"The U.S. command in Baghdad raided Ahmed Chalabi's home and headquarters in Baghdad at dawn today. U.S. soldiers put a gun to his head, according to his nephew Salem Chalabi, the Associated Press reports. Chalabi aides blame the CIA and Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority.
Why did the Bush administration turn against its former favorite Iraqi? Almost certainly because it realized that Chalabi, maddened by the realization that he was being excluded from the post-June 30 hand-over arrangements, was putting together a sectarian Shiite faction to destabilize and destroy the new Iraqi government. "This all started since [U.N. envoy Lakhdar] Brahimi announced that Chalabi would be kept out of the new arrangement," says an Iraqi political observer who is not only long familiar with Chalabi himself but also in close touch with key actors, including U.S. officials at the CPA and Iraqi politicians."
- Andrew Cockburn, "Ahmed Chalabi's failed coup"
"Reporters who entered the office compound after the departure of the Americans and Iraqi officers found a scene of destruction. Computers had been ripped out of the walls, furniture had been overturned, doors broken down and framed photographs of Mr. Chalabi smashed. Aides to Mr. Chalabi said members of the raiding party had helped themselves to food and beverages from the refrigerator.
According to Mr. Chalabi's aides, the Americans are looking for two men close to the Iraqi politician, one of whom is Mr. Chalabi's security chief and presides over a vast intelligence network.
American occupation authorities declined to comment this morning on the raids.
"This is politically motivated intimidation," said an aide to Mr. Chalabi as he wandered through the debris-strewn offices of the Iraqi National Congress, Mr. Chalabi's political organization. He blamed L. Paul Bremer III, the top American adminstrator here, for the raids.
"Bremer," he said, "has lost his mind."
- Dexter Filkins and Kirk Semple, "G.I.'s and Iraqis Raid Offices and Home of Former Exile Leader."
Of course Ahmed Chabili was a key source of intel during the run-up to the Iraqi War. In particular he helped craft "the roses and candy scenario" under which grateful Iraqis would prove easy to govern. Of course this scenario is partially responsible for several logistical failures including the well known lack of armored vests.
Still I'm sure they'll have this all cleaned up by June 20th, so we can turn control of Iraq over.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
How To Save Star Wars?
Christopher Bahn wrote an article (for MSNBC.COM) today about how the last movie in the Star Wars Line (Episode 3) could be saved.
Among the more tongue in cheek suggestions are hiring Ed Wood as director and ripping of Kurosawa again (as Lucas did (although he denies it) for A New Hope). But obviously the key suggestion is getting rid of George Lucas.
It is frustrating as a fan of the series to consider that Mr. Lucas is not producing the movies one would really enjoy. I mean you could find more inventiveness and genuine fun in 15 minutes of A New Hope or The Empire Strikes Back, than you could in the whole of A Phantom Menace. Attack of the Clones was saddled with a terribly lame romantic subplot involving one of the most unappealing actors I've ever seen (Christopher Hayden). But if you buy the DVD, skip past those scenes and just watch the Obi Wan stuff, it's not too bad. But certainly could have been better.
The problem with all this is that, at the end of the day, it's Lucas's franchis. I mean he created Star Wars, so as much as we might wish it otherwise, he'll create Star Wars III (Title to be named later). That's part of the price we paid for the enjoyment of the first trilogy. In the same sense that the thrills of the Matrix also contained the disappointments of the Matrix Revolutions.
But I still think they ought to recast Anniken Skywalker.
Among the more tongue in cheek suggestions are hiring Ed Wood as director and ripping of Kurosawa again (as Lucas did (although he denies it) for A New Hope). But obviously the key suggestion is getting rid of George Lucas.
It is frustrating as a fan of the series to consider that Mr. Lucas is not producing the movies one would really enjoy. I mean you could find more inventiveness and genuine fun in 15 minutes of A New Hope or The Empire Strikes Back, than you could in the whole of A Phantom Menace. Attack of the Clones was saddled with a terribly lame romantic subplot involving one of the most unappealing actors I've ever seen (Christopher Hayden). But if you buy the DVD, skip past those scenes and just watch the Obi Wan stuff, it's not too bad. But certainly could have been better.
The problem with all this is that, at the end of the day, it's Lucas's franchis. I mean he created Star Wars, so as much as we might wish it otherwise, he'll create Star Wars III (Title to be named later). That's part of the price we paid for the enjoyment of the first trilogy. In the same sense that the thrills of the Matrix also contained the disappointments of the Matrix Revolutions.
But I still think they ought to recast Anniken Skywalker.
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Hey! It's a Lamp!
Yep, another picture of a lamp. I just can't get enough of this theme I've selected.
Can't We All Just Get Along?
Ms. Kathleen Parker isn't happy with the current state of affairs.
"When I was a kid, we were taught a few rules, among which was never talk about religion or politics in polite company.
Rarely have such quaint rules felt more timely. The heat of recent months amid increasingly bad news from Iraq has divided Americans as never before.
. . . These days I'd rather spend a night in Abu Ghraib, preferably absent Lynndie England, than talk politics at a dinner party. Friends report crossing streets unnecessarily to avoid a Rumsfeld debate. Longtime acquaintances take a silent measure of one another: Are you one of "them" or one of "us"?"
I don't get the chance to go to many dinner parties, but I take Parker's point. I mean you read the articles of Ann Coulter or David Limbaugh or Tony Blankley, you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage, and it's clear that there's a large segment of the conservative punditocracy that hates liberals and wants to see us eliminated.
But of course that's not what Parker is talking about is it? Instead she's mad that Senator Edward Kennedy is still around and able to criticize President Bush for the abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison (Senator Kennedy's line was deliberately shocking, and may have surpassed the bounds of good taste). She concludes her essay with this line.
"When public discourse degenerates to hate speech, when friends cross streets to avoid one another, when Americans can't tell the difference between Bush and Saddam, the terrorists may well be winning."
So the upshot of this is, that liberals should shut up and stop trying to get John Kerry (or anybody else elected). If we liberals would just give it up and become conservatives, than all the bickering would end.
You see if she was in favor of actually getting along and improving the discourse she would discuss the excesses of Ann Coulter or Michael Savage (to pick two). But she's not. All this talk about getting along boils down to one simple truth; conservatives know they don't have much of a leg to stand on right now and they don't want liberals to point that out.
Still, maybe Mr. Blankley's sedition laws will take care of this for her.
"When I was a kid, we were taught a few rules, among which was never talk about religion or politics in polite company.
Rarely have such quaint rules felt more timely. The heat of recent months amid increasingly bad news from Iraq has divided Americans as never before.
. . . These days I'd rather spend a night in Abu Ghraib, preferably absent Lynndie England, than talk politics at a dinner party. Friends report crossing streets unnecessarily to avoid a Rumsfeld debate. Longtime acquaintances take a silent measure of one another: Are you one of "them" or one of "us"?"
I don't get the chance to go to many dinner parties, but I take Parker's point. I mean you read the articles of Ann Coulter or David Limbaugh or Tony Blankley, you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage, and it's clear that there's a large segment of the conservative punditocracy that hates liberals and wants to see us eliminated.
But of course that's not what Parker is talking about is it? Instead she's mad that Senator Edward Kennedy is still around and able to criticize President Bush for the abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison (Senator Kennedy's line was deliberately shocking, and may have surpassed the bounds of good taste). She concludes her essay with this line.
"When public discourse degenerates to hate speech, when friends cross streets to avoid one another, when Americans can't tell the difference between Bush and Saddam, the terrorists may well be winning."
So the upshot of this is, that liberals should shut up and stop trying to get John Kerry (or anybody else elected). If we liberals would just give it up and become conservatives, than all the bickering would end.
You see if she was in favor of actually getting along and improving the discourse she would discuss the excesses of Ann Coulter or Michael Savage (to pick two). But she's not. All this talk about getting along boils down to one simple truth; conservatives know they don't have much of a leg to stand on right now and they don't want liberals to point that out.
Still, maybe Mr. Blankley's sedition laws will take care of this for her.
Cheery News from Tony Blankley
Tony Blankley's picture always makes me think he'd be happier if he could just punch people who disagreed with him rather than trying to argue with them. And I might be right. Today's article has a curious little statement.
"It is heartbreaking, though no longer perplexing, that the president's political and media opposition want the president's defeat more than America's victory. But that is the price we must pay for living in a free country. (Sedition laws almost surely would be found unconstitutional, currently -- although things may change after the next terrorist attack in America.)"
We can only hope, eh Mr. Blankley?
"It is heartbreaking, though no longer perplexing, that the president's political and media opposition want the president's defeat more than America's victory. But that is the price we must pay for living in a free country. (Sedition laws almost surely would be found unconstitutional, currently -- although things may change after the next terrorist attack in America.)"
We can only hope, eh Mr. Blankley?
It's all Clinton's Fault
Bill Clinton, not George Clinton. I wondered how soon we'd see Abu Ghraib blamed on Bill Clinton, and John McCaslin doesn't disappoint.
"Just how deep into bureaucracy will the Iraqi prisoner abuse probe reach?
That's what a concerned higher-up at the Department of Interior wants to know. The official noted at a recent Interior meeting that the department's National Business Center (NBC) developed the contract for the Pentagon's hiring of interrogators in Iraq.
NBC, a branch within Interior's office of the secretary, provides various services for a fee to other federal agencies.
"The NBC was formed during the Clinton administration as a government business venture," says our source, among other services running a "lucrative" drug-testing program for several federal agencies."
Yep--see it's all Clinton's fault. I admit this argument is a bit esoteric, but the key point is clear enough. It's all Clinton's fault.
"Just how deep into bureaucracy will the Iraqi prisoner abuse probe reach?
That's what a concerned higher-up at the Department of Interior wants to know. The official noted at a recent Interior meeting that the department's National Business Center (NBC) developed the contract for the Pentagon's hiring of interrogators in Iraq.
NBC, a branch within Interior's office of the secretary, provides various services for a fee to other federal agencies.
"The NBC was formed during the Clinton administration as a government business venture," says our source, among other services running a "lucrative" drug-testing program for several federal agencies."
Yep--see it's all Clinton's fault. I admit this argument is a bit esoteric, but the key point is clear enough. It's all Clinton's fault.
Brown Vs. Board of Education
As you know the fiftieth anniversary of the Brown Vs. Board of Education decision was Monday. Democratic Presidential Candidate, John F. Kerry, gave a pretty good speech.
". . . how do we honor the legacy of Brown? That question was answered some 20 years before that decision by a son of Lawrence, Kansas and one of America’s greatest poets – Langston Hughes. In one of his most soul wrenching poems, Hughes challenged the nation to “Let America Be America Again.” He called that generation to fulfill the unmet promise of America:
O’ let my land be a land where liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.
And so we honor the legacy of Brown by letting America be America – by reaffirming the value of inclusion, equality, and diversity in our schools and across the life of our nation. By opening the doors of opportunity, so that more of our young people can stay in school and out of prison. By lifting more of our people out of poverty, expanding the middle class, providing health care, and bringing jobs, hope and opportunity to all the neighborhoods of the forgotten America.
We must let America be America again.
Inspiring words; I hope that Mr. Kerry lives up to his promises.
". . . how do we honor the legacy of Brown? That question was answered some 20 years before that decision by a son of Lawrence, Kansas and one of America’s greatest poets – Langston Hughes. In one of his most soul wrenching poems, Hughes challenged the nation to “Let America Be America Again.” He called that generation to fulfill the unmet promise of America:
O’ let my land be a land where liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.
And so we honor the legacy of Brown by letting America be America – by reaffirming the value of inclusion, equality, and diversity in our schools and across the life of our nation. By opening the doors of opportunity, so that more of our young people can stay in school and out of prison. By lifting more of our people out of poverty, expanding the middle class, providing health care, and bringing jobs, hope and opportunity to all the neighborhoods of the forgotten America.
We must let America be America again.
Inspiring words; I hope that Mr. Kerry lives up to his promises.
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
I get Letters
For example, I got this advertising for a new high speed internet service yesterday. It's a slide out sort of thing, almost like a childrens book. Here it is, unslided. I took off the name of the company, for various reasons.
Pure internet exhilaration, eh? You can imagine the excitement with which I chucked it onto the passangers seat of my car, only to pick it up again and fiddle with it at a stop light. I pulled the tab and this is what I saw.
So the obvious question is, how many of these people are looking at porn?
Pure internet exhilaration, eh? You can imagine the excitement with which I chucked it onto the passangers seat of my car, only to pick it up again and fiddle with it at a stop light. I pulled the tab and this is what I saw.
So the obvious question is, how many of these people are looking at porn?
How Can I Apply?
Media Matters for America is a new website that has a very similar schtick to what we do here. In other words they react to conservative media, pointing out flaws and inconsistancies with their arguments. However, they have the name David Brock and considerably more money than I do. They have poor souls listening to Rush Limbaugh and other radio hosts (Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Glen Beck) to name a few. Worth checking out.
Flailing around
It's interesting watching continued conservatives response to the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal. I mean the liberal position is pretty straightforward; that abuse was unacceptable, and should be investigated to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
The conservative response is that of course the abuse was wrong, but let's not pay too much attention to it. Oh, and apparently it's now time to get all the woman out of the military (or at least most of them).
That's Cal Thomas's argument today.
"The one dirty little secret that no one appears interested in discussing as a contributing factor to the whorehouse behavior at Abu Ghraib is coed basic training and what it has done to upset order and discipline."
Actually plenty of people have discussed it, but it's hard to talk about coed training causing this problem without analyzing exactly what happened. Several of the soldiers have claimed they were under orders to do some of the things they did. There is a New Yorker article that suggests that Rumsfeld might have written a memo approving of the abuse.
Such abuse might arise from another systematic problem; Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's disdain for the CIA and, apparently, caution. Prior the war for Iraq, the CIA and the State Department made some wild predictions. Something about conquering the country with ease, but finding it difficult to hold on to? Rumsfeld believed instead what we might call the flowers and candy theory, which is that the Iraqis would be so grateful to us that they would give us flowers and candy.
Seems like the CIA and State Department were a bit more right than Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.
But getting back to the matter at hand; did woman serving in the military cause the Abu Ghraib Prison Abuses? No. Was it Former President Clinton's misbehaver with Monica Lewinsky that taught our soldiers that a little hanky panky was ok? No. Was it the constant negative news reports by the liberal media that disheartened our troops so that they would misbehave? No. Was it Cartoon Shows like Family Guy or The Simpsons that portray an anarchic and post modern world that caused abuse? No.
In fact we don't know for sure what caused the prison abuse scandal; although there are some indications that the rot may have climbed a little bit higher on the chain of command than Mr. Thomas would like us to consider. At any rate, certainly seems like it's worth investigation.
Of course it's hard to investigate and ignore at the same time, but I guess that's the price you pay.
The conservative response is that of course the abuse was wrong, but let's not pay too much attention to it. Oh, and apparently it's now time to get all the woman out of the military (or at least most of them).
That's Cal Thomas's argument today.
"The one dirty little secret that no one appears interested in discussing as a contributing factor to the whorehouse behavior at Abu Ghraib is coed basic training and what it has done to upset order and discipline."
Actually plenty of people have discussed it, but it's hard to talk about coed training causing this problem without analyzing exactly what happened. Several of the soldiers have claimed they were under orders to do some of the things they did. There is a New Yorker article that suggests that Rumsfeld might have written a memo approving of the abuse.
