods shouting through their Radio Shack megaphones, "Do you want Sharpton running City Hall?"
Mike Bloomberg also, of course, benefited from a bit of unpleasantness in New York on September 11, 2001; Rudolph Giuliani, a 9/11 hero even to many who'd loathed him, endorsed Bloomberg, while Green made the ill-advised declaration that anyone could have handled the situation as well as Giuliani.
Sullivan also blames Sharpton for the fact that there has been "a decade of Republican mayors and governors in one of the most liberal states in the country." Sharpton does have influence on mayor's races in New York City, but no observer of the New York political scene credits or blames Sharpton in any way for the three elections of George Pataki as governor of New York.
Sullivan says that Sharpton's "gutter style of racial politics has won him a devoted following and considerable clout in New York City Democratic politics." Does Sullivan consider the peaceful, effective protests that arose in the wake of the torture of Abner Louima and the shootings of Amadou Diallo and Patrick Dorismond -- protests in which Sharpton was joined by, among others, Ed Koch, his longtime antagonist -- to be "gutter politics"? How about Sharpton's efforts to find justice in the Howard Beach murder of Michael Griffith in 1986?
The maddening thing about Al Sharpton is that he deserves just about as much criticism as he gets -- and an awful lot of praise as well. He's done terrible things and noble things. He's a mountebank and a very good leader. I don't blame anyone who rejects him for the Tawana Brawley incident or the Freddy's incident or any number of other terrible judgments. But it's ignorant -- or dishonest -- to say that his appeal stems exclusively, or primarily, from his worst acts.
SullyWatch correctly points out that Sharpton was not found criminally guilty of defaming Steven Pagones (he was found liable in a civil suit); SullyWatch also chides Sullivan for misstating Sharpton's role in the outcome of the last New York mayoral race. There's more to say on this subject, however: Mark Green probably lost the race not because of what Sharpton did but because of what Green did vis-Ã -vis Sharpton. Jesse Jackson and the black conservative pundit Armstrong Williams agree on this, and they don't agree on much. Jackson:
[Green's] campaign took off the gloves, releasing negative ads against Ferrer. And white voters reported getting election eve calls urging them to vote for Green because Al Sharpton, the African American leader, "cannot be given the keys to City Hall." Flyers were distributed painting Ferrer as a pawn of Sharpton. Dennis Rivera, president of the health and hospital workers' union and a nationally respected political leader, accused Green of "using code words" to divide the city. The runoff vote split on racial lines: Green got 84% of the white vote; Ferrer 84% of the Latino vote and 71% of the black vote.
Williams:
On the other side was Mark Green, who attacked Ferrer for his association with Reverend Al Sharpton. In what seems a shameless attempt to court the white vote, some upper-class neighborhoods received cartoons depicting Ferrer smooching Sharpton's bloated rear end. The day of the runoff, Green henchmen cruised through predominantly white neighborhoods shouting through their Radio Shack megaphones, "Do you want Sharpton running City Hall?"
Mike Bloomberg also, of course, benefited from a bit of unpleasantness in New York on September 11, 2001; Rudolph Giuliani, a 9/11 hero even to many who'd loathed him, endorsed Bloomberg, while Green made the ill-advised declaration that anyone could have handled the situation as well as Giuliani.
Sullivan also blames Sharpton for the fact that there has been "a decade of Republican mayors and governors in one of the most liberal states in the country." Sharpton does have influence on mayor's races in New York City, but no observer of the New York political scene credits or blames Sharpton in any way for the three elections of George Pataki as governor of New York.
Sullivan says that Sharpton's "gutter style of racial politics has won him a devoted following and considerable clout in New York City Democratic politics." Does Sullivan consider the peaceful, effective protests that arose in the wake of the torture of Abner Louima and the shootings of Amadou Diallo and Patrick Dorismond -- protests in which Sharpton was joined by, among others, Ed Koch, his longtime antagonist -- to be "gutter politics"? How about Sharpton's efforts to find justice in the Howard Beach murder of Michael Griffith in 1986?
The maddening thing about Al Sharpton is that he deserves just about as much criticism as he gets -- and an awful lot of praise as well. He's done terrible things and noble things. He's a mountebank and a very good leader. I don't blame anyone who rejects him for the Tawana Brawley incident or the Freddy's incident or any number of other terrible judgments. But it's ignorant -- or dishonest -- to say that his appeal stems exclusively, or primarily, from his worst acts.
Y'know that Ready.gov site the government set up to help you survive a terrorist attack?
Well, some people who've seen it just show no respect for the fine work of Ready.gov's illustrators. (And they use naughty language, too.)
I laughed at this disrespectful nonsense. I guess I'm a bad person.
(Thanks to Phil F. for the link.)
Well, some people who've seen it just show no respect for the fine work of Ready.gov's illustrators. (And they use naughty language, too.)
I laughed at this disrespectful nonsense. I guess I'm a bad person.
(Thanks to Phil F. for the link.)
I’m mightily impressed that David Skinner of the right-wing Weekly Standard can shoot fish in a barrel. Too bad about the collateral damage he does to his own foot in the process.
In a column called "Stardumb” -- gosh, I guess that’s a pun on “stardom,” isn’t it? -- Skinner critiques celebrities (left-leaners only) for having the temerity to express opinions despite the fact that they’re not Oxford-level debaters or Nobel-level intellects. Skinner chides Limp Bizkit’s Fred Durst (whom he calls, ever so wittily, “Fred Dunce”) because Durst said at the Grammy Awards, “I hope we all are in agreeance that this war should go away as soon as possible." Muffy! He said “agreeance”! Yet how good is Skinner’s command of the language? He writes:
The music awards remained relatively free of war-posing even after reports that the plug wouldn't be pulled on anyone for mouthing off. But, somehow, the dye was already set.
First of all, David, that should be “die,” not “dye.” And the expression isn’t “the die is set” -- it’s “the die is cast.” Alia iacta est, as we used to say in Latin class. Scroll to the second entry here if you don’t know what a die is.
By the way, I wonder if Skinner has any plans to parse the bon mots of Ted Nugent or Charlie Daniels.
(Thanks to TAPPED for the Skinner link.)