Such abuse might arise from another systematic problem; Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's disdain for the CIA and, apparently, caution. Prior the war for Iraq, the CIA and the State Department made some wild predictions. Something about conquering the country with ease, but finding it difficult to hold on to? Rumsfeld believed instead what we might call the flowers and candy theory, which is that the Iraqis would be so grateful to us that they would give us flowers and candy.
Seems like the CIA and State Department were a bit more right than Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.
But getting back to the matter at hand; did woman serving in the military cause the Abu Ghraib Prison Abuses? No. Was it Former President Clinton's misbehaver with Monica Lewinsky that taught our soldiers that a little hanky panky was ok? No. Was it the constant negative news reports by the liberal media that disheartened our troops so that they would misbehave? No. Was it Cartoon Shows like Family Guy or The Simpsons that portray an anarchic and post modern world that caused abuse? No.
In fact we don't know for sure what caused the prison abuse scandal; although there are some indications that the rot may have climbed a little bit higher on the chain of command than Mr. Thomas would like us to consider. At any rate, certainly seems like it's worth investigation.
Of course it's hard to investigate and ignore at the same time, but I guess that's the price you pay.
Monday, May 17, 2004
Wandering Around
Hmmmm. I haven't checked in with PABAAH (Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti American Hollywood) in a while. Let's see what they've got.
Well, apparently all good conservatives should avoid seeing "Raising Helen," "Baadassss!" "The Day After Tomorrow," and any film from Miramax. Oh, and look, some commentary on the tragic Daniel Berg slaying.
"Well, here's the appropriate response to beheading an American: For every town where an American contractor or soldier is abducted or harmed, we should enact a roadblock to prevent any militants from departing said town. After a 24 hour grace period for women and children to leave said town, the United States military will drop a MOAB or tactical nuke on said town. In other words, it's time to begin systematically destroying the havens of these madmen and send a strong message to all of the world. . . .
We will never win this war if we wage it as a politically-correct war. Dust off the nukes, it's time for some BBQ."
Yeah, I'm not sure what I could add to that.
Well, apparently all good conservatives should avoid seeing "Raising Helen," "Baadassss!" "The Day After Tomorrow," and any film from Miramax. Oh, and look, some commentary on the tragic Daniel Berg slaying.
"Well, here's the appropriate response to beheading an American: For every town where an American contractor or soldier is abducted or harmed, we should enact a roadblock to prevent any militants from departing said town. After a 24 hour grace period for women and children to leave said town, the United States military will drop a MOAB or tactical nuke on said town. In other words, it's time to begin systematically destroying the havens of these madmen and send a strong message to all of the world. . . .
We will never win this war if we wage it as a politically-correct war. Dust off the nukes, it's time for some BBQ."
Yeah, I'm not sure what I could add to that.
Good news
Many of you may be worried that an uniformed dope like me could affect the election coming up. Well not to worry. A recent New York Times story says that most people still get their news the old fashioned way; from paid political advertising.
Of course there's a downside to that as well.
"Even people who say they learn nothing from the advertisements believe the claims made in them, the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey shows. At the same time, people are remarkably unfamiliar with the candidates' true positions — the stuff that hasn't been advertised much.
The Annenberg survey recently interviewed 1,026 adults in the 18 battleground states where the campaigns have been showing commercials since March. In those states, 61 percent of respondents believe Mr. Bush "favors sending American jobs overseas" and 56 percent believe Mr. Kerry "voted for higher taxes 350 times." Both of those statements have been repeated countless times in commercials — but neither is accurate."
I will say that Kerry voting for tax cuts 350 times is probably closer to a lie than President Bush favoring sending jobs over seas. After all the Bush ad makes a very specific claim; that Kerry voted for spending increases 350 times. The Kerry ad's claim is more general, and we certainly haven't seen much action on the part of the administration to stem the movement of American jobs overseas.
Still the fact that most Americans get their political facts from advertising has to put a smile on Karl Rove's face.
Of course there's a downside to that as well.
"Even people who say they learn nothing from the advertisements believe the claims made in them, the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey shows. At the same time, people are remarkably unfamiliar with the candidates' true positions — the stuff that hasn't been advertised much.
The Annenberg survey recently interviewed 1,026 adults in the 18 battleground states where the campaigns have been showing commercials since March. In those states, 61 percent of respondents believe Mr. Bush "favors sending American jobs overseas" and 56 percent believe Mr. Kerry "voted for higher taxes 350 times." Both of those statements have been repeated countless times in commercials — but neither is accurate."
I will say that Kerry voting for tax cuts 350 times is probably closer to a lie than President Bush favoring sending jobs over seas. After all the Bush ad makes a very specific claim; that Kerry voted for spending increases 350 times. The Kerry ad's claim is more general, and we certainly haven't seen much action on the part of the administration to stem the movement of American jobs overseas.
Still the fact that most Americans get their political facts from advertising has to put a smile on Karl Rove's face.
Did you Hear the One About Repression?
Last night's Simpsons was a decidedly strange affair.
Here's a synopsis, via TV Tome.
OK. A couple of thoughts.
1. This episode is not anti-Bush Administration, as it appears at first. Anti-War celebrates haven't been rounded up and sent to education camps. Bill Clinton is still a free man. The repression of dissent hasn't reached the comically absurd levels demonstrated in "Libertyville." So that leaves us with two options. Either the writers are warning that things could get that bad, or they are underlining the fact that things aren't that bad. I think the second answer is far more likely; the show reminded us that things aren't that bad.
2. France Bashing is of course popular, as the French rescue the Simpsons only because they too hate America, despite our having saved them from Germany twice.
3. Stereotypical Arab Street loving the Simpsons. No shades of grey here, folks, Arabs hate America too.
4. The actual disagreement is pretty inane. Bart moons the flag, but not on purpose (the way that they set that up, Rube Goldberge style, is pretty funny, though). The family is innocent of hating America. The closest they get to a saying something is Marge saying that if everybody in America is a loud mouthed talk show host, than she hates Americans (or something like that anyway). Not that controversial, although of course it can be edited for television.
On the other hand the episode does underline the idea that one can disagree with one's country and still be patriotic. So I guess that's a good message--just a weird episode. One that I wish had been stretched to an hour, actually. I get the sense that we might have gotten a better resolution in that case.
Another review is here. Argueably better than mine.
Here's a synopsis, via TV Tome.
It's shot day and Bart tries to evade the needle. Dr. Hibbert manages to get the job done but Bart suffers a side effect of temporary hearing loss from the shot and he takes advantage of it for all it's worth. At Springfield Elementary the annual Donkey basketball tournament is being held. During the playing of The Star Spangled Banner Bart has his shorts eaten by a donkey, leaving his bare ass exposed towards the flag. Martin snaps a picture and everyone present is outraged at this behavior. As a result the Simpson family becomes very unpopular. They go on a cable news channel and only manage to dig themselves into a deeper hole when the host manages to twist Marge's words into saying that Springfield hates America. The negative publicity causes Mayor Quimby to change the name of the town to Liberty-Ville and they make everything patriotic. The family is arrested under violation of the "government knows best act" and they are brought to a reeducation center. The last registered Democrat tells them how they can escape. During their musical number they escape through a tunnel but find they were on Alcatraz. They are rescued by a passing French freighter and taken to France. After being there a while they decide they miss their life in America and go back as illegal immigrants.
OK. A couple of thoughts.
1. This episode is not anti-Bush Administration, as it appears at first. Anti-War celebrates haven't been rounded up and sent to education camps. Bill Clinton is still a free man. The repression of dissent hasn't reached the comically absurd levels demonstrated in "Libertyville." So that leaves us with two options. Either the writers are warning that things could get that bad, or they are underlining the fact that things aren't that bad. I think the second answer is far more likely; the show reminded us that things aren't that bad.
2. France Bashing is of course popular, as the French rescue the Simpsons only because they too hate America, despite our having saved them from Germany twice.
3. Stereotypical Arab Street loving the Simpsons. No shades of grey here, folks, Arabs hate America too.
4. The actual disagreement is pretty inane. Bart moons the flag, but not on purpose (the way that they set that up, Rube Goldberge style, is pretty funny, though). The family is innocent of hating America. The closest they get to a saying something is Marge saying that if everybody in America is a loud mouthed talk show host, than she hates Americans (or something like that anyway). Not that controversial, although of course it can be edited for television.
On the other hand the episode does underline the idea that one can disagree with one's country and still be patriotic. So I guess that's a good message--just a weird episode. One that I wish had been stretched to an hour, actually. I get the sense that we might have gotten a better resolution in that case.
Another review is here. Argueably better than mine.
Sunday, May 16, 2004
Lamp Picture
Here's a picture of a lamp. It's not three feet away from where I am sitting.
Of course it's been artified.
Of course there is an argument to made that messing around with Paint Shop Pro isn't art. To those people who would make that argument I say, "Beware or I will unleash my Chaos Tiger Kung Fu on you!"
Of course it's been artified.
Of course there is an argument to made that messing around with Paint Shop Pro isn't art. To those people who would make that argument I say, "Beware or I will unleash my Chaos Tiger Kung Fu on you!"
Saturday, May 15, 2004
Another picture
For some reason I labelled this a shotgun house. I downloaded it when i was doing research on New Orleans. Then modified it.
And Yet Another Picture
This is from a protest held a couple of months back, one I didn't use--but the lighting is quite good, I think. Made it look arty as well.
I love art. It hides a multitude of flaws.
I love art. It hides a multitude of flaws.
Here's a Picture of My Dog
He's very shy and retiring (except when he hears a funny noise or sees another animal, then he flies into a murderous rage), so I don't put his picture up much, but he said I could put this one up.
Bias
Joshua Micah Marshall, over at Talking Points Memo, has a story that dovetails a bit into what I was saying on Thursday in relation to Ms. Coulter.
Of course I can already hear my conservative friends saying "Well, don't you think the President of the United States (Leader of the Free World) is a bit better informed than some reporter for the New York Times?"
Also, as previously discussed, here's a picture.
Of course I can already hear my conservative friends saying "Well, don't you think the President of the United States (Leader of the Free World) is a bit better informed than some reporter for the New York Times?"
Also, as previously discussed, here's a picture.
Picture time
Going to be putting up a lot of pictures today, mainly because I haven't done that in a while. Here's one I took in Tampa of a manta ray. I recolored it a bit, as you can tell. To make it more arty.
Friday, May 14, 2004
Countering Distortions
One of the lies that the Republicans / Conservatives are going to tell about Senator John F. Kerry is that he opposes military spending. Already President Bush has put out ads suggesting that John Kerry opposed funding weapons that have proven necessary in the war on terror.
Fortunately there are plenty of opportunities to find out the truth. The D-Bunker at John Kerry's site compares and contrasts Kerry's record with Dick Cheney's. It's a long read and a bit dry but there's a lot of interesting stuff in there.
Meanwhile, the Daily Howler, an incredible site, has done a series of articles on the ad and, more tellingly, the complete lack of interest by America's Press Corps in setting the record straight. It is yet another example of how Reality is Partisan. Accurately reporting the facts, putting the Bush ads in context, would be partisan. So it's best if America's reporters keep their mouth shut.
The Howler also reports on an appearance by John McCain on the Sean Hannity show. Apparently the future Secretary of Defense (I hope) strayed off script a bit.
"I would be accused of voting against numerous weapon systems, because I voted against defense appropriations bills, because they're loaded down with pork. And they're obscene today with all of the pork-barrel spending and multi-trillion dollar deficits. I'll probably vote against the defense appropriations bill this year."
Hmmmmmm. Still Mccain also said that President Bush was still his guy when it came to defense, so I guess that's ok.
Fortunately there are plenty of opportunities to find out the truth. The D-Bunker at John Kerry's site compares and contrasts Kerry's record with Dick Cheney's. It's a long read and a bit dry but there's a lot of interesting stuff in there.
Meanwhile, the Daily Howler, an incredible site, has done a series of articles on the ad and, more tellingly, the complete lack of interest by America's Press Corps in setting the record straight. It is yet another example of how Reality is Partisan. Accurately reporting the facts, putting the Bush ads in context, would be partisan. So it's best if America's reporters keep their mouth shut.
The Howler also reports on an appearance by John McCain on the Sean Hannity show. Apparently the future Secretary of Defense (I hope) strayed off script a bit.
"I would be accused of voting against numerous weapon systems, because I voted against defense appropriations bills, because they're loaded down with pork. And they're obscene today with all of the pork-barrel spending and multi-trillion dollar deficits. I'll probably vote against the defense appropriations bill this year."
Hmmmmmm. Still Mccain also said that President Bush was still his guy when it came to defense, so I guess that's ok.
Round the Horn Part 4b. The Undeadening
Echidne of the Snakes has a very interesting and typically well written exploration of the media and punditocracy's limited perceptions of what Lynndie England's involvement in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal means.
Respectful of Otters considers the difference between consensual and non-consensual acts in relation to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Turns out there is one.
Rubber Hose has an item on how the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal might affect some prominent American Legal Cases.
Remember Lt. Gen. William ?Jerry? Boykin? Neither do I. But I wrote a pair of stories about him back when I was in New York for a week (here and here). Well blogAmY has the news that Lt. Gen. Boykin may have a connection to Abu Ghraib. So that's good news for Cal Thomas and Gary Aldrich who just have to trot out their cliches on religious persecution for another article.
Musing's Musings has an interesting account of rumblings in the House of Representatives against the Bush administration. Since the House is supposedly under Republican control, this is interesting.
edwardpig reviews those Generals and other Military leaders who have come forward anonymously to criticize the Bush Administrations handling of the Iraq War. Long story short; he's not a fan of the anonymous bit.
The Invisible Library considers how we should proceed in Iraq. Hint: it involves the United Nations.
Corrente has quite a bit on the Burg Execution, and on what Mr. Berg was doing there in the first place. Several great stories, but this one was the longest (and had a lot of good legal information). But once you get over there, look around and read the others too.
archy has an interesting discussion on the Western strategy which is apparently a political strategy somewhat connected (in name only) to the infamous Southern Strategy.
Respectful of Otters considers the difference between consensual and non-consensual acts in relation to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Turns out there is one.
Rubber Hose has an item on how the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal might affect some prominent American Legal Cases.
Remember Lt. Gen. William ?Jerry? Boykin? Neither do I. But I wrote a pair of stories about him back when I was in New York for a week (here and here). Well blogAmY has the news that Lt. Gen. Boykin may have a connection to Abu Ghraib. So that's good news for Cal Thomas and Gary Aldrich who just have to trot out their cliches on religious persecution for another article.
Musing's Musings has an interesting account of rumblings in the House of Representatives against the Bush administration. Since the House is supposedly under Republican control, this is interesting.
edwardpig reviews those Generals and other Military leaders who have come forward anonymously to criticize the Bush Administrations handling of the Iraq War. Long story short; he's not a fan of the anonymous bit.
The Invisible Library considers how we should proceed in Iraq. Hint: it involves the United Nations.
Corrente has quite a bit on the Burg Execution, and on what Mr. Berg was doing there in the first place. Several great stories, but this one was the longest (and had a lot of good legal information). But once you get over there, look around and read the others too.
archy has an interesting discussion on the Western strategy which is apparently a political strategy somewhat connected (in name only) to the infamous Southern Strategy.
Thursday, May 13, 2004
The Truth
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
The Gospel of St. John 18:37-38
Something has been troubling about my review of Ann Coulter's article earlier in the day. Ann Coulter may very well believe what she writes. She may believe that we have found the weapons of mass destruction President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld was selling us on before the war. She may believe that there was an undeniable link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Ladin. I've always assumed that Ms. Coulter was a political huckster who's found a good gig, but let's say she really does believe everything she says.