In a column called "Stardumb” -- gosh, I guess that’s a pun on “stardom,” isn’t it? -- Skinner critiques celebrities (left-leaners only) for having the temerity to express opinions despite the fact that they’re not Oxford-level debaters or Nobel-level intellects. Skinner chides Limp Bizkit’s Fred Durst (whom he calls, ever so wittily, “Fred Dunce”) because Durst said at the Grammy Awards, “I hope we all are in agreeance that this war should go away as soon as possible." Muffy! He said “agreeance”! Yet how good is Skinner’s command of the language? He writes:
The music awards remained relatively free of war-posing even after reports that the plug wouldn't be pulled on anyone for mouthing off. But, somehow, the dye was already set.
First of all, David, that should be “die,” not “dye.” And the expression isn’t “the die is set” -- it’s “the die is cast.” Alia iacta est, as we used to say in Latin class. Scroll to the second entry here if you don’t know what a die is.
By the way, I wonder if Skinner has any plans to parse the bon mots of Ted Nugent or Charlie Daniels.
(Thanks to TAPPED for the Skinner link.)
Here's a picture of Russia's foreign minister and China's president shaking hands. Yesterday Russia and China issued a joint resolution opposing America's plan for an Iraq war, and Russia has now said it may veto a war resolution in the U.N.
The Sino-Soviet split has been ended -- by Bush.
And the North Koreans, not content with restarting that nuclear reactor, are apparently going to test a ballistic missile and start reprocessing plutonium.
1964 Goldwater voters must be freaking.
The Sino-Soviet split has been ended -- by Bush.
And the North Koreans, not content with restarting that nuclear reactor, are apparently going to test a ballistic missile and start reprocessing plutonium.
1964 Goldwater voters must be freaking.
Let's see if I'm following Bush administration logic here:
Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has the ability and also the desire to transport these weapons outside his own borders if doing so will advance his megalomaniacal goals. And Saddam supports Palestinian terrorists, a point the president reiterated in his speech on Wednesday night. The second Palestinian intifada began in September 2000 -- on the evil Bill Clinton's watch, and two years after U.N. weapons inspectors first left Iraq.
So if all that's true, why didn't the evil Saddam give nukes or chemical weapons or biological weapons to Palestinian militants between the start of the second intifada and the day Sheriff Bush pulled on his cowboy boots?
Why didn't he give these weapons to Palestinian militants even after September 11, 2001? Why isn't he handing the weapons over even now? After all, isn't the Bush administration's argument that inspections alone, even with 200,000 troops on Iraq's borders, don't deter Saddam's weapons program at all, that weapons development continues apace even as inspectors inspect?
Just asking.
Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has the ability and also the desire to transport these weapons outside his own borders if doing so will advance his megalomaniacal goals. And Saddam supports Palestinian terrorists, a point the president reiterated in his speech on Wednesday night. The second Palestinian intifada began in September 2000 -- on the evil Bill Clinton's watch, and two years after U.N. weapons inspectors first left Iraq.
So if all that's true, why didn't the evil Saddam give nukes or chemical weapons or biological weapons to Palestinian militants between the start of the second intifada and the day Sheriff Bush pulled on his cowboy boots?
Why didn't he give these weapons to Palestinian militants even after September 11, 2001? Why isn't he handing the weapons over even now? After all, isn't the Bush administration's argument that inspections alone, even with 200,000 troops on Iraq's borders, don't deter Saddam's weapons program at all, that weapons development continues apace even as inspectors inspect?
Just asking.
Thursday, February 27, 2003
More know-nothingism from MSNBC's newest hire, Michael Savage.
And did I ever link this sampling of his hate-spew?
Yes, by all means join GLAAD's e-mail campaign.
While I'm talking about Savage again, I want to comment on this passage from his book, quoted in the first link above:
You can have sex in public.
You can masturbate in public.
You can cross-dress in public. You can rub against a sheep in public.
But you can't pray in public.
This is utter bullshit. Look, I live and work in Manhattan. Ever see the guy who paces the streets just south of Columbus Circle, chanting "Je - sus! Je -sus! Love God! Love God! Hallelujah!"? It's cold now, so he's moved to the subway -- but nobody stops him. For decades nobody's stopped the preachers waving their Bibles and shouting the praises of the Lord in Times Square -- preachers who are still there, even though the peep shows and grindhouses have all been moved out of the Square and off the Deuce.
You can pray on a public street. You just can't pray under the public's aegis, with government sponsorship. (Of course, you actually can -- the ACLU just might try to stop you, and a judge who understands the Constitution might agree.)
The cops actually would stop you in Manhattan if you were having sex or masturbating, or rubbing up against a farm animal.
Savage is right about one thing, though -- They'll let cross-dressing slide.
And did I ever link this sampling of his hate-spew?
Yes, by all means join GLAAD's e-mail campaign.
While I'm talking about Savage again, I want to comment on this passage from his book, quoted in the first link above:
You can have sex in public.
You can masturbate in public.
You can cross-dress in public. You can rub against a sheep in public.
But you can't pray in public.
This is utter bullshit. Look, I live and work in Manhattan. Ever see the guy who paces the streets just south of Columbus Circle, chanting "Je - sus! Je -sus! Love God! Love God! Hallelujah!"? It's cold now, so he's moved to the subway -- but nobody stops him. For decades nobody's stopped the preachers waving their Bibles and shouting the praises of the Lord in Times Square -- preachers who are still there, even though the peep shows and grindhouses have all been moved out of the Square and off the Deuce.
You can pray on a public street. You just can't pray under the public's aegis, with government sponsorship. (Of course, you actually can -- the ACLU just might try to stop you, and a judge who understands the Constitution might agree.)
The cops actually would stop you in Manhattan if you were having sex or masturbating, or rubbing up against a farm animal.
Savage is right about one thing, though -- They'll let cross-dressing slide.
Dolly the sheep is dead, but the political controversy she engendered lives in the House of Representatives, where lawmakers are expected on Thursday to pass a bill making human cloning a crime.
The Republican-backed measure would outlaw cloning experiments — or, more precisely, the scientific procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer — either for baby making or medical research. Scientists who cloned human embryos would face up to 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The bill would also prohibit the importing of medical therapies derived from cloning research.
--New York Times
Read that last sentence again. If these guys get their way, it won't merely be illegal to do research of this kind in the U.S. It will be illegal in America to buy or sell drugs that were developed this way elsewhere. The world will have access to these drugs, but Americans will have to go overseas to get them, and importing them will be a crime.
Surely this bill is too extreme to become law. Yet
The bill is nearly identical to legislation that passed the House in the last Congress by more than 100 votes in July 2001, and it has the strong support of President Bush....
The Senate voted once, in 1998, to reject a broad cloning ban, and last year, the Democratic-controlled Senate would not take up the bill passed by the House. That will change now that Republicans are in charge.
We're not a theocracy yet, not by a long shot. But it's not for lack of trying.
The Republican-backed measure would outlaw cloning experiments — or, more precisely, the scientific procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer — either for baby making or medical research. Scientists who cloned human embryos would face up to 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The bill would also prohibit the importing of medical therapies derived from cloning research.
--New York Times
Read that last sentence again. If these guys get their way, it won't merely be illegal to do research of this kind in the U.S. It will be illegal in America to buy or sell drugs that were developed this way elsewhere. The world will have access to these drugs, but Americans will have to go overseas to get them, and importing them will be a crime.
Surely this bill is too extreme to become law. Yet
The bill is nearly identical to legislation that passed the House in the last Congress by more than 100 votes in July 2001, and it has the strong support of President Bush....
The Senate voted once, in 1998, to reject a broad cloning ban, and last year, the Democratic-controlled Senate would not take up the bill passed by the House. That will change now that Republicans are in charge.
We're not a theocracy yet, not by a long shot. But it's not for lack of trying.
It's being reported (here and here, for instance) that in some schools the children of military personnel are being harassed by anti-war teachers.
I am more than willing to denounce any harassment of service members or their kids. This kind of thing was wrong and stupid in the Vietnam era, and I'd like to think most anti-war people know better now. The men and women in the military have no control over bad decisions being made in Washington. They're the workers. They want to do what's right. It's particularly wrong to take it out on their children.
Having said that, I'd like to point out that this situation is roughly analogous to what happens to atheists and Jews and Buddhists and Muslims and non-Evangelical Christians in some classrooms when they're ostracized or marginalized for being unwilling to participate in sectarian prayers openly or sneakily sanctioned by public-school officials. Any conservative who's outraged at harassment of soldiers' kids ought to learn from that harassment some sympathy for people whose religious beliefs, or lack thereof, don't conform to those of the majority in certain towns.
I don't think you should harass a kid for a Jesus T-shirt or a Satan T-shirt. I think war advocacy, war opposition, and everything in the middle should be respected. Conservatives will denounce harassment of soldiers' kids, rightly -- but I want to see them denounce harassment of people they strenuously disagree with as well.
I am more than willing to denounce any harassment of service members or their kids. This kind of thing was wrong and stupid in the Vietnam era, and I'd like to think most anti-war people know better now. The men and women in the military have no control over bad decisions being made in Washington. They're the workers. They want to do what's right. It's particularly wrong to take it out on their children.
Having said that, I'd like to point out that this situation is roughly analogous to what happens to atheists and Jews and Buddhists and Muslims and non-Evangelical Christians in some classrooms when they're ostracized or marginalized for being unwilling to participate in sectarian prayers openly or sneakily sanctioned by public-school officials. Any conservative who's outraged at harassment of soldiers' kids ought to learn from that harassment some sympathy for people whose religious beliefs, or lack thereof, don't conform to those of the majority in certain towns.
I don't think you should harass a kid for a Jesus T-shirt or a Satan T-shirt. I think war advocacy, war opposition, and everything in the middle should be respected. Conservatives will denounce harassment of soldiers' kids, rightly -- but I want to see them denounce harassment of people they strenuously disagree with as well.
It is naive, however, to think that if Saddam had fallen [at the end of the Gulf War in 1991], he would necessarily have been replaced by a Jeffersonian in some sort of desert democracy where people read The Federalist Papers along with the Koran. Quite possibly, we would have wound up with a Saddam by another name.
--Colin Powell, My American Journey, 1995
--Colin Powell, My American Journey, 1995
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
RUTHERFORD B. HAYES IS NOW A MOONIE
No, really, I mean it. The fine folks at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, to whom you should definitely give money, discovered this in Reverend Sun Myung Moon's newspaper late last year:
Moon continues to convene conferences in the “spirit world” during which famous historical figures renounce their former faith and beliefs and swear fealty to Moon. The Washington Times on Dec. 28 ran an advertisement from the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification featuring three of these testimonies – from St. Anselm, Thomas Paine and President Rutherford B. Hayes.
The Unification Church claims that during “spirit world” conferences last year, Jesus Christ, Confucius, Muhammad, St. Paul, Martin Luther, St. Augustine, the Buddha, several Hindu leaders and others pledged allegiance to Moon and offered personal testimonies.
The new round of testimonies featured more of the same. Paine, for example, asserted, “If Americans do not want to become eternal wanderers they must follow the teachings of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who is on earth. He possesses a fundamental philosophy to save not only America but also all humanity.”
Paine, best known as the author of the pamphlet “Common Sense,” which helped spur revolutionary fervor, noted that there is “freedom of the press in this place but I am sad that the limitation of time prevents me from fully expressing my excitement.”
Hayes, the 19th president of the United States, called out, “People of earth! People of America! I cannot record here everything that I have experienced. I can only say that the Unification Principle is a great truth and that it is unmistakable that the Rev. Sun Myung Moon holds all the keys to human salvation and peace.”
The mind reels.
(Americans United also reports that President Charles Taylor of Liberia -- a business partner and pal of Pat Robertson -- may well have harbored al-Qaeda terrorists in the months before the September 11 attacks. God, presumably, told him to do this.)
No, really, I mean it. The fine folks at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, to whom you should definitely give money, discovered this in Reverend Sun Myung Moon's newspaper late last year:
Moon continues to convene conferences in the “spirit world” during which famous historical figures renounce their former faith and beliefs and swear fealty to Moon. The Washington Times on Dec. 28 ran an advertisement from the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification featuring three of these testimonies – from St. Anselm, Thomas Paine and President Rutherford B. Hayes.
The Unification Church claims that during “spirit world” conferences last year, Jesus Christ, Confucius, Muhammad, St. Paul, Martin Luther, St. Augustine, the Buddha, several Hindu leaders and others pledged allegiance to Moon and offered personal testimonies.