Well how could you really have a debate over Iraq with Ms. Coulter? Some of the most basic facts, facts that many of her collegues have conceded, she does not accept. I don't buy many of the Administrations defenders' arguments these days, but at least with many of them you can understand the argument. The terrain is the same. With Ms. Coulter, you are talking about two different worlds.
Not just in commerce but in the world of ideas too our age is putting on a veritable clearance sale. Everything can be had so dirt cheap that one begins to wander whether in the end anyone will want to make a bid. - Soren Kierkegaard
The problem with debating with Ms. Coulter is that simply stating the facts as nearly everyone accepts them ("No link between al-Queda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq has been proven." "We haven't found Weapons of Mass Destruction that could have been an immediate threat to the United States.") become Liberal Arguments. So you have two sides to a debate, one side expressing extreme right wing partisan beliefs and the other basically stating the facts of the case. Doesn't leave much room for a leftist argument does it?
Ms. Coulter is hardly alone in this phenomenon. Salon has a great article today on Karen Hughes, close friend and confidante of President Bush. In it, the author (James C. Moore) repeats an oft recounted tale involving Ms. Hughes and Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson wrote the famous (or infamous, depending) account of President Bush swearing in private and mocking a woman he was about to have executed. After the article, Ms. Hughes confronted Mr. Carlson.
"It was very, very hostile," Carlson said. "The reaction was: You betrayed us. Well, I was never there as a partisan to begin with. Then I heard that [on the campaign bus], Karen Hughes accused me of lying. And so I called Karen and asked her why she was saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she laid on me about how things she'd heard -- that I watched her hear -- she in fact had never heard, and she'd never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane. I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness."
So it turns out that reality itself is partisan. Not, all in all, a very comforting conclusion.
Delusions
You know what's nice about being a fancy pants editorialist like Ms. Ann Coulter? There's little to no need to do any research at all. Just present the world as you would like it to be, and mock anybody who disagrees with you as dangerously out of touch.
Take Ms. Couter's latest thesis, "Crazy-Like-A-Fox News Viewer." In it she reminds us of two salient facts, that you might have forgotten. There was definitely a connection between al-Queda and we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Yep. I know some of you might have the impression that the link between al-Queda and Iraq was unproven, but Ms. Coulter has the answer to that.
"Interestingly, liberals refuse to believe Czech intelligence on the Prague meeting ... because the CIA doesn't believe it. Apparently, this is the lone, singular assertion by the CIA that liberals wholeheartedly trust."
So you see, because we have some reservations about the CIA (reservations based at least in part on their inability to see 9/11 coming and the way they totally screwed up the pre-war WMD evidence) we are required to disbelieve everything they say.
Oh wait a second, maybe that pre-war intel was good after all. I mean, according to Ann Coulter, we have found weapons of mass destruction. And Liberals are crybabys. Well, you probably would have guessed that one anyway. You see us liberals mistakenly believed that when President Bush was talking about the need to invade Iraq right away, we assumed it was because these Weapons of Mass Destruction were an immediate threat to us. What children we were. Or to quote Ms. Coulter, "By "weapons of mass destruction," what liberals mean is: missiles pointed at Washington, D.C., with their "Ready to Fire" lights blinking ominously and their warhead payloads clearly marked "Weapons of Mass Destruction! Next Stop, The Great Satan America!" -- basically what you might see on an episode of the original Batman TV series."
What fools we were. What President Bush clearly meant was that we had to invade immediately in order to stop experimentation that might one day lead to weapons of mass destruction (although even that was tricky, given the sanctions).
So, there you have it. According to Ms. Coulter, journalists are whores (I forgot to cover that earlier, but it's in there), Saddam had connections to al-Qaeda (despite the fact that pretty much everybody else on both the right and the left disagrees), and we have found Weapons of Mass Destruction (despite the fact that almost everybody on both the right and the left disagrees). Tune in next week, when we'll find that in Ann's delusions, the Iraq Occupation is smooth selling, Abu Ghraib never happened, and the United Nations declares their new Chairman, Beelezebub.
Take Ms. Couter's latest thesis, "Crazy-Like-A-Fox News Viewer." In it she reminds us of two salient facts, that you might have forgotten. There was definitely a connection between al-Queda and we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Yep. I know some of you might have the impression that the link between al-Queda and Iraq was unproven, but Ms. Coulter has the answer to that.
"Interestingly, liberals refuse to believe Czech intelligence on the Prague meeting ... because the CIA doesn't believe it. Apparently, this is the lone, singular assertion by the CIA that liberals wholeheartedly trust."
So you see, because we have some reservations about the CIA (reservations based at least in part on their inability to see 9/11 coming and the way they totally screwed up the pre-war WMD evidence) we are required to disbelieve everything they say.
Oh wait a second, maybe that pre-war intel was good after all. I mean, according to Ann Coulter, we have found weapons of mass destruction. And Liberals are crybabys. Well, you probably would have guessed that one anyway. You see us liberals mistakenly believed that when President Bush was talking about the need to invade Iraq right away, we assumed it was because these Weapons of Mass Destruction were an immediate threat to us. What children we were. Or to quote Ms. Coulter, "By "weapons of mass destruction," what liberals mean is: missiles pointed at Washington, D.C., with their "Ready to Fire" lights blinking ominously and their warhead payloads clearly marked "Weapons of Mass Destruction! Next Stop, The Great Satan America!" -- basically what you might see on an episode of the original Batman TV series."
What fools we were. What President Bush clearly meant was that we had to invade immediately in order to stop experimentation that might one day lead to weapons of mass destruction (although even that was tricky, given the sanctions).
So, there you have it. According to Ms. Coulter, journalists are whores (I forgot to cover that earlier, but it's in there), Saddam had connections to al-Qaeda (despite the fact that pretty much everybody else on both the right and the left disagrees), and we have found Weapons of Mass Destruction (despite the fact that almost everybody on both the right and the left disagrees). Tune in next week, when we'll find that in Ann's delusions, the Iraq Occupation is smooth selling, Abu Ghraib never happened, and the United Nations declares their new Chairman, Beelezebub.
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
John Kerry Speaks!
John Kerry is out on the campaign trail, and on May 8, he spoke to the Democratic Leadership Conference and said the following.
"We all know: The first responsibility of the President is to keep our country safe and secure. That means honoring America's calling to be the strongest force for freedom around the world and the greatest engine of opportunity here at home. That is why I am running for President. And I will never cede the issue of strength to the other party.
Strength means working with our allies to win the war on terror, not going it alone. Strength means taking responsibility. Today, Secretary Rumsfeld apologized on Capitol Hill. But the chain of command goes all the way to the Oval Office. Harry Truman did not say “The buck stops at the Pentagon.” And after 241 Marines were killed by terrorists in Beirut, Ronald Reagan had the strength to say, “If there is to be blame, it properly rests here in this Office and with this President. And I accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good.
America does not merely need a new Secretary of Defense. We need a new President. One who is strong enough to give our brave troops the allies and the armor they need; and one who is strong enough to take responsibility and, when necessary, correct course. We need a President who knows the difference between strength – and stubbornness."
Kind of tough on old President Bush. But the truth is there is a difference between strength and stubborness.
In other Kerry news, he has apparently suggested that Senator John McCain could be approached to be his Secretary of Defense, according to MSNBC.
"We all know: The first responsibility of the President is to keep our country safe and secure. That means honoring America's calling to be the strongest force for freedom around the world and the greatest engine of opportunity here at home. That is why I am running for President. And I will never cede the issue of strength to the other party.
Strength means working with our allies to win the war on terror, not going it alone. Strength means taking responsibility. Today, Secretary Rumsfeld apologized on Capitol Hill. But the chain of command goes all the way to the Oval Office. Harry Truman did not say “The buck stops at the Pentagon.” And after 241 Marines were killed by terrorists in Beirut, Ronald Reagan had the strength to say, “If there is to be blame, it properly rests here in this Office and with this President. And I accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good.
America does not merely need a new Secretary of Defense. We need a new President. One who is strong enough to give our brave troops the allies and the armor they need; and one who is strong enough to take responsibility and, when necessary, correct course. We need a President who knows the difference between strength – and stubbornness."
Kind of tough on old President Bush. But the truth is there is a difference between strength and stubborness.
In other Kerry news, he has apparently suggested that Senator John McCain could be approached to be his Secretary of Defense, according to MSNBC.
War and Technology
Often times when you combine the words war and technology, you get warnology. I mean you get discussions about how technology makes it easier for us to kill each other. Better weapons and so on. But that's hardly the only potential effect of technology on war.
Consider this article, from Salon, on the recent advances in information technology on war.
"Pedro Meyer, a veteran photographer who has embraced digital technology, points out that in 2005, technologists expect more than 60 billion pictures will be snapped on cellphone cameras alone. "Imagine what the number will be 10 years from now?" he asks. What will this ubiquitous documentation do to our will to fight wars? How will wars change if people can always see what's on the front? Will they become cleaner, or dirtier? Will we have fewer atrocities, or more?
. . . The lesson from Abu Ghraib, or from Nick Berg, is that you never know what technology can reap. Digital cameras were never meant as a tool for documenting torture, and the Web was not invented as a way for fanatics to broadcast pictures of their murders. But here we are. "They've become tools of war," Winslow says."
The article is well worth checking out, and the background issues are well worth thinking about.
Consider this article, from Salon, on the recent advances in information technology on war.
"Pedro Meyer, a veteran photographer who has embraced digital technology, points out that in 2005, technologists expect more than 60 billion pictures will be snapped on cellphone cameras alone. "Imagine what the number will be 10 years from now?" he asks. What will this ubiquitous documentation do to our will to fight wars? How will wars change if people can always see what's on the front? Will they become cleaner, or dirtier? Will we have fewer atrocities, or more?
. . . The lesson from Abu Ghraib, or from Nick Berg, is that you never know what technology can reap. Digital cameras were never meant as a tool for documenting torture, and the Web was not invented as a way for fanatics to broadcast pictures of their murders. But here we are. "They've become tools of war," Winslow says."
The article is well worth checking out, and the background issues are well worth thinking about.
Let's Send Ben Shapiro to Iraq
Ben Shapiro's latest article is one that he probably thinks is pretty clever (but in reality it's not nearly as clever as my article taking on the Ohio State Quarter). He starts out by quoting Presidential Candidate John Kerry's words in support of American Law Enforcement agents.
Young Ben then asks the oblivious question. If Kerry likes the U.N. so much, why not invite them in to manage America's inner cities. After all the American criminal system has clearly broken down, according to Shapiro, so why not?
He then manages to tie it back to the fact that Senator Kerry listens to Rap Music. "John Kerry does, and he wants to remind us that the criminal class has legitimate concerns. Rap is its voice, and we must listen to it. "I'm fascinated by rap and by hip-hop. I think there's a lot of poetry in it. There's a lot of anger, a lot of social energy in it. And I think you'd better listen to it pretty carefully, 'cause it's important ... I'm still listening because I know that it's a reflection of the street and it's a reflection of life, and I understand all that," Kerry told MTV."
Rap is not only black music (as Rush Limbaugh described it), but now it's the voice of the criminal class. That's a lot of work for one musical form to do. Just reading young Ben's words makes me want to go out and get the latest People Under the Stairs album.
What's great about this entire article is that it's not even remotely anchored to reality. "It's one thing to hold a middle-class person accountable for his actions, but we can't expect the same from someone in a different cultural context. John Kerry will fight for such a double standard."
Oh he will? Hmmmmmm. That doesn't sound like the John Kerry I know. In fact the John Kerry I know. On March 18, 2003, Kerry said the following.
"We need to put our faith and trust in the people on the frontlines ? and back it up with real resources. We need to make sure first defenders have the gear and support they need, and the benefits and protections they?ve earned. With new technology and ingenuity, by doing more to sustain our first defenders and calling on Americans to do more for their country, we can make our country stronger, safer, and more secure."
Sounds like, unlike young Ben, Mr. Kerry has a lot of faith in our first defenders, including local police departments.
Of course the real point of this article is to point out Kerry's supposed hypocricy in Iraq. Because, you see, Kerry treats Iraq and our inner cities as if they were distinctly different problems. Which, according to young Ben, they aren't. Except in the real world, it turns out they are.
Young Ben then asks the oblivious question. If Kerry likes the U.N. so much, why not invite them in to manage America's inner cities. After all the American criminal system has clearly broken down, according to Shapiro, so why not?
He then manages to tie it back to the fact that Senator Kerry listens to Rap Music. "John Kerry does, and he wants to remind us that the criminal class has legitimate concerns. Rap is its voice, and we must listen to it. "I'm fascinated by rap and by hip-hop. I think there's a lot of poetry in it. There's a lot of anger, a lot of social energy in it. And I think you'd better listen to it pretty carefully, 'cause it's important ... I'm still listening because I know that it's a reflection of the street and it's a reflection of life, and I understand all that," Kerry told MTV."
Rap is not only black music (as Rush Limbaugh described it), but now it's the voice of the criminal class. That's a lot of work for one musical form to do. Just reading young Ben's words makes me want to go out and get the latest People Under the Stairs album.
What's great about this entire article is that it's not even remotely anchored to reality. "It's one thing to hold a middle-class person accountable for his actions, but we can't expect the same from someone in a different cultural context. John Kerry will fight for such a double standard."
Oh he will? Hmmmmmm. That doesn't sound like the John Kerry I know. In fact the John Kerry I know. On March 18, 2003, Kerry said the following.
"We need to put our faith and trust in the people on the frontlines ? and back it up with real resources. We need to make sure first defenders have the gear and support they need, and the benefits and protections they?ve earned. With new technology and ingenuity, by doing more to sustain our first defenders and calling on Americans to do more for their country, we can make our country stronger, safer, and more secure."
Sounds like, unlike young Ben, Mr. Kerry has a lot of faith in our first defenders, including local police departments.
Of course the real point of this article is to point out Kerry's supposed hypocricy in Iraq. Because, you see, Kerry treats Iraq and our inner cities as if they were distinctly different problems. Which, according to young Ben, they aren't. Except in the real world, it turns out they are.
Unprovoked Ohio Bashing
I was driving in from work today and I saw an Ohio liscence plate. Birthplace of Aviation was what it said. That's also what they chose to put on their state quarter.
Now, no offense Ohio, but I really think you are missing the boat hear. First of all, it doesn't take much brains to notice that although the Wright Brothers and Neil Armstrong might have been born in Ohio, they had to go somewhere else (North Carolina or Florida) to actually fly.
Secondly, why focus on flight, when you have something else that is frankly much more important in our daily lives. Namely cheese. I eat cheese something like 4 or 5 times a week, and I've never eaten an airplane. I only ride airplanes every so often, and I can't tell you the last time I've been on the Space Shuttle (for National Security reasons, natch).
Now I understand that it's a little annoying to be called "cheese heads" all the time, but still, Cheese is what you guys do really well. So focus on that, is all I'm saying.
I might have made this joke already; I can't remember.
Now, no offense Ohio, but I really think you are missing the boat hear. First of all, it doesn't take much brains to notice that although the Wright Brothers and Neil Armstrong might have been born in Ohio, they had to go somewhere else (North Carolina or Florida) to actually fly.
Secondly, why focus on flight, when you have something else that is frankly much more important in our daily lives. Namely cheese. I eat cheese something like 4 or 5 times a week, and I've never eaten an airplane. I only ride airplanes every so often, and I can't tell you the last time I've been on the Space Shuttle (for National Security reasons, natch).