The new round of testimonies featured more of the same. Paine, for example, asserted, “If Americans do not want to become eternal wanderers they must follow the teachings of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who is on earth. He possesses a fundamental philosophy to save not only America but also all humanity.”
Paine, best known as the author of the pamphlet “Common Sense,” which helped spur revolutionary fervor, noted that there is “freedom of the press in this place but I am sad that the limitation of time prevents me from fully expressing my excitement.”
Hayes, the 19th president of the United States, called out, “People of earth! People of America! I cannot record here everything that I have experienced. I can only say that the Unification Principle is a great truth and that it is unmistakable that the Rev. Sun Myung Moon holds all the keys to human salvation and peace.”
The mind reels.
(Americans United also reports that President Charles Taylor of Liberia -- a business partner and pal of Pat Robertson -- may well have harbored al-Qaeda terrorists in the months before the September 11 attacks. God, presumably, told him to do this.)
"We believe the vast majority of Iraqi officials are not part of Saddam Hussein's clique, and they've just been trying to do their jobs. We expect they'd be able to continue to do their jobs when Saddam and his cronies are gone," said [Ari] Fleischer.
--Reuters
"We share a belief that the reformed Iraqi army should continue to have an important role in a free Iraq," [U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad] said.
--AP story on the conference of opposition leaders that opened in northern Iraq today
Meet the new Iraq -- same as the old Iraq?
--Reuters
"We share a belief that the reformed Iraqi army should continue to have an important role in a free Iraq," [U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad] said.
--AP story on the conference of opposition leaders that opened in northern Iraq today
Meet the new Iraq -- same as the old Iraq?
Hey, folks, I have shopping lists for you:
French stuff.
German stuff.
These aren't really shopping lists, of course. They're boycott lists. They come from the thoughtful grown-ups at FranceStinks.com/GermanyStinks.com.
Here are some humorous photos from the FS/GS site. Included is, of course, a mock photo of a 9/11-style attack on the Eiffel Tower -- as we know from Ann Coulter ("My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building"), nothing makes right-wingers laugh harder than the thought of terrorists doing irreparable harm to their enemies.
The FS/GS folks also have an event planned: On March 4, at midnight, they're going to flush Brie down the toilet. All at once, mind you. Not just Brie, of course -- whatever they can find that comes from filthy appeasenik countries. (Hey, maybe someone will try to flush an entire Mercedes!)
And what better way to get in the mood for l'amour -- whoops! I meant luuuuve! -- than...
...a France Stinks thong?
One million, four hundred thousand French soldiers were killed during World War I. As a result, there weren't many Frenchmen left to fight in World War II. Nevertheless, 100,000 French soldiers lost their lives trying to stop Adolf Hitler.
...They were out-manned, out-gunned, out-generaled and, above all, out-tanked. They got slaughtered, but they stood and they fought. Ha-ha, how funny.
--Molly Ivins
French stuff.
German stuff.
These aren't really shopping lists, of course. They're boycott lists. They come from the thoughtful grown-ups at FranceStinks.com/GermanyStinks.com.
Here are some humorous photos from the FS/GS site. Included is, of course, a mock photo of a 9/11-style attack on the Eiffel Tower -- as we know from Ann Coulter ("My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building"), nothing makes right-wingers laugh harder than the thought of terrorists doing irreparable harm to their enemies.
The FS/GS folks also have an event planned: On March 4, at midnight, they're going to flush Brie down the toilet. All at once, mind you. Not just Brie, of course -- whatever they can find that comes from filthy appeasenik countries. (Hey, maybe someone will try to flush an entire Mercedes!)
And what better way to get in the mood for l'amour -- whoops! I meant luuuuve! -- than...
...a France Stinks thong?
One million, four hundred thousand French soldiers were killed during World War I. As a result, there weren't many Frenchmen left to fight in World War II. Nevertheless, 100,000 French soldiers lost their lives trying to stop Adolf Hitler.
...They were out-manned, out-gunned, out-generaled and, above all, out-tanked. They got slaughtered, but they stood and they fought. Ha-ha, how funny.
--Molly Ivins
MOYERS ON MICHAEL SAVAGE
You may have seen the show already, or read the transcript (Cursor wisely links it), but if not, here's Bill Moyers on Michael Savage, #1 bestselling author, radio host, and (soon) TV star, from the February 21 broadcast of Moyers's show NOW:
A footnote to this conversation on how media use the public's airwaves.
NBC is owned by General Electric; G.E. and Microsoft own the cable news network MSNBC; and MSNBC has just hired Michael Savage to do a new television program.
Mr. Savage is the host of an ABC radio show called SAVAGE NATION. MSNBC says Michael Savage will provide "compelling opinion and analysis with edge." Now, what does that mean?
Well, let's look at the record: Michael Savage is known to speak on the air of non-white countries as — you may want to cover your children's eyes — as "turd world nations."
Open your door to immigrants, he has said, and "the next thing you know they are defecating on your country and breeding out of control." He has said that while Latinos, in particular, "breed like rabbits" and whites don't, homosexuals "are part of the grand plan to cut down on the white race."
When student volunteers distributed food to San Francisco's homeless, Mr. Savage said "the girls can go in and maybe get raped because they seem to like the excitement of it. There's always the thrill and possibility they'll be raped in a dumpster while giving out a turkey sandwich."
When the Million Mom March called for gun control, Mr. Savage said children killed by guns "are not kids, they're ghetto slime."
Never mind. Apparently such ideas strengthen the arsenal of democracy. For Michael Savage says: "We need racist stereotypes right now of our enemy in order to encourage our warriors to kill the enemy."
So a SAVAGE NATION is now safely nestled in the bosom of big media, courtesy of G.E. and Microsoft.
I don't want this guy supressed, but what the hell is wrong with us as a society that we can't ignore him like a barroom drunk?
Ask your conservative friends if they listen to Savage and like him. That will tell you a lot about them. And ask your Chistian friends if it bothers them that a leading publisher of Bibles and other Christian works is (through a subsidiary) publishing Savage's book.
You may have seen the show already, or read the transcript (Cursor wisely links it), but if not, here's Bill Moyers on Michael Savage, #1 bestselling author, radio host, and (soon) TV star, from the February 21 broadcast of Moyers's show NOW:
A footnote to this conversation on how media use the public's airwaves.