Now I understand that it's a little annoying to be called "cheese heads" all the time, but still, Cheese is what you guys do really well. So focus on that, is all I'm saying.
I might have made this joke already; I can't remember.
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Poetry Appreciation
The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner
by Randall Jarrell
From my mother's sleep I fell into the State,
And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze.
Six miles from earth, loosed from the dream of life,
I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.
When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.
People claiming to be Agents of Al-Queda have released a video tape of an American contractor in Iraq being executed by beheading. Dohiyi Mir has a good and succinct commentary on it. So does Tom Tomorrow.
Hang in there, I'm sure that light at the end of the tunnel isn't an oncoming train.
by Randall Jarrell
From my mother's sleep I fell into the State,
And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze.
Six miles from earth, loosed from the dream of life,
I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.
When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.
People claiming to be Agents of Al-Queda have released a video tape of an American contractor in Iraq being executed by beheading. Dohiyi Mir has a good and succinct commentary on it. So does Tom Tomorrow.
Hang in there, I'm sure that light at the end of the tunnel isn't an oncoming train.
When the fall is all that's left
Prince Geoffrey: You fool. As if it matters how a man falls.
Prince Richard: When the fall is all that's left, it matters.
from "The Lion in Winter," 1968
David Brooks writes an unusual article today, in which he calls for the United States to lose the war in Iraq. Not that he's calling for withdrawel, precisely. Just that we permit the Iraqi people to defeat us.
"We went into Iraq with what, in retrospect, seems like a childish fantasy. We were going to topple Saddam, establish democracy and hand the country back to grateful Iraqis. We expected to be universally admired when it was all over.
We didn't understand the tragic irony that our power is also our weakness. As long as we seemed so mighty, others, even those we were aiming to assist, were bound to revolt. They would do so for their own self-respect. In taking out Saddam, we robbed the Iraqis of the honor of liberating themselves. The fact that they had no means to do so is beside the point.
Now, looking ahead, we face another irony. To earn their own freedom, the Iraqis need a victory. And since it is too late for the Iraqis to have a victory over Saddam, it is imperative that they have a victory over us."
For the record, he seems to be calling for a democratic victory over us, and, as part of this plan, for moving the elections up. That way they can have an election, denounce the American occupation, somebody can win and invite us to leave. I'd be interested to hear Rush Limbaugh respond to this idea. Perhaps he did; I'll check his website later.
I'm not sure what the quote has to do with this story; but it is a good quote and something to keep in one's mind.
Prince Richard: When the fall is all that's left, it matters.
from "The Lion in Winter," 1968
David Brooks writes an unusual article today, in which he calls for the United States to lose the war in Iraq. Not that he's calling for withdrawel, precisely. Just that we permit the Iraqi people to defeat us.
"We went into Iraq with what, in retrospect, seems like a childish fantasy. We were going to topple Saddam, establish democracy and hand the country back to grateful Iraqis. We expected to be universally admired when it was all over.
We didn't understand the tragic irony that our power is also our weakness. As long as we seemed so mighty, others, even those we were aiming to assist, were bound to revolt. They would do so for their own self-respect. In taking out Saddam, we robbed the Iraqis of the honor of liberating themselves. The fact that they had no means to do so is beside the point.
Now, looking ahead, we face another irony. To earn their own freedom, the Iraqis need a victory. And since it is too late for the Iraqis to have a victory over Saddam, it is imperative that they have a victory over us."
For the record, he seems to be calling for a democratic victory over us, and, as part of this plan, for moving the elections up. That way they can have an election, denounce the American occupation, somebody can win and invite us to leave. I'd be interested to hear Rush Limbaugh respond to this idea. Perhaps he did; I'll check his website later.
I'm not sure what the quote has to do with this story; but it is a good quote and something to keep in one's mind.
Left Wing Media Bias
Just in case there's a few of you who believe that the media is biased toward the left, here's a great article by David Brock.
"A young writer for Rupert Murdoch's neoconservative Weekly Standard named Matt Labash -- whom I hired into right-wing journalism at The American Spectator -- was probably laughing, too, when he was interviewed by Columbia Journalism Review partner Web site JournalismJobs.com. The interviewer asked, "Why have conservative media outlets like The Weekly Standard and FOX News Channel become more popular in recent years?" In his answer, Labash conceded that conservatives reject in their own media the standards of fairness, accuracy, and unbiased coverage that they demand from the "liberal media." He unmasked the hypocrisy at the heart of these endeavors:
"Because they feed the rage. We bring pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly but it's true somewhat ... While these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media like to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective ... It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket."
Just to underline that, the conservative media is determined to force liberals to be even handed and moderate and, need we say it, spineless, while they themselves are comfortable being subjective and partisan and, need we say it, dishonest.
"A young writer for Rupert Murdoch's neoconservative Weekly Standard named Matt Labash -- whom I hired into right-wing journalism at The American Spectator -- was probably laughing, too, when he was interviewed by Columbia Journalism Review partner Web site JournalismJobs.com. The interviewer asked, "Why have conservative media outlets like The Weekly Standard and FOX News Channel become more popular in recent years?" In his answer, Labash conceded that conservatives reject in their own media the standards of fairness, accuracy, and unbiased coverage that they demand from the "liberal media." He unmasked the hypocrisy at the heart of these endeavors:
"Because they feed the rage. We bring pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly but it's true somewhat ... While these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media like to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective ... It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket."
Just to underline that, the conservative media is determined to force liberals to be even handed and moderate and, need we say it, spineless, while they themselves are comfortable being subjective and partisan and, need we say it, dishonest.
Your Weekly Rush; More on Abu Ghraib
Well, in his flailing around for an excuse for Abu Ghraib (which included slams at the NEA and comparing torture to a frat hazing), Rush has finally hit on a convincing argument for why we as Americans should be not worry too much about what happens at Abu Ghraib Prison. And here it is (the first part is a quote from Rich Galen, a former employee of GOPAC).
"It should be pointed out that the prisoners at Abu Ghraib are not Boy Scouts rounded up for jaywalking. These are bad guys who either blew up or shot a coalition member; or were caught assembling an explosive device; or were caught in a place where the makings of explosive devices were found; or were caught with a cache of weapons. See the pattern here?
"In short they were trying to kill me and others like me. And if they succeeded in doing that, they were going to come over here and try to kill you. Ugly thought? You bet. But that is the kind of prisoner being held in the terrorist section at Abu Ghraib."
That's exactly what I was asking everybody last week. Who are these guys? They're shooting at Americans. They have attempted to kill Americans. You've got to put this stuff in perspective. It has to be put in context."
Gosh that is pretty damning isn't it? I mean if those guys really were terrorists coming to get us, well, I guess I'd be a lot more comfortable with our guys making nude pyramids of them. Not completely comfortable (I still think torture is a bad thing, no matter the circumstances). It's a pity than that the facts don't support Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Galen's theory.
Alexander G. Higgins, of the Associated Press, unfortunately burst that bubble in a story reprinted at the Long Beach Press-Telegram (the newspaper so great it needed two names).
"Up to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested "by mistake,' according to coalition intelligence officers cited in a Red Cross report disclosed Monday. It also says U.S. officers mistreated inmates at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison by keeping them naked in dark, empty cells."
Hmmmmm. That paints a very different picture than the one that Rush paints. Fortunately for Rush, it doesn't seem like very many press outlets are that interested in pursuing the story of why people were detained in Abu Ghraib prison. Perhaps he'll get to keep on pretending they were all terrorists.
"It should be pointed out that the prisoners at Abu Ghraib are not Boy Scouts rounded up for jaywalking. These are bad guys who either blew up or shot a coalition member; or were caught assembling an explosive device; or were caught in a place where the makings of explosive devices were found; or were caught with a cache of weapons. See the pattern here?
"In short they were trying to kill me and others like me. And if they succeeded in doing that, they were going to come over here and try to kill you. Ugly thought? You bet. But that is the kind of prisoner being held in the terrorist section at Abu Ghraib."
That's exactly what I was asking everybody last week. Who are these guys? They're shooting at Americans. They have attempted to kill Americans. You've got to put this stuff in perspective. It has to be put in context."
Gosh that is pretty damning isn't it? I mean if those guys really were terrorists coming to get us, well, I guess I'd be a lot more comfortable with our guys making nude pyramids of them. Not completely comfortable (I still think torture is a bad thing, no matter the circumstances). It's a pity than that the facts don't support Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Galen's theory.
Alexander G. Higgins, of the Associated Press, unfortunately burst that bubble in a story reprinted at the Long Beach Press-Telegram (the newspaper so great it needed two names).
"Up to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested "by mistake,' according to coalition intelligence officers cited in a Red Cross report disclosed Monday. It also says U.S. officers mistreated inmates at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison by keeping them naked in dark, empty cells."
Hmmmmm. That paints a very different picture than the one that Rush paints. Fortunately for Rush, it doesn't seem like very many press outlets are that interested in pursuing the story of why people were detained in Abu Ghraib prison. Perhaps he'll get to keep on pretending they were all terrorists.
You Just Can't Trust Us
And by us I mean Liberals. David Limbaugh makes that point in his article today. This has got to be a tough time for him and other defenders of the President. Iraq seems to be falling apart, the Dow is below 10,000 again (which affects me personally, so don't think I'm happy about that), and you have the Abu Ghraib Prison abuse scandal coming to light. It's hard to pretend that we have to stick with President Bush, when he's clearly having a bad couple of months.
Of course the answer to that is not to defend President Bush (except with vague generalizations), but to slam into liberals.
"The Left is intrinsically appeasement-oriented. You have to club them over the head with evidence before they'll acknowledge the evil and threat of terrorism. September 11 was such a club, but they've already forgotten about it, with their leader John Kerry saying we're exaggerating the threat.
Their appeasing nature leads many of them to agonize over what we did to cause Osama to attack us, to prefer isolated cruise missile attacks, sanctions or endless weapons inspections to full-scale military assaults, and to ignore Saddam's multiple violations of U.N. resolutions. It deludes them into believing that terrorists can be negotiated with and mollified and that the Arab press could be won over but for our infractions."
Better President Bush's idiotic belligerance than the terrible option of actually listening to the Middle East and trying to figure out why so many Muslims are willing to kill themselves to kill us. At least according to David Limbaugh. I personally think that we ought to consider President Kerry. I remember his inspiring words, ones that I've quoted before, on fighting Terrorism.
"I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he’s done too little.
Where he’s acted, his doctrine of unilateral preemption has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations. Iraq is in disarray, with American troops still bogged down in a deadly guerrilla war with no exit in sight. In Afghanistan, the area outside Kabul is sliding back into the hands of a resurgent Taliban and emboldened warlords.
In other areas, the Administration has done nothing or been too little and too late. The Mideast Peace process disdained for 14 months by the Bush Administration is paralyzed. North Korea and Iran continue their quest for nuclear weapons – weapons which one day could land in the hands of terrorists. And as Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld has admitted, the Administration is still searching for an effective plan to drain the swamps of terrorist recruitment."
Of course the answer to that is not to defend President Bush (except with vague generalizations), but to slam into liberals.
"The Left is intrinsically appeasement-oriented. You have to club them over the head with evidence before they'll acknowledge the evil and threat of terrorism. September 11 was such a club, but they've already forgotten about it, with their leader John Kerry saying we're exaggerating the threat.
Their appeasing nature leads many of them to agonize over what we did to cause Osama to attack us, to prefer isolated cruise missile attacks, sanctions or endless weapons inspections to full-scale military assaults, and to ignore Saddam's multiple violations of U.N. resolutions. It deludes them into believing that terrorists can be negotiated with and mollified and that the Arab press could be won over but for our infractions."
Better President Bush's idiotic belligerance than the terrible option of actually listening to the Middle East and trying to figure out why so many Muslims are willing to kill themselves to kill us. At least according to David Limbaugh. I personally think that we ought to consider President Kerry. I remember his inspiring words, ones that I've quoted before, on fighting Terrorism.
"I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he’s done too little.
Where he’s acted, his doctrine of unilateral preemption has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations. Iraq is in disarray, with American troops still bogged down in a deadly guerrilla war with no exit in sight. In Afghanistan, the area outside Kabul is sliding back into the hands of a resurgent Taliban and emboldened warlords.
In other areas, the Administration has done nothing or been too little and too late. The Mideast Peace process disdained for 14 months by the Bush Administration is paralyzed. North Korea and Iran continue their quest for nuclear weapons – weapons which one day could land in the hands of terrorists. And as Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld has admitted, the Administration is still searching for an effective plan to drain the swamps of terrorist recruitment."
Monday, May 10, 2004
Pay no Attention to the Atrocity behind the Curtain
Perhaps I'm being a bit cynical. I was listening to Rush while driving around at lunch a bit and caught bits and pieces of a discussion about Abu Ghraib. And he posed, indirectly, an interesting question; who should we be madder at, those who performed the torture or those who recorded it (leaving aside for a moment the fact that they were largely the same individuals).
In other words would it have been better if the torture had occurred without being revealed to the world.
That appears to be Diana West's opinion, and she throws in a little media conspiracy to back her argument up.
". . . Abu Ghraib is, more than anything else, the fulfillment of the media dream, the Vietnam they think they never had (or had a very long time ago), the aberration to obsess about, the disgrace to exult in and the opportunity -- and this is key -- to shift the political landscape. That is why 30-some instances of abuse at Abu Ghraib, which range from acts resembling extreme fraternity hazing to actual sexual assault, have sucked all the oxygen from the conflict's urgent questions of life and death, truth and falsehood, and civilization and barbarism.
But isn't Abu Ghraib just such an urgent question? No. The humiliations and assaults perpetrated by a "handful" -- and how the media hate that non-collective word -- of American servicemen and women are already against both our laws and our sense of decency. There is nothing here to settle (but please -- no more women in combat theaters). Criminals will be punished. That is why this is not a Big Story, at the top of the president's list, the focal point of the world."
Short story; there's nothing there, but the media is determined to imagine something up for themselves. In order to win the argument over Vietnam. Simple enough, if she's correct that this was a handful of monsters who were acting largely on their own. The story changes a bit once you question whether or not they thought they were supposed to be doing this. Once you wonder if they had orders that led them to believe that this was an appropriate way to act. Once you wonder about the role civilian contractors were playing in this scenario.
But if you think about that kind of stuff at all, than obviously Diana West's article hasn't had the desired effect.
In other words would it have been better if the torture had occurred without being revealed to the world.
That appears to be Diana West's opinion, and she throws in a little media conspiracy to back her argument up.
". . . Abu Ghraib is, more than anything else, the fulfillment of the media dream, the Vietnam they think they never had (or had a very long time ago), the aberration to obsess about, the disgrace to exult in and the opportunity -- and this is key -- to shift the political landscape. That is why 30-some instances of abuse at Abu Ghraib, which range from acts resembling extreme fraternity hazing to actual sexual assault, have sucked all the oxygen from the conflict's urgent questions of life and death, truth and falsehood, and civilization and barbarism.
But isn't Abu Ghraib just such an urgent question? No. The humiliations and assaults perpetrated by a "handful" -- and how the media hate that non-collective word -- of American servicemen and women are already against both our laws and our sense of decency. There is nothing here to settle (but please -- no more women in combat theaters). Criminals will be punished. That is why this is not a Big Story, at the top of the president's list, the focal point of the world."
Short story; there's nothing there, but the media is determined to imagine something up for themselves. In order to win the argument over Vietnam. Simple enough, if she's correct that this was a handful of monsters who were acting largely on their own. The story changes a bit once you question whether or not they thought they were supposed to be doing this. Once you wonder if they had orders that led them to believe that this was an appropriate way to act. Once you wonder about the role civilian contractors were playing in this scenario.