NBC is owned by General Electric; G.E. and Microsoft own the cable news network MSNBC; and MSNBC has just hired Michael Savage to do a new television program.
Mr. Savage is the host of an ABC radio show called SAVAGE NATION. MSNBC says Michael Savage will provide "compelling opinion and analysis with edge." Now, what does that mean?
Well, let's look at the record: Michael Savage is known to speak on the air of non-white countries as — you may want to cover your children's eyes — as "turd world nations."
Open your door to immigrants, he has said, and "the next thing you know they are defecating on your country and breeding out of control." He has said that while Latinos, in particular, "breed like rabbits" and whites don't, homosexuals "are part of the grand plan to cut down on the white race."
When student volunteers distributed food to San Francisco's homeless, Mr. Savage said "the girls can go in and maybe get raped because they seem to like the excitement of it. There's always the thrill and possibility they'll be raped in a dumpster while giving out a turkey sandwich."
When the Million Mom March called for gun control, Mr. Savage said children killed by guns "are not kids, they're ghetto slime."
Never mind. Apparently such ideas strengthen the arsenal of democracy. For Michael Savage says: "We need racist stereotypes right now of our enemy in order to encourage our warriors to kill the enemy."
So a SAVAGE NATION is now safely nestled in the bosom of big media, courtesy of G.E. and Microsoft.
I don't want this guy supressed, but what the hell is wrong with us as a society that we can't ignore him like a barroom drunk?
Ask your conservative friends if they listen to Savage and like him. That will tell you a lot about them. And ask your Chistian friends if it bothers them that a leading publisher of Bibles and other Christian works is (through a subsidiary) publishing Savage's book.
Will George Bush's actions in the Middle East alienate pro-U.S. moderates in the region? They already have:
For Hamad Abdel-Aziz Kawari, a former Qatari ambassador to the United States, the disillusionment itself is enough.
Sitting in his seaside office in Doha underneath two pictures of former president George Bush, he boasted that his three children were graduates of George Washington University. He straddles two worlds, he said, having served eight years in the United States. But the American ideals he respects, he said, are overshadowed by the foreign policy he sees.
"You want to be friends. And to be friends you have to be convinced your friend is doing something good," he said.
"Believe me and write this," he added. "Nobody hates America. America used to be a great example, it was not a colonial power in the region. Our sons and brothers work with American businesses. I am very sorry that American policy is threatening the human relations between the nations. The Americans are antagonizing their friends."
That's from a Washington Post article titled "Old Arab Friends Turn Away From U.S.: Policies Toward Iraq and Palestinians Alienate Pro-American Generation."
And this is before we've dropped a single "massive ordnance air burst" bomb on Iraq ("The MOAB's massive explosive punch, sources say, is similar to a small nuclear weapon").
For Hamad Abdel-Aziz Kawari, a former Qatari ambassador to the United States, the disillusionment itself is enough.
Sitting in his seaside office in Doha underneath two pictures of former president George Bush, he boasted that his three children were graduates of George Washington University. He straddles two worlds, he said, having served eight years in the United States. But the American ideals he respects, he said, are overshadowed by the foreign policy he sees.
"You want to be friends. And to be friends you have to be convinced your friend is doing something good," he said.
"Believe me and write this," he added. "Nobody hates America. America used to be a great example, it was not a colonial power in the region. Our sons and brothers work with American businesses. I am very sorry that American policy is threatening the human relations between the nations. The Americans are antagonizing their friends."
That's from a Washington Post article titled "Old Arab Friends Turn Away From U.S.: Policies Toward Iraq and Palestinians Alienate Pro-American Generation."
And this is before we've dropped a single "massive ordnance air burst" bomb on Iraq ("The MOAB's massive explosive punch, sources say, is similar to a small nuclear weapon").
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
TEHRAN, Iran, Feb. 25 — The head of Iraq’s largest opposition group warned the United States on Tuesday that its military presence in post-war Iraq would not be welcome, and that any attempt to install a Pentagon general in Baghdad could be met with a “religious war.” Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim told MSNBC.com in an interview that Muslim fury over a long-term American occupation of Iraq would destabilize the Middle East.
Hakim's warning will come as no surprise to the Pentagon, which has kept its plans for post-war Iraq under wraps for fear of increasing tensions in the region ahead of a showdown with Saddam Hussein.
--MSNBC
A "religious war"? So are these guys, even though they're the enemies of our enemies, the "evildoers" of the future?
Which Bush do you think is going to start the war against them? President Jeb? President George P.? President Jenna?
Hakim's warning will come as no surprise to the Pentagon, which has kept its plans for post-war Iraq under wraps for fear of increasing tensions in the region ahead of a showdown with Saddam Hussein.
--MSNBC
A "religious war"? So are these guys, even though they're the enemies of our enemies, the "evildoers" of the future?
Which Bush do you think is going to start the war against them? President Jeb? President George P.? President Jenna?
MAN COMMITS SUICIDE. CONSERVATIVES LAUGH.
But you can't really blame them, can you? After all, the man was French.
UPDATE: More conservative folks who think suicide is a laugh riot.
But you can't really blame them, can you? After all, the man was French.
UPDATE: More conservative folks who think suicide is a laugh riot.
Iraq? It seems to me it's basically a hostage situation. Spare me the Hitler analogies -- Saddam doesn't even control half his own country, for chrissakes. A better comparison for Saddam is David Koresh, or Al Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon.
Saddam is surrounded, but he can kill a lot of innocent people if we go in with guns blazing; he really might want to die gloriously and take a lot of people with him. How different is he from an armed bank robber holding a few dozen people at gunpoint, or a self-styled messiah in a compound with a group of followers, a small arsenal of weapons, and a messiah complex?
In such a situation, nobody criticizes a police hostage team for failing to launch a huge frontal attack; if a hostage team continues to talk and negotiate with a bank robber, nobody says the team is willfully blind to the fact of the bank robber's guilt. And nobody expects negotiations to stop because a holder of hostages is playing cat-and-mouse games with the negotiators -- in such a situation, cat-and-mouse games are recognized as a given.