But if you think about that kind of stuff at all, than obviously Diana West's article hasn't had the desired effect.
It's all about the Music
Yep. I know that we here at Make me a Commentator!!! have gotten a bit of a reputation as a Political Blog, what with having done 739 Political posts in a row, but in reality there's a music component to what we do here as well. And to revitalize that music component here are five electronica albums that are worth a second look.
Propellerheads, "Drumsanddecksandrockandroll," 1998. An extremely solid album, and a fairly strong seller as well, if memory serves. You probably remember it best for "Spybreak" which appeared on the first Matrix album. It also had the driving "Take California," the driven "Bang On!" and the funky "History Repeating," guest starring Ms. Shirley Bassey. Well worth a second listen, and you can often pick it up used. In 2002 there was talk about a follow up, but haven't been able to figure out what happened. Anybody who does know, drop a line in the comments section.Standout Tracks; Spybreak * History Repeating * Bang On!
Pepe Deluxe, "Super Sound," 2000. This is an extremely funky Dutch band. The first song I heard by them was "Woman in Blue," on an e.p. called Naan Commercial Hits, given away free with the late "Revolution" magazine (which also introduced me to DJ Me DJ You (see below) and Fantastic Plastic Machine). Once I got the album I discovered a beautifully funky down tempo album which included the bluesy "Everybody Pass Me By" and the gorgeous "La Femme." Their second album, Beatitude, is also a solid workout. Standout Tracks; Woman in Blue * La Femme * Everybody Pass Me By
The Baldwin Brothers, "Cooking with Lasers," 2002. Everything about this album from the outside (The name, the goofy title, the album cover) seems to scream, "Hey, we're hip postmodernist lounge / dance musicians." The problem is that anybody who's really a hip postmodernist lounger doesn't need to advertise. Still, the Baldwin Brothers are a lot hipper than you might initially think. First of all they have a gorgeously goofy track featuring Miho Hatori with "Dream Girl." Then they have Funky workouts like "Funky Junkyard" and "Viva Kanieval." And they conclude the set with the dreamlike, "Are you there Margaret? It's me, God." So maybe the really are Loungey Post-modernist Hipsters. Standout Tracks; Funky Junkyard * Dream Girl * Are You There Margaret? It's Me God
DJ Me DJ You, "Can you see the Music?" 2003. This is an L.A. album. It just kind of has that vibe. Lot's of funk, lots of beats. You can feel the seventies hanging in the air around the songs, which are fast and funky. The album starter is called, "People Together" and it's such a laid back groove, you might expect a laid back album. But that's not what DJ Me DJ You serve up. Instead you get funky fast tracks like "Zodiac Ape," "Fresh Technology," and the ultra-cool "New You." Standout Tracks; People Together * New You * Fresh Technology"
Space Monkeys, "The Daddy of the All" 1997. The oldest album of the set. It's clear that the producers and distributors of this album expected it to be a big hit; but it wasn't. It's another one that's relatively easy to get used. I think it failed because the big single, "Sugar Cane" was a brilliantly sunny/funky anti drug song, and the rest of the album doesn't sound much like that. Instead the album opener, the nihilistic "Acid House Killed Rock & Roll" is a much better introduction to the Space Monkeys sound. Fierce beats and revved up lyrics. There are a few quieter songs "We are the Supercool" which work as well. Most tellingly, I suppose, is that this is clearly the work of a band. Space Monkeys have lyrics on every trance instead of having them on one or two tracks (sung by guest vocalists). As such this album does have a different groove, closer to Apollo Four Forty perhaps. Standout Tracks; Sugar Cane * Acid House Killed Rock & Roll * Smile America
Anyway, we'll get back to trenchant political commentary momentarily.
Propellerheads, "Drumsanddecksandrockandroll," 1998. An extremely solid album, and a fairly strong seller as well, if memory serves. You probably remember it best for "Spybreak" which appeared on the first Matrix album. It also had the driving "Take California," the driven "Bang On!" and the funky "History Repeating," guest starring Ms. Shirley Bassey. Well worth a second listen, and you can often pick it up used. In 2002 there was talk about a follow up, but haven't been able to figure out what happened. Anybody who does know, drop a line in the comments section.Standout Tracks; Spybreak * History Repeating * Bang On!
Pepe Deluxe, "Super Sound," 2000. This is an extremely funky Dutch band. The first song I heard by them was "Woman in Blue," on an e.p. called Naan Commercial Hits, given away free with the late "Revolution" magazine (which also introduced me to DJ Me DJ You (see below) and Fantastic Plastic Machine). Once I got the album I discovered a beautifully funky down tempo album which included the bluesy "Everybody Pass Me By" and the gorgeous "La Femme." Their second album, Beatitude, is also a solid workout. Standout Tracks; Woman in Blue * La Femme * Everybody Pass Me By
The Baldwin Brothers, "Cooking with Lasers," 2002. Everything about this album from the outside (The name, the goofy title, the album cover) seems to scream, "Hey, we're hip postmodernist lounge / dance musicians." The problem is that anybody who's really a hip postmodernist lounger doesn't need to advertise. Still, the Baldwin Brothers are a lot hipper than you might initially think. First of all they have a gorgeously goofy track featuring Miho Hatori with "Dream Girl." Then they have Funky workouts like "Funky Junkyard" and "Viva Kanieval." And they conclude the set with the dreamlike, "Are you there Margaret? It's me, God." So maybe the really are Loungey Post-modernist Hipsters. Standout Tracks; Funky Junkyard * Dream Girl * Are You There Margaret? It's Me God
DJ Me DJ You, "Can you see the Music?" 2003. This is an L.A. album. It just kind of has that vibe. Lot's of funk, lots of beats. You can feel the seventies hanging in the air around the songs, which are fast and funky. The album starter is called, "People Together" and it's such a laid back groove, you might expect a laid back album. But that's not what DJ Me DJ You serve up. Instead you get funky fast tracks like "Zodiac Ape," "Fresh Technology," and the ultra-cool "New You." Standout Tracks; People Together * New You * Fresh Technology"
Space Monkeys, "The Daddy of the All" 1997. The oldest album of the set. It's clear that the producers and distributors of this album expected it to be a big hit; but it wasn't. It's another one that's relatively easy to get used. I think it failed because the big single, "Sugar Cane" was a brilliantly sunny/funky anti drug song, and the rest of the album doesn't sound much like that. Instead the album opener, the nihilistic "Acid House Killed Rock & Roll" is a much better introduction to the Space Monkeys sound. Fierce beats and revved up lyrics. There are a few quieter songs "We are the Supercool" which work as well. Most tellingly, I suppose, is that this is clearly the work of a band. Space Monkeys have lyrics on every trance instead of having them on one or two tracks (sung by guest vocalists). As such this album does have a different groove, closer to Apollo Four Forty perhaps. Standout Tracks; Sugar Cane * Acid House Killed Rock & Roll * Smile America
Anyway, we'll get back to trenchant political commentary momentarily.
The City on the Hill
You may or may not have heard of this concept before; it was an inspiration to the puritans who founded New England. They believed that their colonies had to serve as an inspiration to England (and the rest of Europe, I think) so that they would repent of her sinful ways. Carried forward, it became the idea that America has a special destiny; we aren't like European nations (which for the early part of this nation was, rightly or wrongly, the only point of comparison). In one form or another the idea of American Exceptionalism has continued down to our day.
Michael Barone writing today at Townhall, puts the events at Abu Ghraib prison in this context. He discusses how apparently 83% of Bush supporters believe that America is generally fair and decent, while Democrats are split 46% in favor, 37% opposed. He doesn't reveal where he got these figures, but I assume he got them from "The Almanac of American Politics," which he edits.
At any rate he then engages in false parallelism by suggesting that support for the war in Iraq mirrors belief in American Exceptionalism. But there is no suggestion of a casual relationship; in other words, belief in American Exceptionalism doesn't lead to believing that the Iraq War is justified.
Which brings us the events in Abu Ghraib prison.
"I think we are seeing, or will see, this same pattern of response to Abu Ghraib. Most Americans, and including a large majority of Republicans and about half of Democrats, will see this as aberrant misconduct, a betrayal of the high standards we hold ourselves to and usually uphold. Other Democrats, unbelievers in American exceptionalism, will seize on Abu Ghraib as evidence that this country is not special and especially good. And so, of course, will our critics and enemies around the world."
One thing that I like about this argument is the lack of the middle ground. You either love your nation or you hated it. There's nothing in the middle. Reminds me of something Al Franken said in his last book.
"We [meaning Liberals] love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America the way a four-year-old loves her mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world."
I think Franken simplifies a little bit too, but his overall point is pretty solid.
Michael Barone writing today at Townhall, puts the events at Abu Ghraib prison in this context. He discusses how apparently 83% of Bush supporters believe that America is generally fair and decent, while Democrats are split 46% in favor, 37% opposed. He doesn't reveal where he got these figures, but I assume he got them from "The Almanac of American Politics," which he edits.
At any rate he then engages in false parallelism by suggesting that support for the war in Iraq mirrors belief in American Exceptionalism. But there is no suggestion of a casual relationship; in other words, belief in American Exceptionalism doesn't lead to believing that the Iraq War is justified.
Which brings us the events in Abu Ghraib prison.
"I think we are seeing, or will see, this same pattern of response to Abu Ghraib. Most Americans, and including a large majority of Republicans and about half of Democrats, will see this as aberrant misconduct, a betrayal of the high standards we hold ourselves to and usually uphold. Other Democrats, unbelievers in American exceptionalism, will seize on Abu Ghraib as evidence that this country is not special and especially good. And so, of course, will our critics and enemies around the world."
One thing that I like about this argument is the lack of the middle ground. You either love your nation or you hated it. There's nothing in the middle. Reminds me of something Al Franken said in his last book.
"We [meaning Liberals] love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America the way a four-year-old loves her mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world."
I think Franken simplifies a little bit too, but his overall point is pretty solid.
Sunday, May 09, 2004
New Quote
And a new Quotes Page.
The "he" in "his face" refers to God--in case you haven't heard this song before. Great song.
The "he" in "his face" refers to God--in case you haven't heard this song before. Great song.
Saturday, May 08, 2004
Your Weekly Rush: If you Ignore It, It Doesn't Exist
As you know there were hearings yesterday on the Torture at Abu Ghraib Prison. Rush watched them and had some complaints. For one thing they held hearings at all.
"Now, the premise of the whole question offends me because I don't think (we've lost it [respect]). We're in the process of losing respect doing this. If we're in danger of losing respect, it's this. The people who have struck us and target us are laughing at us today over all of this."
In other words, our actions in the Abu Ghraib didn't make us look bad, but holding hearings condemning the actions in Abu Ghraib makes us look weak. I think he's playing off the theory that the only thing "Arabs" respect is power, and that by apologizing for our cruelty we are showing weakness.
You know what, he might be right. I'm suspicious of any generalizations about how "Arabs" look at the world, but let's assume he's correct. What should we do about it? I mean should we really abandon our Democratic ways to present a hard face to the Middle East?
I mean if that is something we want to do there are lots of things we might try (say, calling off the election so that they know they have to deal with President Bush). But I don't think we should let Terrorists determine how we act here. I mean we are, like it or not, a democratic republic. If we chose to abandon those principles to fight terrorists or Iraqi resistance, haven't the Terrorists already won?
Rush, of course, also takes time to remind us of Chappaquiddick ("Ted Kennedy was asking about the International Red Cross, and he's asked Rumsfeld about the International Red Cross. [Kennedy impression:] "Why wasn't the International Red Cross in there?" Same reason the local Red Cross didn't show up at Chappaquiddick, senator!") and that Robert Byrd was in the KKK ("everybody is concerned about these pictures and all these hoods in the pictures -- and I say again: "My friends, you could have seen more hoods had a Robert Byrd birthday party 40-or-50 years ago than you see in all these pictures combined,"). Not that that has much to do with anything, of course. But it's always nice to point out.
"Now, the premise of the whole question offends me because I don't think (we've lost it [respect]). We're in the process of losing respect doing this. If we're in danger of losing respect, it's this. The people who have struck us and target us are laughing at us today over all of this."
In other words, our actions in the Abu Ghraib didn't make us look bad, but holding hearings condemning the actions in Abu Ghraib makes us look weak. I think he's playing off the theory that the only thing "Arabs" respect is power, and that by apologizing for our cruelty we are showing weakness.
You know what, he might be right. I'm suspicious of any generalizations about how "Arabs" look at the world, but let's assume he's correct. What should we do about it? I mean should we really abandon our Democratic ways to present a hard face to the Middle East?
I mean if that is something we want to do there are lots of things we might try (say, calling off the election so that they know they have to deal with President Bush). But I don't think we should let Terrorists determine how we act here. I mean we are, like it or not, a democratic republic. If we chose to abandon those principles to fight terrorists or Iraqi resistance, haven't the Terrorists already won?
Rush, of course, also takes time to remind us of Chappaquiddick ("Ted Kennedy was asking about the International Red Cross, and he's asked Rumsfeld about the International Red Cross. [Kennedy impression:] "Why wasn't the International Red Cross in there?" Same reason the local Red Cross didn't show up at Chappaquiddick, senator!") and that Robert Byrd was in the KKK ("everybody is concerned about these pictures and all these hoods in the pictures -- and I say again: "My friends, you could have seen more hoods had a Robert Byrd birthday party 40-or-50 years ago than you see in all these pictures combined,"). Not that that has much to do with anything, of course. But it's always nice to point out.
Friday, May 07, 2004
'Round the Horn
I hope you know that in my mind I'm always playing shortstop. In real life, I'm playing catcher.
Back from a school related hiatus is T. Rex's Guide to Life with the news that even "Poppy" Bush may not have been so hot on the idea of invading Iraq.
Wanda over at Words on a Page has an interesting discussion of the phrase "Support the Troops," which makes me think maybe I could do a bit better to support the troops.
If you are concerned about our overstressed school systems ability to deal with special needs children (not sure if that's the right term, but close enough), you might check out this article at BLOGG. Your concerns will, presumably, grow.
Chris "Lefty" Brown has a refutation of a truely surreal response to the pictures from Abu Ghraib prison from the Right Wing.
Along the same lines, Kick the Leftist had a treatise on how some have reacted to the revelations about Abu Ghraib Prison.
Back to reality, Respectful of Otters considers the Abu Ghraib Prison problems in the context of what we know about Prison Guard Relations in the United States, particularly relating it to the Stanford Prison Experiment.
The proprieter of Rick's Cafe Americaine has apparently changed employment statuses (statusi?). Anyway interesting read. Kind of inspiring, all things considered.
Sooner Thought has the story of Kalyn Free who could be the First American Indian women ever elected to congress. Also I think Kalyn Free would be a really great name to use in a Folk Song.
The Gothom City 13 picked up something ol' Rush Limbaugh said that I missed. He's arguing that nations like Spain withdrawing their troops from Iraq will embolden the terrorists. Funny how pictures depicting United States Troops torturing Iraqis will have no effect on the resistance; while Spains withdrawel of troops will send them into a frenzy.
New World Blogger has a great faq on the Europeon Union expansion. Like most Americans I'm focused like a laser on scandals involving reality shows, but I have heard rumors that there are places outside of America, and for those of you are interested in places outside of America, New World Blogger is a great site to visit; she does a good job explaining things and putting them in context.