Maybe what U.S. war planners have in mind really will minimize civilian casualties, both the ones caused by our weapons and the ones caused by Saddam’s. Maybe the planners really do have reason to believe that innocent civilians will suffer less as the result of a war than they would if we were to continue a containment/sanctions policy. But it’s immoral to support war right now and ignore the risk that Iraq might be on the verge of a Dresden from our weapons and a chem/bio Waco from Saddam’s.
Saddam is surrounded, but he can kill a lot of innocent people if we go in with guns blazing; he really might want to die gloriously and take a lot of people with him. How different is he from an armed bank robber holding a few dozen people at gunpoint, or a self-styled messiah in a compound with a group of followers, a small arsenal of weapons, and a messiah complex?
In such a situation, nobody criticizes a police hostage team for failing to launch a huge frontal attack; if a hostage team continues to talk and negotiate with a bank robber, nobody says the team is willfully blind to the fact of the bank robber's guilt. And nobody expects negotiations to stop because a holder of hostages is playing cat-and-mouse games with the negotiators -- in such a situation, cat-and-mouse games are recognized as a given.
Maybe what U.S. war planners have in mind really will minimize civilian casualties, both the ones caused by our weapons and the ones caused by Saddam’s. Maybe the planners really do have reason to believe that innocent civilians will suffer less as the result of a war than they would if we were to continue a containment/sanctions policy. But it’s immoral to support war right now and ignore the risk that Iraq might be on the verge of a Dresden from our weapons and a chem/bio Waco from Saddam’s.
From a fine Nicholas Kristof column in today's New York Times:
Eisenhower, who led the European Allies to victory in World War II and was president from 1953 to 1961, faced a crisis in Egypt similar to today's and effectively chose containment rather than invasion. Likewise, even when faced with the threat of weapons of mass destruction, President John F. Kennedy chose to contain Cuba rather than invade it, and President Ronald Reagan chose to contain Libya rather than invade it. I hope we have the courage and discipline to emulate such restraint by Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan today and choose containment over war for Iraq.
Yes -- and Eisenhower also chose to avoid war in 1954 when China threatened Taiwan and then invaded Qemoy and Matsu, as surprise war opponent John McLaughlin has pointed out.
It's nice to be reminded that a prudent decision to back away from war wasn't considered un-American in America's salad days after World War II.
Eisenhower, who led the European Allies to victory in World War II and was president from 1953 to 1961, faced a crisis in Egypt similar to today's and effectively chose containment rather than invasion. Likewise, even when faced with the threat of weapons of mass destruction, President John F. Kennedy chose to contain Cuba rather than invade it, and President Ronald Reagan chose to contain Libya rather than invade it. I hope we have the courage and discipline to emulate such restraint by Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan today and choose containment over war for Iraq.
Yes -- and Eisenhower also chose to avoid war in 1954 when China threatened Taiwan and then invaded Qemoy and Matsu, as surprise war opponent John McLaughlin has pointed out.
It's nice to be reminded that a prudent decision to back away from war wasn't considered un-American in America's salad days after World War II.
Monday, February 24, 2003
This Washington Post profile of Jeb Bush might not have pleased Jeb's fans, but it does take seriously the notion that Jeb could be elected president in 2008, and it certainly leaves the impression that he is a serious, smart, driven, thoughtful man -- so those of us who aren't fans of Jeb should be afraid ... very afraid. Maybe now is a good time to read this article from last week's Village Voice about a Florida land deal that netted the wife of New York's GOP governor, George Pataki, a pretty penny, quite possibly as the result of Jeb's intervention:
The Florida bonanza has all the earmarks of a politically wired transaction, orchestrated by land preservation officials in Jeb Bush's administration. A week after both Bush and Pataki were re-elected in November, the South Florida Water Management District, a state corporation whose members are appointed by the governor, voted to approve paying $15 million for the Pataki parcel, which Libby and her partners had acquired in 2000 for $4.4 million. The price was three times what the state offered in 1999 and $360 more per acre than it simultaneously paid for pristine wetlands next door, even though the adjacent parcel contained what government documents described as "the bulk of the environmentally sensitive portion of the tract."
The financing was supposed to come primarily from the state's Department of Environmental Protection, but on December 12, the water district decided it could complete the deal quicker if it used its own money. "This is the most fast-tracked environmental land purchase we've ever had," crowed Michael DiTerlizzi, the top official in Martin County, which also participated in the acquisition....
Will anyone ever care about this deal?
Would anyone care if Jeb's last name were, say, Clinton?
The Florida bonanza has all the earmarks of a politically wired transaction, orchestrated by land preservation officials in Jeb Bush's administration. A week after both Bush and Pataki were re-elected in November, the South Florida Water Management District, a state corporation whose members are appointed by the governor, voted to approve paying $15 million for the Pataki parcel, which Libby and her partners had acquired in 2000 for $4.4 million. The price was three times what the state offered in 1999 and $360 more per acre than it simultaneously paid for pristine wetlands next door, even though the adjacent parcel contained what government documents described as "the bulk of the environmentally sensitive portion of the tract."
The financing was supposed to come primarily from the state's Department of Environmental Protection, but on December 12, the water district decided it could complete the deal quicker if it used its own money. "This is the most fast-tracked environmental land purchase we've ever had," crowed Michael DiTerlizzi, the top official in Martin County, which also participated in the acquisition....
Will anyone ever care about this deal?
Would anyone care if Jeb's last name were, say, Clinton?
So how successful is the endlessly self-congratulatory Fox News Channel? Not as successful as it wants you to believe, according to an article in today's New York Times business section:
But Mr. Walton has argued that CNN is in a different business, one that is heavier in news compared with its rivals at Fox and even the third-place MSNBC. Fox News Channel may draw larger ratings than CNN, but not higher ad rates, the theory goes. CNN is estimated to draw 15 to 40 percent higher rates than Fox News, though both sides agree that the gap is closing fast.
"The important thing for CNN is to understand who it is, and how it defines winning," Mr. Walton said. "It's not just about chasing the higher number. Quality matters."
Back in the 1980s, a department-store mogul was asked why he didn't advertise in Rupert Murdoch's New York Post. He is said to have replied, "But, Rupert, your readers are my shoplifters." Maybe TV advertisers feel a bit that way about Fox News.