Back from a school related hiatus is T. Rex's Guide to Life with the news that even "Poppy" Bush may not have been so hot on the idea of invading Iraq.
Wanda over at Words on a Page has an interesting discussion of the phrase "Support the Troops," which makes me think maybe I could do a bit better to support the troops.
If you are concerned about our overstressed school systems ability to deal with special needs children (not sure if that's the right term, but close enough), you might check out this article at BLOGG. Your concerns will, presumably, grow.
Chris "Lefty" Brown has a refutation of a truely surreal response to the pictures from Abu Ghraib prison from the Right Wing.
Along the same lines, Kick the Leftist had a treatise on how some have reacted to the revelations about Abu Ghraib Prison.
Back to reality, Respectful of Otters considers the Abu Ghraib Prison problems in the context of what we know about Prison Guard Relations in the United States, particularly relating it to the Stanford Prison Experiment.
The proprieter of Rick's Cafe Americaine has apparently changed employment statuses (statusi?). Anyway interesting read. Kind of inspiring, all things considered.
Sooner Thought has the story of Kalyn Free who could be the First American Indian women ever elected to congress. Also I think Kalyn Free would be a really great name to use in a Folk Song.
The Gothom City 13 picked up something ol' Rush Limbaugh said that I missed. He's arguing that nations like Spain withdrawing their troops from Iraq will embolden the terrorists. Funny how pictures depicting United States Troops torturing Iraqis will have no effect on the resistance; while Spains withdrawel of troops will send them into a frenzy.
New World Blogger has a great faq on the Europeon Union expansion. Like most Americans I'm focused like a laser on scandals involving reality shows, but I have heard rumors that there are places outside of America, and for those of you are interested in places outside of America, New World Blogger is a great site to visit; she does a good job explaining things and putting them in context.
The Marx Brothers
For those of you who don't know, the films that the Marx Brothers made for MGM were finally released in a 5 dvd set. Three of the movies (the brilliant "A Night at the Opera," the workmanlike "A Day at the Race,s" and the questionable "A Night in Casablanca") are also now available on their own, and A Night at the Opera is worth picking up if you love classic film comedys.
Three earlier films, made for Paramount, were released and allowed to go out of print. These were the stagey "Animal Crackers" (which was taken directly from their stage show), the funny "Horse Feathers" and the brilliantly anarchic "Duck Soup."
One flaw mars the new reissues (of the MGM work) in my opinion and that flaw is the complete dissing of the work they did for Paramount. The early Paramount films were a bit rough, but the later ones were very well done. They also make great hay of the idea that Thalberg (MGM Producer) was brilliant so he added a story to the films, involving a romance that the Marx Brothers had to help along. I guess that that does give you more of an investment in what is going on, but it also means you have to sit through romantic dialogue without any Marx Brothers around.
Anyway for your viewing pleasure here are some quotes from what are, in my opinion, the two best Marx Brothers Movies.
Groucho: Well, that covers a lot of ground. Say, you cover a lot of ground yourself.
You better beat it - I hear they're going to tear you down and put up an office building where you're standing.
You can leave in a taxi. If you can't get a taxi, you can leave in a huff.
If that's too soon, you can leave in a minute and a huff.
You know, you haven't stopped talking since I came here?
You must have been vaccinated with a phonograph needle.
Duck Soup (and yes that is all one monologue, given to the long suffering Margaret Dumont)
Chico- Can he live in NY on $3?
Groucho- Like a prince. Of course he won't be able to eat, but he can live like a prince.
A Night at the Opera
Don't worry, a LC Round the Horn is coming!
Three earlier films, made for Paramount, were released and allowed to go out of print. These were the stagey "Animal Crackers" (which was taken directly from their stage show), the funny "Horse Feathers" and the brilliantly anarchic "Duck Soup."
One flaw mars the new reissues (of the MGM work) in my opinion and that flaw is the complete dissing of the work they did for Paramount. The early Paramount films were a bit rough, but the later ones were very well done. They also make great hay of the idea that Thalberg (MGM Producer) was brilliant so he added a story to the films, involving a romance that the Marx Brothers had to help along. I guess that that does give you more of an investment in what is going on, but it also means you have to sit through romantic dialogue without any Marx Brothers around.
Anyway for your viewing pleasure here are some quotes from what are, in my opinion, the two best Marx Brothers Movies.
Groucho: Well, that covers a lot of ground. Say, you cover a lot of ground yourself.
You better beat it - I hear they're going to tear you down and put up an office building where you're standing.
You can leave in a taxi. If you can't get a taxi, you can leave in a huff.
If that's too soon, you can leave in a minute and a huff.
You know, you haven't stopped talking since I came here?
You must have been vaccinated with a phonograph needle.
Duck Soup (and yes that is all one monologue, given to the long suffering Margaret Dumont)
Chico- Can he live in NY on $3?
Groucho- Like a prince. Of course he won't be able to eat, but he can live like a prince.
A Night at the Opera
Don't worry, a LC Round the Horn is coming!
Thursday, May 06, 2004
Strong Medicine
Haven't checked in with the Daily Howler in a while, which is a bad move on my part. The Howler ran the post mortem on how the press tore apart Al Gore and they are in the thick of how the "liberal" press is tearing apart John Kerry. Pecking him to death with trivia. Last Thursday they made this sobering assessment.
"Their focus on trivia is an addiction—a raging, millionaire’s mental illness. Their opinion leaders are multimillionaires, and they do behave like a perfumed court—like Marie Antoinette’s inner circle. As they’ve long shown, they are impervious to serious thought, as their class has always been. And they continue to clown at a dangerous time, at a time that imperils the world.
While they clowned about Gary Condit, Osama’s men were tooling those planes. And now, as they clown about peanut butter, Osama’s men are still at work. And what will happen to your country because Wilgoren and Dowd set the tone? Let us finally tell you your future: Osama’s men will come with a bomb (see below), and they’ll destroy an American city. American society will end on that day. And when it does, you can think of Wilgoren and Dowd—and you can think of the “letters editor” who laughed in your face with that letter today. They’ve made a joke of your discourse for years—while your enemies hunt for a bomb. There is little chance those enemies won’t succeed, because screaming idiots—screaming idiots—have long been in charge of your discourse.
History makes it crystal clear—those who clown will be destroyed. Marie Antoinette’s posse lost their fine heads. A larger disaster awaits you and yours. Let them eat peanut butter, the Times says."
I think perhaps they overstate their case a little, but it's still something to consider.
"Their focus on trivia is an addiction—a raging, millionaire’s mental illness. Their opinion leaders are multimillionaires, and they do behave like a perfumed court—like Marie Antoinette’s inner circle. As they’ve long shown, they are impervious to serious thought, as their class has always been. And they continue to clown at a dangerous time, at a time that imperils the world.
While they clowned about Gary Condit, Osama’s men were tooling those planes. And now, as they clown about peanut butter, Osama’s men are still at work. And what will happen to your country because Wilgoren and Dowd set the tone? Let us finally tell you your future: Osama’s men will come with a bomb (see below), and they’ll destroy an American city. American society will end on that day. And when it does, you can think of Wilgoren and Dowd—and you can think of the “letters editor” who laughed in your face with that letter today. They’ve made a joke of your discourse for years—while your enemies hunt for a bomb. There is little chance those enemies won’t succeed, because screaming idiots—screaming idiots—have long been in charge of your discourse.
History makes it crystal clear—those who clown will be destroyed. Marie Antoinette’s posse lost their fine heads. A larger disaster awaits you and yours. Let them eat peanut butter, the Times says."
I think perhaps they overstate their case a little, but it's still something to consider.
Cal Thomas; a useful barometer
If you are looking for a pretty succinct article that summarizes the right wing response to torture in Abu Ghraib prison, look no further than this article by Cal Thomas. I'll summarize his main points
1. Standard boilerplate; any misdeeds should be punished by the military. The flipside to the emphasis on military justice is that, of course, it doesn't really concern us here at home.
2. This is war, and we don't know what those prisoners were doing or why they were tortured.
2b. Cal tells that (admittedly) horrifying story of a young buy who shot at a soldier after he figured the soldier had him pegged as a non-combatant. Apparently nothing will happen to this kid (according to Thomas).
3. You get upset about a few tortures and deaths in Abu Ghraib prison, but you didn't care when Saddam had a much more extensive terror and rape campaign. One assumes this part of the argument is directed at European and Middle Eastern Critics of the occupation.
4. Repeating Rush's line from yesterday, we don't have to worry about how this will look in the Middle East.
"There's much talk about how the pictures of prisoner abuse will look in the Arab world and how they might set back American efforts to pacify Iraq and advance U.S. policies throughout the region. The Arab world does not need excuses to excoriate the United States. Even so-called "allies" such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt regularly vilify America in sermons from their mosques, on state-controlled television and in government newspaper editorials, columns and political cartoons.
This is one of the great fallacies in dealing with such people: that what the West does influences how they think and their course of action."
And some responses.
1. I'd also like to see the system examined to find out where exactly it broke down. You have a chain of command; knowledge about what was going on in Abu Ghraib prison was probably not limited to those at the bottom rungs of the ladder (maybe it was, but we don't know without an investigation).
2. We don't know why those prisoners were being tortured, fair enough. But if that's so let's again have an investigation to figure out why they were doing such things. There may well be mitigating circumstances.
2b. Well it is a chilling story, it's largely irrevelant.
3. The United States and Britain are being held to a higher standard than Saddam Hussein. What a surprise! I have to say I want the United States to be held to a higher standard than Saddam Hussein.
4. Let's draw another Venn Diagram. An extra complicated one.
I guess that's not as complicated as I thought it would be. At any rate there are three groups of people in Iraq (based on very specific criteria). There are Iraqis who, for one reason or another, are unlikely to take up arms against the United States. There are Iraqis who could, under the right circumstances decide to take up arms against the United States. And there is a third group who already have taken up arms against the United States.
Now here's where the argument starts; we don't know the relative size of these circles. How many Iraqis who aren't fighting the United States right now, might choose to do so down the road? No way to answer that question as far as I can tell. Cal Thomas (and Rush) apparently believe that that population is very small; most people have already decided. I believe that it could be a sizable population, and something to worry about.
I will tell what part of this argument drives me nuts. It's contained in this line. "This is one of the great fallacies in dealing with such people: . . . " The basic argument hinges on the very unscientific and boneheaded theory that Iraqis are different from regular people. All one has to do is ask himself (assuming one is from the US) how would you react if you saw those things, done in Abu Ghraib prison, inflicted on American Citizens? Why do you assume Iraqis would react any differently?
1. Standard boilerplate; any misdeeds should be punished by the military. The flipside to the emphasis on military justice is that, of course, it doesn't really concern us here at home.
2. This is war, and we don't know what those prisoners were doing or why they were tortured.
2b. Cal tells that (admittedly) horrifying story of a young buy who shot at a soldier after he figured the soldier had him pegged as a non-combatant. Apparently nothing will happen to this kid (according to Thomas).
3. You get upset about a few tortures and deaths in Abu Ghraib prison, but you didn't care when Saddam had a much more extensive terror and rape campaign. One assumes this part of the argument is directed at European and Middle Eastern Critics of the occupation.
4. Repeating Rush's line from yesterday, we don't have to worry about how this will look in the Middle East.
"There's much talk about how the pictures of prisoner abuse will look in the Arab world and how they might set back American efforts to pacify Iraq and advance U.S. policies throughout the region. The Arab world does not need excuses to excoriate the United States. Even so-called "allies" such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt regularly vilify America in sermons from their mosques, on state-controlled television and in government newspaper editorials, columns and political cartoons.
This is one of the great fallacies in dealing with such people: that what the West does influences how they think and their course of action."
And some responses.
1. I'd also like to see the system examined to find out where exactly it broke down. You have a chain of command; knowledge about what was going on in Abu Ghraib prison was probably not limited to those at the bottom rungs of the ladder (maybe it was, but we don't know without an investigation).
2. We don't know why those prisoners were being tortured, fair enough. But if that's so let's again have an investigation to figure out why they were doing such things. There may well be mitigating circumstances.
2b. Well it is a chilling story, it's largely irrevelant.
3. The United States and Britain are being held to a higher standard than Saddam Hussein. What a surprise! I have to say I want the United States to be held to a higher standard than Saddam Hussein.
4. Let's draw another Venn Diagram. An extra complicated one.
I guess that's not as complicated as I thought it would be. At any rate there are three groups of people in Iraq (based on very specific criteria). There are Iraqis who, for one reason or another, are unlikely to take up arms against the United States. There are Iraqis who could, under the right circumstances decide to take up arms against the United States. And there is a third group who already have taken up arms against the United States.
Now here's where the argument starts; we don't know the relative size of these circles. How many Iraqis who aren't fighting the United States right now, might choose to do so down the road? No way to answer that question as far as I can tell. Cal Thomas (and Rush) apparently believe that that population is very small; most people have already decided. I believe that it could be a sizable population, and something to worry about.
I will tell what part of this argument drives me nuts. It's contained in this line. "This is one of the great fallacies in dealing with such people: . . . " The basic argument hinges on the very unscientific and boneheaded theory that Iraqis are different from regular people. All one has to do is ask himself (assuming one is from the US) how would you react if you saw those things, done in Abu Ghraib prison, inflicted on American Citizens? Why do you assume Iraqis would react any differently?
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Disappointment
Added a new link over on the side there, to Bluebus.org. In particular you might want to check out this story on a speech made by a returning veteran of the current Iraq conflict.
Your Weekly Rush; why they hate us
Listening to Rush as I was driving around at lunch and he was talking about one of his favorite subjects; there's no reason to even be interested in why people in the Middle East don't like us. Specifically, he's saying that one of the reasons everybody is so upset with the pictures coming out of Abu Ghraib prison is that there is a concern that it will inflame (and here is where it seems a little mixed up) terrorists to hate us more. According to Rush Limbaugh, the Terrorists hate for us is not going away, and we should stop thinking that it will. Even if we abandoned all of our western ways (like Britney Spears) and adopted Islam, they would still hate us.
Unfortunately, as I'm sure you noted, Rush's argument goes off its rails pretty early. Because Rush confuses Iraqis with Terrorists. If we were to do a Venn Diagram of the Iraqi people according to Rush's theory it would look something like that.
You see there's not much connection between the two. Terrorists are terrorists. Good Iraqis are Good Iraqis. If you accept this postulate, well, Rush is right. There is no point in doing anything to make the Terrorists like us, and Good Iraqis are going to largely like us no matter what we do.
Unfortunately for Rush, most people assume (in my opinion, correctly) that an actual diagram might look something like this.
Now we might quibble about the relative size of the circles. We don't know, for example, how much of the Iraqi resistance is led by or aided by outside intervention. Some say very little, and other say all of it. I personally think it's a factor, but not a large factor.
At any rate what this Venn Diagram (and how often do you see Venn Diagrams on weblogs. I'm really blazing new territory today!) shows us is that there is a portion of the Iraqi people that is fighting United States Forces. But, unlike in the earlier diagram, there's nothing stopping people from moving in and out of that group. Some Iraqis seeing the events at Abu Ghraib prison or Fallujah might decide that it is time to take up arms against our Troops. Other Iraqis, seeing some of the good things our soldiers are doing, might decide that they should give us time to get out.
The implications are clear. Unfortunately, it seems that some member of our forces in Iraq have not thought this through entirely.
Unfortunately, as I'm sure you noted, Rush's argument goes off its rails pretty early. Because Rush confuses Iraqis with Terrorists. If we were to do a Venn Diagram of the Iraqi people according to Rush's theory it would look something like that.