(Incidentally, the linked article strongly suggests that the conventional wisdom at CNN is that Walter Isaacson's tenure there was a diaster, and that the saving grace is that CNN never quite succumbed completely to the tabloid tendencies Isaacson embraced. It's nice to see a well-deserved thrashing doled out to the guy who tried to hire Limbaugh and who approached GOP legislators on his knees, begging them to like him, even if the article doesn't mention those embarrassing moments.)
But Mr. Walton has argued that CNN is in a different business, one that is heavier in news compared with its rivals at Fox and even the third-place MSNBC. Fox News Channel may draw larger ratings than CNN, but not higher ad rates, the theory goes. CNN is estimated to draw 15 to 40 percent higher rates than Fox News, though both sides agree that the gap is closing fast.
"The important thing for CNN is to understand who it is, and how it defines winning," Mr. Walton said. "It's not just about chasing the higher number. Quality matters."
Back in the 1980s, a department-store mogul was asked why he didn't advertise in Rupert Murdoch's New York Post. He is said to have replied, "But, Rupert, your readers are my shoplifters." Maybe TV advertisers feel a bit that way about Fox News.
(Incidentally, the linked article strongly suggests that the conventional wisdom at CNN is that Walter Isaacson's tenure there was a diaster, and that the saving grace is that CNN never quite succumbed completely to the tabloid tendencies Isaacson embraced. It's nice to see a well-deserved thrashing doled out to the guy who tried to hire Limbaugh and who approached GOP legislators on his knees, begging them to like him, even if the article doesn't mention those embarrassing moments.)
Seen the government's terrorism-preparedness site, Ready.gov? Well, it's already being mocked. Rather deftly, I might add.
Philly Cops Say Snowball Led to Shooting
PHILADELPHIA -- A man whose daughter was hit with a snowball by a group of girls returned to the scene and opened fire with a gun, critically wounding a 10-year-old youngster, police said.
Joseph Best, 32, was arrested Monday and jailed on charges including attempted murder.
The victim was in critical condition with a head wound....
"An armed society is a polite society," the gun-lovers always say. What would they say in this case? That if the 10-year-old girl had also been packing heat, this wouldn't have happened?
PHILADELPHIA -- A man whose daughter was hit with a snowball by a group of girls returned to the scene and opened fire with a gun, critically wounding a 10-year-old youngster, police said.
Joseph Best, 32, was arrested Monday and jailed on charges including attempted murder.
The victim was in critical condition with a head wound....
"An armed society is a polite society," the gun-lovers always say. What would they say in this case? That if the 10-year-old girl had also been packing heat, this wouldn't have happened?
I could get upset about this, which is in response to something I posted this morning, but the thing just speaks for itself, doesn't it? Life's too short to argue with a grown man who still uses words like "fucktard," and whose most brilliant retort is "Your mom's a whore."
Saddam Challenges Bush To Debate
In an exclusive interview with CBS News Anchor Dan Rather, Saddam Hussein has challenged President George W. Bush to a live, international television and radio debate about the looming war.
Saddam envisions it as being along the lines of U.S. presidential campaign debates....
I am so, so sorry that this will never happen. Talk about your Theater of the Absurd....
And maybe if it happened we could just lock the two idiots in the auditorium, the way Dabney Coleman is locked in the closet in 9 to 5, and take advantage of their absence to sort out the various messes the two of them have made. "Hey, what should we do with these nerve-gas canisters?" "Just put 'em in the burn bag on top of the paperwork for Bush's 2003 budget."
In an exclusive interview with CBS News Anchor Dan Rather, Saddam Hussein has challenged President George W. Bush to a live, international television and radio debate about the looming war.
Saddam envisions it as being along the lines of U.S. presidential campaign debates....
I am so, so sorry that this will never happen. Talk about your Theater of the Absurd....
And maybe if it happened we could just lock the two idiots in the auditorium, the way Dabney Coleman is locked in the closet in 9 to 5, and take advantage of their absence to sort out the various messes the two of them have made. "Hey, what should we do with these nerve-gas canisters?" "Just put 'em in the burn bag on top of the paperwork for Bush's 2003 budget."
I’m on the left, but I have no patience with academic leftism. I don’t really consider academic leftism to be progressive at all. Leftists and liberals concern themselves with actual abuses of power; academic leftists worry about menaces to society such as the general acclaim for Shakespeare -- excuse me, the “privileging” of Shakespeare’s “texts” -- or the very existence of the scientific method. And academic leftists sometimes seem to be working to undo what real leftists and liberals are trying to accomplish. The real left pursues DNA testing to free wrongly convicted inmates; the academy claims there’s no such thing as objective scientific truth. The real left defends the notion that homosexuality is innate and fights fundamentalist quacks who claim they can reverse it; the academy insists that all sexuality is “socially constructed.”
This is a long way of saying that I’m very, very skeptical of “ethnomathematics,” an academic-lefty concept discussed in this weekend’s New York Times Magazine. Ethnomathematics is not merely the study of overlooked mathematical practices in other cultures -- which certainly seems like a good idea -- but is an attempt to alter the teaching of math by making the math curriculum detour through those non-Western mathematical practices. This is somehow supposed to help minorities and women overcome math difficulties.
The Times quotes the father of ethnomathematics, a Brazilian mathematician named Ubiratan D'Ambrosio, on why math teaching should go ethnic:
“Mathematics is absolutely integrated with Western civilization, which conquered and dominated the entire world. The only possibility of building up a planetary civilization depends on restoring the dignity of the losers.”
It sounds so much cooler and more mellifluous when a non-American says it, but what D’Ambrosio is talking about is teaching self-esteem. I hate the overemphasis on self-esteem in education almost as much as right-wing blowhards do; the right-wing blowhards, I think, are actually right when they rant about this. Let’s not teach a man to fish; let’s not even give him a fish; let’s just tell him he has dignity in spite of the fact that he doesn’t have a fish -- or perhaps because he doesn’t have a fish -- and leave him to figure out from himself how fish are obtained.
Obviously I’m oversimplifying things. Ethnomathematicians apparently do believe that balkanizing math is a good way of getting math principles across. It’s not clear though, whether they believe that members of each ethnic group learn math best when exposed to practices from the continent of their ancestors or whether they feel that any reference to the Third World in the classroom just makes nonwhite youths feel mathematically empowered: Here’s a professor in Manitoba who points out that “the three fastest growing languages in Canada according to the census were: Chinese, Spanish, and Punjabi--reflecting immigration from Hong Kong, Latin America, Pakistan, and India” and that “in Winnipeg, the most prominent non-official languages were German, Ukranian, and Tagalog.” So through which culture does this professor teach math? Why, Aztec culture, naturally. That ought to make those Tagalog-speaking Filipinos feel much better about algebra than stinky old Western math does.