You see there's not much connection between the two. Terrorists are terrorists. Good Iraqis are Good Iraqis. If you accept this postulate, well, Rush is right. There is no point in doing anything to make the Terrorists like us, and Good Iraqis are going to largely like us no matter what we do.
Unfortunately for Rush, most people assume (in my opinion, correctly) that an actual diagram might look something like this.
Now we might quibble about the relative size of the circles. We don't know, for example, how much of the Iraqi resistance is led by or aided by outside intervention. Some say very little, and other say all of it. I personally think it's a factor, but not a large factor.
At any rate what this Venn Diagram (and how often do you see Venn Diagrams on weblogs. I'm really blazing new territory today!) shows us is that there is a portion of the Iraqi people that is fighting United States Forces. But, unlike in the earlier diagram, there's nothing stopping people from moving in and out of that group. Some Iraqis seeing the events at Abu Ghraib prison or Fallujah might decide that it is time to take up arms against our Troops. Other Iraqis, seeing some of the good things our soldiers are doing, might decide that they should give us time to get out.
The implications are clear. Unfortunately, it seems that some member of our forces in Iraq have not thought this through entirely.
Let's Get Worried!
Tim Grieve has a great article over at Salon (warning, annoying ad must be watched) about how we shouldn't abandon hope for Senator Kerry just yet. One paragraph stood out to me.
"With no one backing him up, Kerry is too often seen scrambling back and forth to rebut Bush-Cheney charges, looking for all the world like an overmatched tennis player racing from one end of the court to the other in a desperate attempt to return all the drives. It's a trap that the Bush-Cheney campaign has laid for Kerry, and he has fallen into it. "The Republicans are very good at lobbing spit wads to see what sticks," said Richards [Ann Richards, the former Texas governor], no stranger herself to smears from Bush and Karl Rove. "Kerry has got to answer every single one of them, because if you don't then the media will claim that he isn't answering the attacks. And then when he does answer all of them, the media will say that he has no message."
But the article goes on to suggest that we are still very early in the campaign, and, to misquote John Paul Jones, he has not yet begun to fight.
"With no one backing him up, Kerry is too often seen scrambling back and forth to rebut Bush-Cheney charges, looking for all the world like an overmatched tennis player racing from one end of the court to the other in a desperate attempt to return all the drives. It's a trap that the Bush-Cheney campaign has laid for Kerry, and he has fallen into it. "The Republicans are very good at lobbing spit wads to see what sticks," said Richards [Ann Richards, the former Texas governor], no stranger herself to smears from Bush and Karl Rove. "Kerry has got to answer every single one of them, because if you don't then the media will claim that he isn't answering the attacks. And then when he does answer all of them, the media will say that he has no message."
But the article goes on to suggest that we are still very early in the campaign, and, to misquote John Paul Jones, he has not yet begun to fight.
Fallacy #482 - Leave out half the story
Bill Murchison demonstrates this particular fallacy in his latest article. Consider the following passage.
"Negativism about business and enterprise is a Democratic trait becoming more engrained all the time. Key Democratic constituencies seem to demand it: the academic-media constituency, which sees businessmen as uneducated rubes, and the labor constituency, which sees business as a race of union-busting oppressors whom you can't trust an inch.
How do you get the presidential nod from such a party? For one thing, you bust business at every opportunity. In making economic proposals, you remember to play down individual creativity and initiative and play up regulatory control. You suggest that basically the only way to make business do what's right is to twirl a federal club over its head.
The Democratic Party isn't expressly or even inferentially socialist. And yet it can communicate anti-business rage or indignation in a way that says to businessmen and to those whose livelihoods depend on a healthy business climate: Uh-oh, trouble."
So can you see what part of the argument Mr. Murchison leaves out? Well, what is business like? He suggests that those who want to attack business are doing it for largely irrational reasons or are doing it to gain political support from largely irrational constituencies. But this only works if you assume that the Business world is largely blameless.
But is the Business world blameless? Well the short answer is no. It turns out businesses do like to screw their workers if they can get away with it. They also like to screw their shareholders on occasion. Take the following example from an article by Arianna Huffington.
"Exhibit A is HealthSouth. Last week, another high-ranking executive at the nation's largest provider of rehabilitative health care services pleaded guilty to routinely cooking the company's books. And this wasn't just happening back in the bad old days when everyone was doing it -- no, theseguys were fraudulently inflating earnings well into 2002, even as Enron,WorldCom, Adelphia and Tyco were front page news. How's that for clueless? "
Now I admit that this article originally appeared about a year ago (April 2, 2003, so a year and a month) but I'm pretty sure that the same sorts of people are still running our businesses. We here Republicans complaining a lot about government oversight and anti-Business attitudes. We don't hear them complaining about the importance of playing by the rules and being good corporate citizens.
"Negativism about business and enterprise is a Democratic trait becoming more engrained all the time. Key Democratic constituencies seem to demand it: the academic-media constituency, which sees businessmen as uneducated rubes, and the labor constituency, which sees business as a race of union-busting oppressors whom you can't trust an inch.
How do you get the presidential nod from such a party? For one thing, you bust business at every opportunity. In making economic proposals, you remember to play down individual creativity and initiative and play up regulatory control. You suggest that basically the only way to make business do what's right is to twirl a federal club over its head.
The Democratic Party isn't expressly or even inferentially socialist. And yet it can communicate anti-business rage or indignation in a way that says to businessmen and to those whose livelihoods depend on a healthy business climate: Uh-oh, trouble."
So can you see what part of the argument Mr. Murchison leaves out? Well, what is business like? He suggests that those who want to attack business are doing it for largely irrational reasons or are doing it to gain political support from largely irrational constituencies. But this only works if you assume that the Business world is largely blameless.
But is the Business world blameless? Well the short answer is no. It turns out businesses do like to screw their workers if they can get away with it. They also like to screw their shareholders on occasion. Take the following example from an article by Arianna Huffington.
"Exhibit A is HealthSouth. Last week, another high-ranking executive at the nation's largest provider of rehabilitative health care services pleaded guilty to routinely cooking the company's books. And this wasn't just happening back in the bad old days when everyone was doing it -- no, theseguys were fraudulently inflating earnings well into 2002, even as Enron,WorldCom, Adelphia and Tyco were front page news. How's that for clueless? "
Now I admit that this article originally appeared about a year ago (April 2, 2003, so a year and a month) but I'm pretty sure that the same sorts of people are still running our businesses. We here Republicans complaining a lot about government oversight and anti-Business attitudes. We don't hear them complaining about the importance of playing by the rules and being good corporate citizens.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Ralph Nader, Spoiler?
I have too many ideas; I can't get to them all, and sometimes I can't make them come out right. I want to say something about how the American love of Free Speech (a love which I share) often contrasts with other American passions. But I'm not sure how to say it.
So instead I'll point you to this brilliant article in the Village Voice about Ralph Nader. It goes through why Mr. Nader might have had it in for the Democratic Party.
"The most pernicious myth spread by his campaign was the Tweedledee and Tweedledum line - a claim columnist Marianne Means branded "insane" and his opposite number Pat Buchanan never got near. Perhaps Nader concealed from himself that his nostalgic view of a Democratic Party that had shifted away from its progressive traditions was at odds with the hodgepodge he actually grew up with - an amalgam of machine hacks and Ivy League liberals, rip-roaring Southern racists and farmer-labor populists. But he certainly recognized the huge difference between a timid moderate Democrat like Al Gore and fierce right-wingers like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. These were Republicans of a sort never in power before Reagan. Like most politicians, however, Nader couldn't reveal what he really thought. He needed an explanation for campaigning in the swing states. So he exaggerated, distorted, misled, and dissembled. He lied."
Actually this is a good example of the intersection between freedom of speech and honesty.
Should Nader be allowed to run in 2004? Absolutely.
Should Nader be allowed to forward the idea that there is little to no difference between Senator Kerry and President Bush? Absolutely.
Should Nader run in 2004? No, he shouldn't. It will damage the causes he's believed in, and make the world a more dangerous place.
Should Nader forward the idea that there is little to no difference between senator Kerry and President Bush? No. The idea is a lie; there are vast differences between the two men. One thing everybody, right and left, can agree on is that this is an important election; do we really need Ralph Nader out there confusing the issues? I don't think we do.
But I recognize completely Nader's right to spread his misinformation should he chose to; ultimately the only person who can stop Ralph Nader is Ralph Nader.
So instead I'll point you to this brilliant article in the Village Voice about Ralph Nader. It goes through why Mr. Nader might have had it in for the Democratic Party.
"The most pernicious myth spread by his campaign was the Tweedledee and Tweedledum line - a claim columnist Marianne Means branded "insane" and his opposite number Pat Buchanan never got near. Perhaps Nader concealed from himself that his nostalgic view of a Democratic Party that had shifted away from its progressive traditions was at odds with the hodgepodge he actually grew up with - an amalgam of machine hacks and Ivy League liberals, rip-roaring Southern racists and farmer-labor populists. But he certainly recognized the huge difference between a timid moderate Democrat like Al Gore and fierce right-wingers like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. These were Republicans of a sort never in power before Reagan. Like most politicians, however, Nader couldn't reveal what he really thought. He needed an explanation for campaigning in the swing states. So he exaggerated, distorted, misled, and dissembled. He lied."
Actually this is a good example of the intersection between freedom of speech and honesty.
Should Nader be allowed to run in 2004? Absolutely.
Should Nader be allowed to forward the idea that there is little to no difference between Senator Kerry and President Bush? Absolutely.
Should Nader run in 2004? No, he shouldn't. It will damage the causes he's believed in, and make the world a more dangerous place.
Should Nader forward the idea that there is little to no difference between senator Kerry and President Bush? No. The idea is a lie; there are vast differences between the two men. One thing everybody, right and left, can agree on is that this is an important election; do we really need Ralph Nader out there confusing the issues? I don't think we do.
But I recognize completely Nader's right to spread his misinformation should he chose to; ultimately the only person who can stop Ralph Nader is Ralph Nader.
Why John Kerry Wants to be President
"It seems odd that a person [Kerry] running for the highest office in the land doesn't have a defining reason for his candidacy, but it's easier to understand when you realize that he wants to be president much more than he cares about advancing a particular policy agenda."
- David Limbaugh, "Liberalism, Kerry's wartime handicap."
".J.'s sitting in her chair, Josh is lying on the couch, and Donna's sitting in the chair opposite C.J. Josh states, "'This is a time of dizzying progress around the world. I'm running for re-election 'cause I want to make sure that all our people can share in twenty-first century jobs...'" C.J.: "'Jobs and industries we can't even imagine today...bring the benefits of new medical advancements to all our families...'" Josh: "'And harness new technology and the internet as a force for faster economic growth...'" ["The internet and economic growth? In the same sentence? Good luck with that." -- Wing Chun] C.J.: "'Better education and a freer exchange of ideas around the world.'" Josh says, "Yes." C.J. says, "There it is." Josh decides, "That's fine." Donna, however, is of another mind; her sole comment is a bilabial fricative. (You know, a Bronx cheer. A raspberry.) She looks up and smiles apprehensively. Josh asks, "You want to say something?" She says she doesn't. Josh says, "I thought it was --" and gives a bilabial fricative. He argues, "It's got crisp, commanding phrases, it's got active verbs like 'harness,' it paints a picture of the future..." Donna asks, "That's why somebody wants to become President? Medical research and the internet?" Josh admits, "She's got a point." C.J. offers, "Sometimes you get your face on a coin." Josh sits up and puts his hand to his head. "Okay...this shouldn't be hard."
- Television Without Pity's recap of the West Wing Episode "Gone Silent."
What makes a man want to be president? Why have our presidents, good and bad, decided to run? Well, in Mr. Limbaugh's case, one would suspect a simple answer. Good Presidents (read Republican and JFK, maybe) decided to run because they love their country and wanted to support it. Bad Presidents (particularly Clinton and now Kerry) want to be president just so they can have power and to gratify their egos. I don't know why Republicans are immune to these ignoble desires to be President, but apparently they are.
It's a neat argument, because it appeals to our cynical side. Kerry claims to want to run for President to protect America and improve the economy, but doesn't it make more sense that he wants to be President so that he can, as C.J. says, get his face on a coin? Feel powerful? Be powerful? And it's an equal opportunity argument. Maybe you're a liberal; doesn't it make sense that President Bush wants to be President so that he can enjoy being President?
Of course it's an argument that relies on compartmentalism. You have to believe that your guy really is motivated by a love of country; while the other guy is motivated by base reasons. Or else you could become cynical and assume the whole barrel is full of bad apples, but at least your guy is your bad apple.
Or just give up on politics and politicians. Which, I have to admit, is occasionally an attractive option.
- David Limbaugh, "Liberalism, Kerry's wartime handicap."
".J.'s sitting in her chair, Josh is lying on the couch, and Donna's sitting in the chair opposite C.J. Josh states, "'This is a time of dizzying progress around the world. I'm running for re-election 'cause I want to make sure that all our people can share in twenty-first century jobs...'" C.J.: "'Jobs and industries we can't even imagine today...bring the benefits of new medical advancements to all our families...'" Josh: "'And harness new technology and the internet as a force for faster economic growth...'" ["The internet and economic growth? In the same sentence? Good luck with that." -- Wing Chun] C.J.: "'Better education and a freer exchange of ideas around the world.'" Josh says, "Yes." C.J. says, "There it is." Josh decides, "That's fine." Donna, however, is of another mind; her sole comment is a bilabial fricative. (You know, a Bronx cheer. A raspberry.) She looks up and smiles apprehensively. Josh asks, "You want to say something?" She says she doesn't. Josh says, "I thought it was --" and gives a bilabial fricative. He argues, "It's got crisp, commanding phrases, it's got active verbs like 'harness,' it paints a picture of the future..." Donna asks, "That's why somebody wants to become President? Medical research and the internet?" Josh admits, "She's got a point." C.J. offers, "Sometimes you get your face on a coin." Josh sits up and puts his hand to his head. "Okay...this shouldn't be hard."
- Television Without Pity's recap of the West Wing Episode "Gone Silent."
What makes a man want to be president? Why have our presidents, good and bad, decided to run? Well, in Mr. Limbaugh's case, one would suspect a simple answer. Good Presidents (read Republican and JFK, maybe) decided to run because they love their country and wanted to support it. Bad Presidents (particularly Clinton and now Kerry) want to be president just so they can have power and to gratify their egos. I don't know why Republicans are immune to these ignoble desires to be President, but apparently they are.
It's a neat argument, because it appeals to our cynical side. Kerry claims to want to run for President to protect America and improve the economy, but doesn't it make more sense that he wants to be President so that he can, as C.J. says, get his face on a coin? Feel powerful? Be powerful? And it's an equal opportunity argument. Maybe you're a liberal; doesn't it make sense that President Bush wants to be President so that he can enjoy being President?
Of course it's an argument that relies on compartmentalism. You have to believe that your guy really is motivated by a love of country; while the other guy is motivated by base reasons. Or else you could become cynical and assume the whole barrel is full of bad apples, but at least your guy is your bad apple.
Or just give up on politics and politicians. Which, I have to admit, is occasionally an attractive option.
Monday, May 03, 2004
Why John Kerry Wants to be President
"So today, let me tell you why I am running for President. I believe we live in a dangerous world, with enemies known and unknown plotting and planning to do us harm. Osama Bin Laden has not been captured or killed, al Qaeda remains a threat as it transforms and changes, and Iraq remains unstable. Together, I know that with the right plan-one that works with the world-we will keep America safe.
I believe that to be strong in the world, we must be strong at home, and that in Andrew Jackson's words, the promise of America is "equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none." I believe the measure of America's economy is a growing middle class, and to achieve that we must expand the reach of opportunity, not the size of government.
I believe in the values that form our common bond: hard work, fairness, and truth. Most of all, I believe that citizenship brings responsibilities as well as rights, and that all Americans have a duty to give something back."
This is from a speech given April 23, 2004, in which he unvielled his "Contract with America's Middle Class." Well worth checking out.
I believe that to be strong in the world, we must be strong at home, and that in Andrew Jackson's words, the promise of America is "equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none." I believe the measure of America's economy is a growing middle class, and to achieve that we must expand the reach of opportunity, not the size of government.
I believe in the values that form our common bond: hard work, fairness, and truth. Most of all, I believe that citizenship brings responsibilities as well as rights, and that all Americans have a duty to give something back."
This is from a speech given April 23, 2004, in which he unvielled his "Contract with America's Middle Class." Well worth checking out.
No Need for Proof
Here's an article from World Net Daily entitled "Gray Lady goes to bed with Kerry" Great title, isn't it? Just jumps right out at you. So let's take a look at the evidence article author Bob Kohn provides. Here's the first paragraph.
"Evidence suggests that a New York Times reporter covering the Kerry campaign may be sleeping with the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party. Let me explain."
He then goes on to recount the fact that Senator Kerry had a few problems last week, including "Medelgate" and driving an SUV and denying that he drives and SUV. He also shows how the New York times apparently saved Kerry's bacon in both cases. And then he adds finishes with his "proof."
Providing exactly the opposite of the SUV-driving, private jet-flying image Kerry had been fighting all week, the puff piece began with how "The man who would be president takes peanut butter and jelly sandwiches – on whole wheat, strawberry jelly preferred to grape – twice a day on the campaign trail. He wears $15 reading glasses, off the rack at CVS. Before bedtime, he starts but rarely finishes movies like 'Seabiscuit' and 'The Blues Brothers' in his hotel suite."
Leaving aside the interesting question of how this female Times reporter learned that Kerry "rarely finishes" watching the movies he started, you just have to wonder what is going on here. Had this story been prepared days before, ready to be dropped on the front page the day after Kerry needed his average-Joe image resuscitated?
In his book "Burning Down My Masters' House," Jayson Blair described how Times reporters, both male and female, are commonly offered theater tickets, free meals, drinks and sometimes even sex in exchange for favorable mentions in their stories. A large number of journalists at the Times, he says, "have a weak spot for sex."
Do the Democrats have another Bill Clinton running for president?"
Did you see the proof in that paragraph? Neither did I. But who needs proof. A female reporter is pro-Kerry? She must be in love with him. That's the only answer. After all, it's not like she's a real reporter, is she?
The tone of misogyny in this article is a bit disturbing; but I guess that's par for the course.
Edited to add; got this article from Media Matters for America, a new website debunking the right wing press.
"Evidence suggests that a New York Times reporter covering the Kerry campaign may be sleeping with the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party. Let me explain."
He then goes on to recount the fact that Senator Kerry had a few problems last week, including "Medelgate" and driving an SUV and denying that he drives and SUV. He also shows how the New York times apparently saved Kerry's bacon in both cases. And then he adds finishes with his "proof."
Providing exactly the opposite of the SUV-driving, private jet-flying image Kerry had been fighting all week, the puff piece began with how "The man who would be president takes peanut butter and jelly sandwiches – on whole wheat, strawberry jelly preferred to grape – twice a day on the campaign trail. He wears $15 reading glasses, off the rack at CVS. Before bedtime, he starts but rarely finishes movies like 'Seabiscuit' and 'The Blues Brothers' in his hotel suite."
Leaving aside the interesting question of how this female Times reporter learned that Kerry "rarely finishes" watching the movies he started, you just have to wonder what is going on here. Had this story been prepared days before, ready to be dropped on the front page the day after Kerry needed his average-Joe image resuscitated?
In his book "Burning Down My Masters' House," Jayson Blair described how Times reporters, both male and female, are commonly offered theater tickets, free meals, drinks and sometimes even sex in exchange for favorable mentions in their stories. A large number of journalists at the Times, he says, "have a weak spot for sex."
Do the Democrats have another Bill Clinton running for president?"
Did you see the proof in that paragraph? Neither did I. But who needs proof. A female reporter is pro-Kerry? She must be in love with him. That's the only answer. After all, it's not like she's a real reporter, is she?
The tone of misogyny in this article is a bit disturbing; but I guess that's par for the course.
Edited to add; got this article from Media Matters for America, a new website debunking the right wing press.
Alternate Titles for this Weblog
Hey what do you think about these alternate titles for this weblog?
"A Manatee Mock Em, Mort"
"Arcana Meet Met, Ok Mom?"
"Manama ROTC Meek? Me To!"
"Racemate Mammon Toke"
"Oatcake Man = Memo Term"
"Memo: Attack Emma Nero"
Oh, and on a completely unrelated matter, I discovered this cool anagram website. Which you probably already know about. So until nex time this is Gary Brestin saying have a nice day.
"A Manatee Mock Em, Mort"
"Arcana Meet Met, Ok Mom?"
"Manama ROTC Meek? Me To!"
"Racemate Mammon Toke"
"Oatcake Man = Memo Term"
"Memo: Attack Emma Nero"
Oh, and on a completely unrelated matter, I discovered this cool anagram website. Which you probably already know about. So until nex time this is Gary Brestin saying have a nice day.
Republican does not necessarily mean Conservative
It's one of those rare occasions when I point to a Conservative Columnists in a positive way. In this case it's Jonah Goldberg who writes on Arlen Spector's winning in his state's primary.
"I'm constantly astounded by the confusion about the differences between conservatives and Republicans. The silver lining of the Toomey defeat is that everyone, the White House included, has been reminded that there is a distinction.
Obviously, this is a subtle and nuanced distinction. The Republican Party is the conservative party, and the overwhelming majority of conservatives vote Republican. So lots of people rightly consider themselves to be both conservatives and Republicans. But there's a difference all the same.
Conservatives are committed to a constellation of ideas and traditions that sometimes war with each other. Yet, at the end of the day, people who identify themselves as conservatives first tend to be more dedicated to their principles than their party. Meanwhile, Republicans, even very conservative ones, are more often team players, organization-oriented as opposed to ideas-oriented. The former wants to win arguments, the latter, votes."
This is a key distinction that's worth remembering. And although Mr. Goldberg doesn't say it, it also applies in the Democratic Party as well (particularly the line about "ideas and traditions that sometimes war with each other.")
It's an interesting and ongoing debate. "How can we implement our ideas if we don't win?" "What's the point in winning if we aren't going to stand up for our ideas?"
The problem is that the more relative power the party has the more weight you can give to the ideological side of the argument. In other words, if a party controlled the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court, one might reasonably assume that it's time to stop campaigning and time to start implementing our ideas. And if that party isn't ready to start implementing the ideas you elected them to implement, well, maybe it's time to shop around for another party. We saw it in the early 90's with Ross Perot and in 2000 with Ralph Nader.
Goldberg himself hints at that possibility in his concluding paragraph. " As conservatives tend to be practical folks, they understand that the GOP brought them to the dance. But, just like the girl at the dance, they don't want to be taken for granted."
"I'm constantly astounded by the confusion about the differences between conservatives and Republicans. The silver lining of the Toomey defeat is that everyone, the White House included, has been reminded that there is a distinction.
Obviously, this is a subtle and nuanced distinction. The Republican Party is the conservative party, and the overwhelming majority of conservatives vote Republican. So lots of people rightly consider themselves to be both conservatives and Republicans. But there's a difference all the same.
Conservatives are committed to a constellation of ideas and traditions that sometimes war with each other. Yet, at the end of the day, people who identify themselves as conservatives first tend to be more dedicated to their principles than their party. Meanwhile, Republicans, even very conservative ones, are more often team players, organization-oriented as opposed to ideas-oriented. The former wants to win arguments, the latter, votes."
This is a key distinction that's worth remembering. And although Mr. Goldberg doesn't say it, it also applies in the Democratic Party as well (particularly the line about "ideas and traditions that sometimes war with each other.")
It's an interesting and ongoing debate. "How can we implement our ideas if we don't win?" "What's the point in winning if we aren't going to stand up for our ideas?"
The problem is that the more relative power the party has the more weight you can give to the ideological side of the argument. In other words, if a party controlled the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court, one might reasonably assume that it's time to stop campaigning and time to start implementing our ideas. And if that party isn't ready to start implementing the ideas you elected them to implement, well, maybe it's time to shop around for another party. We saw it in the early 90's with Ross Perot and in 2000 with Ralph Nader.
Goldberg himself hints at that possibility in his concluding paragraph. " As conservatives tend to be practical folks, they understand that the GOP brought them to the dance. But, just like the girl at the dance, they don't want to be taken for granted."
Sunday, May 02, 2004
New Quote
I like today's quote, but then I suppose I like them all. Still the "joy that comes from little victories" is about the best one has to look forward to on a day to day basis.
Also a new quotes page.
Also a new quotes page.
Saturday, May 01, 2004
Your Weekly Rush; Open Line Friday
On Friday, Rush Limbaugh takes what he considers one of the most dangerous risks a host can take, that of letting the callers set the subject for the show. I never bought that it was all that big of a risk, because of course the Rush Limbaugh Show has very proficient call screeners. But an exchange yesterday might prove Rush's point.
"CALLER: I've been hanging on here for a while, back from the discussion of should we pull out of Iraq, or what should we do, you know, the whole Iraq issue earlier in the program. And what caused me to call in was, looking at the Capitol Journal article in the Wall Street Journal the day before yesterday --
RUSH: Hold it just a second. Just a minute. I know I'm tired, and I've admitted this, and I'm running on fumes here today, but have we discussed pulling out of Iraq earlier on this show today? We haven't discussed that -- I'm glad to discuss it with you, but --
CALLER: It was about Iraq and what should we do and what shouldn't we do.
RUSH: That was about Ted Koppel's Nightline show tonight.
CALLER: Well, I'm here.
RUSH: You're here -- if you want to -- that's right, but, fine, I just--
CALLER: I want to talk to you about.
RUSH: I'm not being critical. I'm telling you I'm fatigued. I didn't remember talking about it and if you did it means I'm in worse shape than I think I am. It's okay. Just fire away, man. Go for it.
CALLER: Did you see the article in the Wall Street Journal from Wednesday, the Capitol Journal article, "former general says staying the course in Iraq is untenable."
RUSH: I have that article right here. I'm the host.
CALLER: Okay.
RUSH: I don't have it, wait a second, now.
CALLER: This guy makes the point -- . . .
This is, to me, a strange exchange, and it looks even stranger in print. I wonder if Rush's staff really reviewed this enough, or if they just decided it was Friday so they may as well print it and go home.
This conversation concerns the criticisms that Former National Security Agency Director and retired General William Odom has levelled at the Bush Administration. Let's read a little bit more.
RUSH: Wait a minute. Look it, you're going to get all the time you need here. Let's have a conversation. I'm not trying to make you lose your place, but I've got the article, but I don't have it from the Wall Street Journal. I want you to know where it's now appeared. I have it in something called the Khaleej Times, and the logo for the Khaleej Times is a palm tree and an oil well. The Khaleej Times is somewhere in the United Arab Emirates. So this guy --
CALLER: Why do I care about this?
RUSH: It's not why -- you obviously don't. It's why should you. It's that what this guy has said has reached our troops and it's a demoralizing thing for him to say.
CALLER: Well, okay, so the Wall Street Journal shouldn't have published the article originally.
RUSH: Didn't say that. Didn't say that. That's not -- how do you get that? What I'm saying is --
CALLER: What difference does it make where it is?
RUSH: No, no, no. The answer is Odom shouldn't have said it publicly is what I'm saying, but did and the cat's out of the bag.
You see the rhetorical trick being played here? Rush's source on the article is a newspaper printed in the United Arab Emirates. Great. So it's only a hop skip and a jump from there to where one of our soldiers could pick it up and read it.
Or, of course, he could read more in depth and complete articles elsewhere. In the Wall Street Journal for example (which I don't have a link for, unfortunately). Or on CNN. Or on the Internet.
So I guess, we had better never criticize the administrations Iraq policy or else our soldiers will be disheartened and give up.
It's a good thing we don't live in a Democracy where students have the fundamental responsibility to regard their Government and those that govern critically. Oh, wait a minute.
"CALLER: I've been hanging on here for a while, back from the discussion of should we pull out of Iraq, or what should we do, you know, the whole Iraq issue earlier in the program. And what caused me to call in was, looking at the Capitol Journal article in the Wall Street Journal the day before yesterday --
RUSH: Hold it just a second. Just a minute. I know I'm tired, and I've admitted this, and I'm running on fumes here today, but have we discussed pulling out of Iraq earlier on this show today? We haven't discussed that -- I'm glad to discuss it with you, but --
CALLER: It was about Iraq and what should we do and what shouldn't we do.
RUSH: That was about Ted Koppel's Nightline show tonight.
CALLER: Well, I'm here.
RUSH: You're here -- if you want to -- that's right, but, fine, I just--
CALLER: I want to talk to you about.
RUSH: I'm not being critical. I'm telling you I'm fatigued. I didn't remember talking about it and if you did it means I'm in worse shape than I think I am. It's okay. Just fire away, man. Go for it.
CALLER: Did you see the article in the Wall Street Journal from Wednesday, the Capitol Journal article, "former general says staying the course in Iraq is untenable."
RUSH: I have that article right here. I'm the host.
CALLER: Okay.
RUSH: I don't have it, wait a second, now.
CALLER: This guy makes the point -- . . .
This is, to me, a strange exchange, and it looks even stranger in print. I wonder if Rush's staff really reviewed this enough, or if they just decided it was Friday so they may as well print it and go home.
This conversation concerns the criticisms that Former National Security Agency Director and retired General William Odom has levelled at the Bush Administration. Let's read a little bit more.
RUSH: Wait a minute. Look it, you're going to get all the time you need here. Let's have a conversation. I'm not trying to make you lose your place, but I've got the article, but I don't have it from the Wall Street Journal. I want you to know where it's now appeared. I have it in something called the Khaleej Times, and the logo for the Khaleej Times is a palm tree and an oil well. The Khaleej Times is somewhere in the United Arab Emirates. So this guy --
CALLER: Why do I care about this?
RUSH: It's not why -- you obviously don't. It's why should you. It's that what this guy has said has reached our troops and it's a demoralizing thing for him to say.
CALLER: Well, okay, so the Wall Street Journal shouldn't have published the article originally.
RUSH: Didn't say that. Didn't say that. That's not -- how do you get that? What I'm saying is --
CALLER: What difference does it make where it is?
RUSH: No, no, no. The answer is Odom shouldn't have said it publicly is what I'm saying, but did and the cat's out of the bag.
You see the rhetorical trick being played here? Rush's source on the article is a newspaper printed in the United Arab Emirates. Great. So it's only a hop skip and a jump from there to where one of our soldiers could pick it up and read it.
Or, of course, he could read more in depth and complete articles elsewhere. In the Wall Street Journal for example (which I don't have a link for, unfortunately). Or on CNN. Or on the Internet.
So I guess, we had better never criticize the administrations Iraq policy or else our soldiers will be disheartened and give up.
It's a good thing we don't live in a Democracy where students have the fundamental responsibility to regard their Government and those that govern critically. Oh, wait a minute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)