The Times quotes a critic of ethnomathematics, a math professor named David Klein, “a self-described liberal who insists on separating his academic critique from any connection to a conservative political agenda.”
''The practical effect,'' Klein says, ''has been watered-down math books that overemphasize inductive reasoning (like continuing visual patterns), because this is supposed to be good for women and minorities, and de-emphasizing deductive reasoning and mathematical proofs, which is the heart of mathematics, because that supposedly favors white males.
''But mathematics is a worldwide monoculture. Look at the chalkboards in math departments at universities all around the world -- in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America. You will see the same symbols everywhere you go on this planet, except perhaps in colleges of education where fads reign supreme.'' Klein says he does spend some class time discussing the math of Mayans, Egyptians and other early civilizations. ''But ancient techniques and early discoveries in math will not take students very far who want to do something in the modern world with mathematics,'' he says.
My kind of guy.
It seems to me that ethnomathematicians are romanticizing the “primitive,” embracing the grooviness of nonwhites from distant lands and ancient cultures much the way New Agers embrace Native American or Asian practices in diluted form. And it also seems that ethnomath proceeds from some of the same principles as The Bell Curve and other eugenicist twaddle: that nonwhites require remedial education for reasons of race, and that only nonwhites and poor people ever struggle in school (I’d like to introduce some ethnomathematicians to the many literate, overeducated white people I know who hated math in school and still get the shakes at the prospect of balancing a checkbook). In addition, the idea that, generation after generation, descendants of non-Western cultures remain essentially the same as their ancestors is disturbingly similar to the arguments advanced by anti-immigration racists.
Bash the First World for what it does wrong. Don’t bash it for math. And don’t feed nonwhite kids murky noble-savage idealizations of the Other while failing to see to it that the pipes are fixed when their classrooms have leaks.
(Editor’s note: Many links in this post came from this site. The site’s address appeared in the print version of the Times article, but not in the online version. I guess the Times is still having trouble figuring out how this World Wide Whozywhatsy works.)
This is a long way of saying that I’m very, very skeptical of “ethnomathematics,” an academic-lefty concept discussed in this weekend’s New York Times Magazine. Ethnomathematics is not merely the study of overlooked mathematical practices in other cultures -- which certainly seems like a good idea -- but is an attempt to alter the teaching of math by making the math curriculum detour through those non-Western mathematical practices. This is somehow supposed to help minorities and women overcome math difficulties.
The Times quotes the father of ethnomathematics, a Brazilian mathematician named Ubiratan D'Ambrosio, on why math teaching should go ethnic:
“Mathematics is absolutely integrated with Western civilization, which conquered and dominated the entire world. The only possibility of building up a planetary civilization depends on restoring the dignity of the losers.”
It sounds so much cooler and more mellifluous when a non-American says it, but what D’Ambrosio is talking about is teaching self-esteem. I hate the overemphasis on self-esteem in education almost as much as right-wing blowhards do; the right-wing blowhards, I think, are actually right when they rant about this. Let’s not teach a man to fish; let’s not even give him a fish; let’s just tell him he has dignity in spite of the fact that he doesn’t have a fish -- or perhaps because he doesn’t have a fish -- and leave him to figure out from himself how fish are obtained.
Obviously I’m oversimplifying things. Ethnomathematicians apparently do believe that balkanizing math is a good way of getting math principles across. It’s not clear though, whether they believe that members of each ethnic group learn math best when exposed to practices from the continent of their ancestors or whether they feel that any reference to the Third World in the classroom just makes nonwhite youths feel mathematically empowered: Here’s a professor in Manitoba who points out that “the three fastest growing languages in Canada according to the census were: Chinese, Spanish, and Punjabi--reflecting immigration from Hong Kong, Latin America, Pakistan, and India” and that “in Winnipeg, the most prominent non-official languages were German, Ukranian, and Tagalog.” So through which culture does this professor teach math? Why, Aztec culture, naturally. That ought to make those Tagalog-speaking Filipinos feel much better about algebra than stinky old Western math does.
The Times quotes a critic of ethnomathematics, a math professor named David Klein, “a self-described liberal who insists on separating his academic critique from any connection to a conservative political agenda.”
''The practical effect,'' Klein says, ''has been watered-down math books that overemphasize inductive reasoning (like continuing visual patterns), because this is supposed to be good for women and minorities, and de-emphasizing deductive reasoning and mathematical proofs, which is the heart of mathematics, because that supposedly favors white males.
''But mathematics is a worldwide monoculture. Look at the chalkboards in math departments at universities all around the world -- in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America. You will see the same symbols everywhere you go on this planet, except perhaps in colleges of education where fads reign supreme.'' Klein says he does spend some class time discussing the math of Mayans, Egyptians and other early civilizations. ''But ancient techniques and early discoveries in math will not take students very far who want to do something in the modern world with mathematics,'' he says.
My kind of guy.
It seems to me that ethnomathematicians are romanticizing the “primitive,” embracing the grooviness of nonwhites from distant lands and ancient cultures much the way New Agers embrace Native American or Asian practices in diluted form. And it also seems that ethnomath proceeds from some of the same principles as The Bell Curve and other eugenicist twaddle: that nonwhites require remedial education for reasons of race, and that only nonwhites and poor people ever struggle in school (I’d like to introduce some ethnomathematicians to the many literate, overeducated white people I know who hated math in school and still get the shakes at the prospect of balancing a checkbook). In addition, the idea that, generation after generation, descendants of non-Western cultures remain essentially the same as their ancestors is disturbingly similar to the arguments advanced by anti-immigration racists.
Bash the First World for what it does wrong. Don’t bash it for math. And don’t feed nonwhite kids murky noble-savage idealizations of the Other while failing to see to it that the pipes are fixed when their classrooms have leaks.
(Editor’s note: Many links in this post came from this site. The site’s address appeared in the print version of the Times article, but not in the online version. I guess the Times is still having trouble figuring out how this World Wide Whozywhatsy works.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)